Talk:Ronald Reagan

Template:Maintained

Implementation of ideas in lead

I hate, hate, hate to reopen this can of worms, but I now feel that I need to. There have been a few attempts within in the past days to reword the sentence regarding the implementation of Reagan's ideas. Arcayne has just rewritten it to something I'm not particuarly fond of. As it currently reads:

As president, Reagan implemented new political initiatives as well as economic policies, advocating a limited government and economic laissez-faire philosophy, but as to whether these ideas were successfully implemented is the subject of frequent debate.

I'm not a fan of the "frequent debate", "heated debate", etc. simply because it's not entirely true. So I would remove the "frequent" as "debate" will suffice. But that brings us to the greater point: did Reagan implement all his ideas? Well no, but the majority, yes (see Political positions of Ronald Reagan). He did: put forth and implement his economies policies, built up the military, appointed a woman to the high court, and removed controls on oil prices, among others. He did not: mandate prayer in public schools or abolish the department of education.

So if I'm not mistaken, it was not the extent of which the ideas were successfully implemented (because they were successfully implemented), so much as the amount of which were implemented. Even Barack Obama said, "I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not... [W]e want a return to that sense of dynamism and eutrepenturship that had been missing." [1]

I don't have any propositions right now, but (everyone) are we mostly in agreement? And can we reword this? Happyme22 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I kinda liked my phrasing with but the extent to which the implementation of these ideas was successful is debated. That he tried to implement the two ideas in the quote above is quite clear. However, there is some debate as to how far he got in implementing them. For example, federal spending grew during the Reagan years (mostly on defense, but that's what underlies the debate). Then there was the whole iran contra thing in his second term that restricted his legislative ability. The current phrasing whether they were successfully implemented seems to imply that he failed in pushing the limited government and supply side agenda, which, I think, is not true. I'm not a fan of Reagan, nor am I a fan of supply side economics, but it seems to me that he definitely brought a supply side flavor and the desire for limited government into the American discourse and mind. It would be wrong to imply that he was not successful in pushing that agenda. (In simpler terms, I don't like the current phrasing!) --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your view, Regents Park, because you are not a regular editor of the article nor do you support Reagan. And I have to say, I agree with you. And thank you for clarifying your point; I think the "whether they were successfully implemented" pooint your brought up to be very relevant. And as you (and our friend Mr. Obama) said, Reagan did change the trajectory of America through his beliefs and his communication to the people. Happyme22 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm also going to raise another point: can the success of the implementation of Reagan's policies really be debated? It seems to me as if all we need (and have) is the actual record of what occured. Do you catch my drift? Happyme22 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the record itself is subject to interpretation, Hap. It's like describing a tree; no two people are going to have the same view of it. Now, before you say, 'well, they are both looking at a tree', remember that the "tree" in this instance is what Reagan (and the Republican Party) wanted to do. Some of these things happened because they were going to happen anyway. Some things happened because they are largely cyclical (like the economy). Lastly, some people are going to think the subject farts rainbows and craps jelly doughnuts while others are never going to accept that someone they utterly despise can do anything correctly (forgetting the old adage about the busted clock being right at least twice a day). That there is debate is the essence, blessing and curse of a free society. That debate still occurs is not being questioned. We don't get to evaluate the legitimacy of that debate, but instead are charged to mention it, if it is in fact notable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction to Presidents over age 90

Under the Alzheimer's disease section, the article states that only two other presidents have reached the age of 90 (the other two being John Adams and Herbert Hoover). Why is Gerald Ford not included here? He was the oldest former living president with 93 years and 165 days until his death. Since the article is protected, a trusted user must make this correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorlinj (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added Ford's name. I think it was omitted because Ford turned ninety two years after Reagan, but you are correct it that it is incorrect to say that only three presidents have reached the age of ninety. Thanks for heads up! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes made by Drz1627

I am just wondering first why you insist saying that his staff was anxious to portray him as recovered, and that Reagan was from then on 'inflexible'. What is your source? DrZebra.com doesn't seem very reliable to me, especially considering that your username is Drz1627. I'm not one to assume bad faith, but your username and your referencing to various Dr. Zebra sites on mulitple pages indicates to me that you are using Wikipedia for promotional reasons. That is prohibited per WP:SOAPBOX.

I am also wondering why the fact that Reagan fell off his horse in 1989, causing a subdural hematoma which doctors feel hastened the onset of Alzheimer's, is irrelevant? Happyme22 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we need to offer a bit more good faith. Drz1627 did indeed make some significant changes, very few of which I personally agree with. I think it might have been better for him to discuss his edits, as he could be reasonably assured that altering an FA quality article is going to raise some concerns. I would instead offer D the opportunity to explain his edits and get some feedback before instituting them. Towards that end, i will revert his additions until we are all agreed (at least by consensus) that they are the right edits to make. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset and certainly did not mean to insult DrZ. I just find it very interesting that that his username is the same as the website he has been referencing a plethora of material to. I'm sorry if I came across harshly, as it was not my ultimate intent, but I did want to make that point. That said, I would love to hear what DrZ has to say (and I'm not being sarcastic). Happyme22 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. Let's leave the ball in his court for a day or two and see what happens. Sound fair? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as always :) Happyme22 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Drz1627 here.

Am not really familiar with this talking method, but that's cool -- I'm happy to learn it. Sorry to have been abrupt in making the changes. So, everthing is referenced on the doctorzebra web site. The statement about the staff's anxiousness is from Daniel Ruge, Reagan's physician, as quoted on page 74 of the Abram's book. It seems to me important to mention this in a summary article, because there has been this incorrect notion that Reagan bounced back quickly, and Ruge disagrees with this, too (also quoted in Abrams). The fact that Wikipedia thought Reagan recovered quickly is testament to the success of the staff's efforts.

The quote about Reagan's inflexibility comes from Michael Deaver, who I think we'd agree, was in a position to make such an observation and also not motivated by animus to make such a statement. Again, the source is referenced on doctorzebra. I think that if you say what Reagan thought about God and the shooting, you're obligated to mention how it changed him.

The hematoma is indeed irrelevant to Alzheimer dementia. They are two separate disease processes. Yes, they impact the same organ, but that's not what the Wikipedia article said. It said the hematoma might have accelerated the Alzheimer disease, and it quoted a reference that did not say that. There is an epidemiological association between head trauma and Alzheimer disease, but no causative association has been established, so far as I know, so I'd have to say that it makes no medical sense to talk about trauma exacerbating Alzheimer disease. Ultimately, I thought it was simpler to remove mention of the hematoma, especially since it had been pointed out that this was a summary article and details should lie elsewhere. Had the discussion been about possible additional causes of Reagan's dementia, the hematoma would have been relevant, but the section was talking specifically about his Alzheimer dementia. Let me know if other questions.

Drz1627 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're on it, I would be in favor of removing Reagan's bon mots from the section on his shooting in this article. They can be moved to the shooting article. Yes, they add color to the tale, but if there is a concern about length of this section, then I don't think facts should be sacrificed for color. As currently written, the shooting section doesn't even mention that Reagan lost over half his blood volume and that the surgeons thought if he'd gotten there a few minutes later he very likely would have died. It would adequate to say Reagan remained in good spirits throughout and let it go at that (although he did panic when he heard a surgeon say "this is it"). Drz1627 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DrZ, I want to appologize to you for acting quick and rash last night in my first comment. It was roughly 1 AM my time and I probably should have been in bed :)

** No problem.

That said, I would first like to comment on your source, DrZebra.com. At the Medical history of American Presidents drzebra.com index page, there is a disclaimer reading, "I am not a historian. Nor am I expert on any of the Presidents. So there are certainly errors here. If you find one, please tell me. Every page has a "Contact Us" link. I apologize in advance if I have stepped on your professional field of study. Also note that I do not usually cite primary sources; I cite what I read." That's not good, because the overall source is then questioned for its reliability.

** You are overblowing the disclaimer. (1) It tells who the author is, it says the author is mortal (i.e. everyone makes mistakes), and it invites readers to submit corrections. This is absolutely the way to build a reliable data source -- open and transparent. I'd venture that most of the sources the Wikipedia article sites are not written by historians, are written by mortals, and have made errors. Heck, you admit you make errors. Should I not trust you? (2) If you look at the Medical History of American Presidents web site, you see that every statement is slavishly referenced. This is a higher standard of rigor than most Wikipedia sources.

I don't think I'm 'overblowing the disclaimer' at all. It flat out states that the website contains information that may not be factually accurate, which is in violation of WP:RS. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** By this logic, any publication that prints a correction, e.g. the New York Times or the Harvard Law Review, admits some of their information is factually inaccurate. By this logic, any such publication does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, which is obviously not true. Regardless, moving the doctorzebra sources to the Wikipedia article, as agreed to below, makes this topic of discussion moot.

As for the staff covering up the fact he did not bounce back quickly; is that really that big of a deal?

** Any time the staff of the President tries to mis-portray reality about a substantive matter, it is a "big deal." It was a big enough deal for a Stanford professor (Dr. Abrams) to write a book about. And we're not talking solely about physical recuperation. The staff had Reagan sign legislation the morning after his surgery, when he was getting morphine and was disoriented (Abrams).

I mean did it impact the administration and have an effect on the country? Here, five months after the attempt, in August and before October, Reagan took decisive action and fired 12,000 striking workers. Evidently, he wasn't lying in bed; he may not have been fully recovered, but it doesn't appear that the staffs' covering anything up impacted the country. More information is given here from the Miller Center for Public Affairs. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** Three objections to this response: (1) Language like "it doesn't appear" does not sound very confident. This type of hedging language would not pass muster in a medical journal. (2) Saying that Reagan acted decisively means nothing. The question is not whether Reagan was being decisive -- it is about his decision-making as relates to his physical health. (3) The page you reference didn't say anything about the staff's intentions -- is there a more specific reference?

I know you said that it is mentioned in Mr. Abrams' book, but a quick Google search shows nothing on the matter on than the Reagan assassination attempt Wikipedia article cited to drzebra.com.

** Abrams' did more than a quick Google search. Note the subtitle of his book: "Confusion, Disability, and the 25th Amendment in the Aftermath of the Attempted Assassination of Ronald Reagan." I have not seen challenges or refutations of the book's findings. I have no connection with Abrams.

On the contrary, many sources - recent sources - said that he recovred quickly. I'm not doubting what Mr. Abrams said, because surely a 70 year old man did not spring up from his bed two weeks after he was shot, but I also don't think that every source that says Reagan recovered somewhat-quickly has been influenced by the former White House staff.

** You are making my point exactly. Some 70 year old men, with some gunshot wounds *will* spring up two weeks later. That was not the case here. His wound came very close to killing him. He lost half his blood and was slow to recover. This sense of gravity is totally absent from the article, and instead we get Reagan quips.

I have no problem saying that his wound came very close to killing him; I for one think it should definitely be in this article. For further reference, I would read this from the Miller Center for Public Affairs. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** That's not a medical reference, and there is not a lot of medical detail there. If you're going to describe a medical situation, the best source is the medical people. Abrams is a physician, and really did his homework. His chapter, supplemented by an article by Dr. Beahrs (one of Reagan's docs; referenced on doctorzebra), are wonderfully detailed.

I don't think 'inflexible' is the right word to describe Reagan after the assassination attempt, because what kind of inflexibility are we talking about? I know that in this instance, we are trying to say that he was stubborn, but then it may cause confusion with the other 'inflexible', or not able to bend, because he was shot. Far-fetched? I don't think so, because not everyone who comes to Wikipedia is a scholar, doctor, or even someone well educated. I think the first description about Reagan believing God spared his life for him to fulfill a greater purpose will suffice.

** So, absent further research on this specific topic, the best we can do is quote Deaver exactly, and let the reader make up their own mind.

I disagree due to possible confusion. What type of 'inflexibility' is Deaver talking about? I presume he means being stubborn, but it could also give the false impression that he was unable to physically bend after being shot. Saying that he believed God spared him for a reason will suffice. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** Sorry, I thought you had read the doctorzebra web page. It says: "Former aide Michael Deaver says Reagan became more stubborn after the shooting. Reagan believed that he was "chosen" for his role by a higher power, and that the shooting was a reminder of this. He therefore decided to more closely follow his own instincts." How can this be construed as referring to physical flexibility? I want to assume good faith, but the comment about physical inflexibility is pretty weird if you'd read the site that you criticize.

As for the hematoma, I think it is relevant. It attracted media coverage and is noteworthy to mention.

** Any health issue of the President attracts media attention, so that has no significance.

However, I think you have a good point about the doctors saying that it accelerated Alzheimer's. True, I too cannot find it in this source, which was probably an error of mine a while back. But if anything, Nancy Reagan's 2002 book I Love You, Ronnie does say that doctors feel this accident hastened the onset of Alzheimer's disease (page 180).

** OK, Mrs. Reagan wrote what she wrote, but I don't think we'd say she is the most unbiased source. The doctors' statement is at odds what medical science today knows about the link between head trauma and Alzheimer disease. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17618986 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15959838 -- note the serious hedging language -- the link is just not there yet, meaning the doctors statement goes beyond what medical science can justify. If the doctors' conclusion is mentioned, then appropriate caveats need to be mentioned, too. There is just no way the doctors can be certain about their conclusion.

I agree that Mrs. Reagan is a biased source, but I don't think she'd make up the fact that doctors told her his 1989 fall probably hastened Alzheimer's. But those articles you linked are very interesting. I'm going wait for additional opinions on this one. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** I don't think she'd make it up either, but she may have misunderstood what the doctors said, or the doctors may have said something that is not scientifically rigorous.

DrZ, you seem to know a lot about the medical field, but since you're new here I think I should point you toward Wikipedia's no original research policy.

** I didn't do any original research for this. Among people who care about such things, it's widely known there is no established causal link between trauma and Alzheimer disease.

And about the sub-articles, thank you for trying to adhere to summary style, but there isn't an article titled Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's disease so there really isn't anything to summarize here and place details somewhere else.

** I think it's reasonable to say something like: (1) In 1994 Reagan announced the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease in a hand-written letter to the nation, having been symptomatic for at least two years. [NY Times] (2) There was controversy about him being symptomatic as President. [Paragraph as is]. (3) Mrs. Reagan says doctors thought head trauma played a role in the course of Reagan's Alzheimer disease. Reagan fell from a horse in 1989, and he struck his head in 19__. A subdural hematoma, thought to result from one or both of these events, was surgically treated in 19__. [cite the NY Times article for all this.] Head trauma is generally not accepted as a cause of Alzheimer disease [cite Pubmed articles].

I think that is a bit too biased. I won't get into the detail now, but I will later if requested. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** I'm requesting, because I don't see any statement that is biased. The NY Times article talks about the duration of his symptoms and the two episodes of head trauma. And if it were accepted by the medical profession that head trauma caused Alzheimer disease, you'd see every baby-boomer in the country paranoid about concussions! (Seriously.)

Then there are Reagan's 'bon mots', or witty remarks, in the assassination attempt section. I do not think that 'Honey I forgot to duck' or 'I hope you're all Republicans' should be omitted, for they are what everyone remembers about the assassination attempt. That said, I think we have some room for some extra details about the attempt itself and medical procedures. But I don't think that we can use drzebra.com as a source because of reliability reasons (see above). There plenty of other relibale sources with details of the attempt. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

** It's reasonable to move the sources Dr. Zebra uses into the Wikipedia article as sources. That should allay your concerns. I would still leave Dr. Zebra cited as an additional source, so people can read further and get context online, without having to run to the library.

That is true, provided they pass Wikipedia's reliable source policy. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*** OK, sounds good. That eliminates the impact of any concerns about the reliability of the doctorzebra web site.

My remarks are interdigitated above, set off with **. Drz1627 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just have one question: are you Dr. Zebra, the person who has written the website drz.com? Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Brother, assume good faith. I have questions about you, too, but I am assuming good faith. My comments set off with *** Drz1627 (talk) 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes made by Drz1627 - arbitrary break 1

My two cents' worth: Having read the discussion, I think both arguments are sound As the article is about Reagan, his reaction to the shooting (well-documented and non-scripted comments) should be allowed to remain. Getting shot is no laughing matter, yet Reagan turned it into one, which is notable.
That being said, Drz1627 makes several good points. Personally, I don't really care if there was a triggering event for the Alzheimer's; it isn't really important to the article, as he could have simply fallen off a horse and a full medical exam could have revealed the quiescent or the small initial symptoms of the disease. Or the fall might have caused it. I am not really sure it is a cause for concern here, as the connection between trauma and Alzheimer's is noted but (as of yet) neither understood nor proven.
I think the source is a good one, but it might be nice to have back-up on that reliability. Ask the good folk over at the RS noticeboard, and get their opinions. They love doing that sort of stuff - cuckoo for Coco Puffs, and all that.
I am not sure what about the proffered statement is biased:

'(1) In 1994 Reagan announced the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease in a hand-written letter to the nation, having been symptomatic for at least two years. [NY Times] (2) There was controversy about him being symptomatic as President. [Paragraph as is]. (3) Mrs. Reagan says doctors thought head trauma played a role in the course of Reagan's Alzheimer disease. Reagan fell from a horse in 1989, and he struck his head in 19__. A subdural hematoma, thought to result from one or both of these events, was surgically treated in 19__. [cite the NY Times article for all this.] Head trauma is generally not accepted as a cause of Alzheimer disease [cite Pubmed articles].'

Perhaps Hap could explain why he thinks it is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would seriously be happy to. But if it could wait until tomorrow, that would be superb. I went sailing today and just got home; after many years, I still haven't quite gotten my sea legs and I'm going to need a little rest :) But tomorrow for sure. I also think Arcayne hit it right on the mark regarding the assassination attempt situation. Sure, medical sources are great, but sources from independent centers such as the Miller Center should not be ruled out. Here, Reagan's staff is recalling that day in March and how it impacted him and the administration. As for the fall hastening Alzheimer's, apparently there are conflicting reports and I will try to go into that tomorrow when I talk about the proposed paragraph. Until then, Happyme22 (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've had my rest and here it goes:

• My biggest problem with the proposed paragraph is that it asserts Nancy Reagan is wrong. It presents what she said happened, and then disproves it with medical journal articles. That is unacceptable, as we have two reliable sources and are saying one is right and the other must be mistaken. Now what we can do to solve that problem is simply mention the 1989 fall in the "Post-presidency" section, not connecting it to Alzheimer's; we would omit Mrs. Reagan's response and the medical articles to allow the reader to made up his/her own mind on the matter. After reading the Alzheimer's section, the reader may wonder if the fall contributed to Reagan's disease, but the reader may not. That is the most neutral route and will eliminate WP:NPOV and WP:RS problems.

• Next, the paragraph says Reagan was symptomatic for two years. Yet that phrase comes from only one person. Others (such as fmr. White House Council Fred F. Fielding) noticed nothing. Would it not be better to go with what his doctors said, which is "Over the past 12 months we began to notice from President Reagan's test results symptoms indicating the possibility of early-stage Alzheimer's disease. Additional testing and an extensive observation over the past few weeks have led us to conclude that President Reagan is entering the early stages of this disease." (source).

• And what about the last paragraph about Alzheimer's progressing, Reagan's hip replacement, and his receaching the age of 90? That needs to be retained.

As a result of this, I propose:

In November 1994, Reagan announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, an incurable neurological disorder which ultimately causes brain cells to die. [source] His doctors said that he had been exibiting symptoms indicating the possibility of early-stage Alzheimer's for the past year, [source] and was ultimately diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic in August 1994. [source: Reagan, Nancy. I Love You, Ronnie. New York, Random House, 2002] At the age of 83, in a hand-written letter to the American people, the former president wrote, "I now being the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you." [source]

After his diagnosis, there was speculation over whether Reagan had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. [second and third paragraphs as they are]

I enjoy these discussions! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Why is unacceptable to present evidence that Nancy Reagan might be wrong? And why do we not accept the New York Times report of two years of clear symptoms? All of this fits with just about everything known about Alzheimer disease, and I am sorry that you are unfamiliar with the literature about the disease, but I am not going to take the time and teach a class on it. And, regrettably, I am abandoning my presumption of good faith. My suspicions of a hagiographic slant to this article are confirmed by a remark saying it's "unacceptable" to present the possibility that Nancy Reagan could have made an error. I find that remark totally beyond the pale. I regret the time I have invested trying to improve this article. Drz1627 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting my comment about Mrs. Reagan incorrectly. What is unacceptable is discrediting a reliable source, which is what is done in your proposed paragraph. The best thing to do, because we have two conflicting reliable sources, is allow the reader to make up his/her own mind by mentioning it but not connecting it to Alzheimer's, which I've outlined and proposed above. Your assertion that this article is a "hagiography" is completely false; I am a Republican but the article has Arcayne, a Democrat, to balance out the views. You'll see that we have worked together on multiple issues. Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hap, what we have here are two sources that seemingly contradict each other. We do not have to decide who is right, so we present them side by side, and let the reader make up their mind. Nancy doesn't have a medical degree, and Ronnie was her hubbie, so she may not have all the facts, and is completely willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the memory of her husband - that is only to be expected. We have medical citations noting a connection, but not a specific link. We have to say that, I am thinking. Don't give up, Drz - Hap is a pretty stubborn guy, but he does admit when he's a bit right of neutral ground. You just have to take the time to point out where the issue truly is. He apparently knows them, so he's maybe a bit too close to the subject to be neutral, but he does make a serious effort to be fair. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hap, to be clear, Nancy doesn't get more authority 'juice' over medical experts, and let's be frank - I wouldn't trust Reagan's former cabinet with a used toothbrush. Their statements are - at best - bordering on sycophantic posturing. They get no rhythm with me whatsoever. Drz makes excellent points, and when presented with medical info, we will use it over Nancy's remembrances every time (and twice on Sunday). I won't take the cheap shot of comparing science to horoscopesg, but others will, if there is no allowance for reliable medical citation. The one thing we have to be on the lookout for is synthesis. Let's everyone calm down and keep talking. We will arrive at a solution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the solution is right around the corner. Yes, Arcayne, they do contradict themselves. But that does not mean that neither is reliable. How about this:

In July 1989, the Reagans took a trip to Mexico, where Reagan was thrown off a horse and taken to a hospital for tests. The Reagans returned to the U.S. and visited the Mayo Clinic, where they were told President Reagan had a head concussion and subdural hematoma. It was sugically treated after the prognosis.

In November 1994, Reagan announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, an incurable neurological disorder which ultimately causes brain cells to die. [source] His doctors said that he had been exibiting symptoms indicating the possibility of early-stage Alzheimer's for the past year, [source] and was ultimately diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic in August 1994. [source: Reagan, Nancy. I Love You, Ronnie. New York, Random House, 2002. p. 180] At the age of 83, in a hand-written letter to the American people, the former president wrote, "I now being the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you." [source] Nancy Reagan asserts that her husband's 1989 fall hastened the onset of Alzheimer's disease, [source: Reagan, Nancy. I Love You, Ronnie. New York, Random House, 2002. p. 180] citing what doctors told her, although head trauma has not been conclusively proven to accelerate Alzheimer's. [source: pubmed articles]

After his diagnosis, there was speculation over whether Reagan had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. [second and third paragraphs as they are]

This version seems to encompass all that we have talked about. And just for the record: I do not know the Reagans, but I did meet the president and Nancy. Happyme22 (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your support.

Now back to the show.  :-)

Am not keen about the proposed paragraph. Stylistic problems: (1) Is better to tell the story like a newspaper column (i.e. big points to little points) rather than chronologically. A reader who sees the section header "Alzheimer disease" will be confused if the section starts out with the horse incident. (2) Way too many words. Can really be tightened up. And, Mexico is not important. (3) Some of the sentences don't make sense (typos?).

From the content standpoint: (1) I found a statement by other Reagan docs that symptoms started in 1992. This is in one of the NY Times articles the article references already. (2) The description of Alzheimer disease is uncool. Lots of diseases cause brain cells to die. The hallmark of Alzheimer disease is progressive and irreversible dementia. Dementia is a technical medical term that readers can click on and read about if they are puzzled.

The big point of discussion is Nancy Reagan's statement. Happy, can you quote for me exactly what she says in the "Ronnie" book? I ask this because one of the NY Times articles gives a very sensible statement from Dr. Ruge on this subject (which I have put into the draft below). It does not mention Alzheimer disease -- it mentions failing memory, a crucial difference -- plus he gives the correct caveat. I can get on board with Ruge's statement, and I suspect it may be the statement that was said to Nancy. So the question is: how different is Nancy's text?

The draft:

In August 1994, physicians at the Mayo Clinic diagnosed the 83-year-old Reagan with Alzheimer's disease, a progressive and irreversible form of dementia.[source: Reagan, Nancy. I Love You, Ronnie. New York, Random House, 2002. p. 180] Reagan publicly announced the diagnosis in a [hand-written letter] to the American people that November, saying "I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you."

According to his physicians, Reagan had displayed symptoms indicating the possibility of early-stage Alzheimer's in 1992[2] or 1993.source

*** Slight rewording of first sentence of this paragraph; rest copied verbatim from current article, except as noted*** There was, however, considerable speculation over whether he had symptoms of the disease while in office.[175] Former CBS White House Press Corps Lesley Stahl recalls in her book Reporting Live, an "unsettling" interview with the president where "a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room", and that before he "reemerged into alertness" she recalls that "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile."[176] Reagan would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, notably while meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone wherein he repeatedly referred to his Vice President as "Prime Minister Bush."[177] ***cut out redundant sentence about symptoms appearing in 1992 per doctors, and tidied next sentence. *** However, his former Chief of Staff James Baker considered "ludicrous" the idea of Reagan sleeping during cabinet meetings.[179]

***new paragraph*** Complicating the picture, Reagan suffered two episodes of head trauma in the years just before his diagnosis. After being thrown from a horse in 1989, a subdural hematoma was found and surgically treated. In 1994 he struck his head hard enough in an airplane to warrant comment from physicians ***this was in one of the articles; I'll find it***. Reagan's one-time physician, Dr. Daniel Ruge, has said it is possible, but not certain, that the horse accident affected the course of Reagan's failing memory.[3]

*** old sentence in bullpen, awaiting exact quote *** Nancy Reagan asserts that her husband's 1989 fall hastened the onset of Alzheimer's disease, [source: Reagan, Nancy. I Love You, Ronnie. New York, Random House, 2002. p. 180] citing what doctors told her, although head trauma has not been conclusively proven to accelerate Alzheimer's. [source: pubmed articles]

Thanks. Drz1627 (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to know that we are back on the same page! :) Here's the exact mention from Mrs. Reagan's 2002 book I Love You, Ronnie:

I've always had the feeling that the severe blow to his head in 1989 hastened the onset of Ronnie's Alzhiemer's. The doctors think so too. In the years leading up to the diagnosis of the disease, in August 1994, he had not shown symptoms of the illness. I didn't suspect that Ronnie was ill when we went back to the Mayo Clinic that summer for our regular checkup. When the doctors told us they'd found symptoms of Alzheimer's, I was dumbfounded. Ronnie's fall from the horse had worried me terribly, of course, and I'd had to urge him to take time out to recover after his operation. But I had seen no signs of anything else. [pg. 180]

See if that helps with anything. And as of now, I like your version above (and I will comment more once your proposal is completely finished). Again, I think we are very close to a solution! Thanks all, Happyme22 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've restructured the section with DrZ's basic draft in mind. I think it is a nice compromise. Happyme22 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Limited" Government?

This article states, "As president, Reagan implemented new political initiatives as well as economic policies, advocating a limited government...." and then goes on to say that the "the extent to which the implementation of these ideas was successful is debated." Actually, there's really nothing to "debate," is there? The government deficit TRIPLED under Reagan, who racked up the biggest peacetime deficits in the history of the United States. To say that it is "debatable" as to whether Reagan succeeded in his stated goal of "limited government" is flat-out wrong. Government spending, in fact, exploded under Reagan.

"No Criticism?"

I find it kind of surprising there is no section on criticism of Reagan in this article... People think he is some godman.... Me thinks he is just another rull of the mill supporters of those who can already support themselves, and everyone else is in the dust... Breaking the ATCU was just a despicable thing to do, when you have a job where you are basically holding thousands of lives in your hand everyday, and millions over your career, you should have the right to have better working conditions if it is needed.SargJohnLennon (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will find that plenty of criticisms are there. But per WP:CRITICISM, we do not reserve a section entirely devoted to criticism or critical views. Happyme22 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, this is a user driven encyclopedia. If you feel that the ATCU section does not do a good job of conveying what happened with the ACTU strike, feel free to add text to that section, using WP:RS of course. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, that's a nice theory and nice idea but the cadre of historical revisionists on Wikipedia will immediately revert it, regardless of how well sourced it is.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Aujord, if you feel the article is missing something, roll up your sleeves (like everyone else here has done) and seek out some citations that support your statements. Anyone here can attest to the fact that historical revisionists get zero rhythm from me. Rather than complain about how the article sucks ass, maybe you could work to make it better. I look forward to your cited stuff. You do make a point though; if you don't source it to neutral associations (as neutral as, say, the Heritage Foundation - lol), you are allowing the commentary to be attacked. It is going to have to be good stuff to be included, since we've managed to weed out a significant amount of garbage that some have tried to insinuate into the article. Those folk are long gone. The ones wanting a good article are still here. I hope you will be too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I included a citation, didn't seem to matter, the Heritage Foundation? The book I cited was published by Oxford University Press and written by a professor of history at the University of Arizona. I don't have a bone to pick with Reagan, even kind of like the guy, but I came to try to make the article a little clearer I was reverted. I was also belittled by you for "complaining this article sucks ass". Tell me, what would make me want to work to make this article better after that? --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I reverted back, and outlined my reasons in the section below, earlier dismissed as "complaining this article sucks ass". Do people actually take you seriously? Sheesh. I am not going to edit war, or bicker any longer. It just isn't worth it to be summarily dismissed and belittled, in the end I can take solace in knowing that anyone who really wanted to find out about Reagan need only visit a library where no one gets to rewrite the past in an instant to suit their worldview. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why don't we try that again, Aujord? Please bring the citation to the discussion page, and we can find out what issue folk had with it. That seems to be a better course than throwing up your hands in despair. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the citation that was so unacceptable to Happyme22: Schaller, Michael. Reckoning with Reagan, Oxford University Press, New York City: 1992, p. 160, (ISBN 0195069153). That's it.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gil Scott Heron was a frequent critic of Reagan and his conservative policies, most notably in his successful 1994 single "B-Movie" (http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=mqljBdwZkwk%3D). "He was not popular with all minority groups, especially blacks..." seems just a little like an understatement. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Someone just reverted a neutral one-sentence addition inexplicably with an edit summary of "true but blah blah blah no one definitively showed it blah blah ". The problem is that the sentence didn't say that someone definitely showed it but to not include it gives a totally false impression of the event. Lets see, quote from North's memoirs "President Reagan knew everything". Your reversion was completely unjustified. Completely. I have revereted.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the sentence: "Later, both Oliver North and John Poindexter asserted that Reagan knew about and encouraged the plan". This revisionism non sense that Reagan knew nothing of the Iran -Contra plan is just crap. It is revisionist history. If the sentence is true there is no reason to not include it, especially not the revisionist-history-reason that was given in the reversion. I can see no reason to not include it. If the reversion that occurred is typical of the attitude of Wikipedians surrounding this article I can see no reason not continue with a detailed critique and opening of a FARC.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to produce a source, written by a historian, that state Reagan knew nothing, my sentence didn't even say he knew everything just that members of his inner circle said he did. The fact of the matter is, he knew everything, and you know it. I cant believe I even have to justify this. Wikipedia is in a poorer state of affairs than I thought when it comes to history if this is what a history featured article looks like. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Tower Commission was a joke, as were all of the committees and panels that investigated this, hamstrung by the executive's refusal to release key documents as well as North's shredding party at the NSC office. Who ever reverted this really needs to become better acquainted with the real history of the United States.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that big of deal. Fester in ignorance for all I care, at least this will be here for people to see when they question the accuracy of this article. Based on your senseless reversion, I have no interest in working with you. Page unwatched. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you supply some citations to reinforce those statements, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Read a book. The citation I supplied was deleted because apparently peer reviewed literature is disallowed by the Republican party. Have fun with this poor article. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to really consider your posts before actually hitting the return key, sport. I am pretty sure that suggesting that your fellow editors - simply trying to help you get your views reflected - read a book is not the best way to get them to advocate your cause, or continue to listen to your rant. Perhaps you came here just to soapbox your opinion your piece. Maybe you should also consider taking the time to learn how Wikipedia works before coming here and expecting us to fall in line with your views. When you feel like working with us instead of calling us shills of the Republicans (which is a pretty tedious and astoundingly uninformed - not to mention uncivil - accusation).

When you get some citations, come on back, and we'll do this right. Until then, you are wasting our - and your - time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

possible split

This article is 143kb in size. Interested editors may consider splitting it. WP:SIZE is a good read regarding article size.--Rockfang (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is within guidelines. Articles are not measured by the total kb count, rather they are measured by readable prose. This article is 59kb readable prose, which is within guidelines. Per Wikipedia:SIZE#A rule of thumb, articles with readable prose over 60kb should begin splitting the information into separate articles. Well, we have already begun doing that, for this there is Presidency of Ronald Reagan, which divides into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration (including Reaganomics) and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration (including Iran-Contra affair). Happyme22 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Berlin wall picture people

Who are these people behind Reagan, the assortment of men and women seated at the table behind him?

Left of him on the picture is Philipp Jenninger, right of him is Helmut Kohl. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits needed while locked.

I can't make edits, presumably because I don't have an account. In the "Early Political Career" section, there is a sentence about The Devil Reagan's GE plant speeches that has a spelling error in it. The word "to" before "controversial" needs to be replaced by "too". I suggest replacing "bestselling" with "best-selling" when referring to The Devil Reagan's published diaries. The sentence about The Devil Reagan being the oldest man elected to the presidency seems awkwardly sandwiched between two sentences regarding his inauguration speech; this would probably be better moved elsewhere, perhaps to the beginning of the section. In the "Death" section, "Bel-Air" should be replaced by "Bel Air".

158.140.1.25 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The partisan hatred aside, thanks for the heads up. Happyme22 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article sanitizes Reagan's record

This article relates a story about how as a youth Reagan opposed racial discrimination and supposedly befriended black people who were refused entry at a local inn and brought them home, where his mother welcomed them to spend the night. Personally, I don't believe this story (which appears in no Reagan biography that I've read). I find it interesting how this article mentions dubious stories like that, but has zero mention of the fact that Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, calling it a "humiliation" to the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The event you are referring to was written about extensively in God and Ronald Reagan by author and professor Paul Kengor. As for Reagan opposing the Civil Rights Act, it is covered in Political positions of Ronald Reagan, which states exactly why he opposed it. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gil Scott Heron was a frequent critic of Reagan and his conservative policies, most notably in his successful 1994 single "B-Movie" (http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=mqljBdwZkwk%3D). "He was not popular with all minority groups, especially blacks..." seems just a little like an understatement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Leo's Lyrics outlining a 1994 hit piece known as "B-Movie" is a reliable source. Happyme22 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, split sides. No problem. It wasn't "... a 1994 hit piece known as B-Movie" it's a song entitled "B-Movie" written by an established and respected artist. Don't worry, there are plenty of other sources besides Leo's Lyrics. It's a song. Those are the lyrics. That's just a fact. It's actually highly intelligent snd amusing political analyais in the form of a popular song. But that single sold world-wide. The lyrics are as true today as they were then. Dig it bro? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"ending of the Cold War" Really?

In the third paragraph it says "Reagan's second term was marked by the ending of the Cold War".

Although many give Reagan credit for hastening the end of the Cold War, it didn't end before January, 1989 when George H. Bush took office. It is usually cited as being the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Maybe, "beginning of the end" or "working with Gorbachev with goal to end the Cold War". I don't think it should at all exclude his participation but it shouldn't give him sole credit. Marklee81 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Marklee81

Very good catch! I'll change it to read "beginning of the end". Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I think this article needs more balance. Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain why you think that? Happyme22 (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sandy on this talk page

You said that Reagan's EPA policies were only "marginally related" to Reagan's Presidency, even though what you reverted (and the reference for it) make it clear that more than half of the federal regulations targeted for an early review by the Reagan administration's regulatory reform team were EPA rules.

The FAR is because what is supposed to be a featured article has ongoing evidence of bias on multiple issues, as explained in the FAR. Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ronald Reagan for up-to-date discussions.

Jim, this article is not about Reagan's presidency. It's about Ronald Reagan, the man. Of course, that includes his presidency and those eight years are given much weight because of their special significance. But the section on this page is by no means the primary place on Wikipedia to find facts about Reagan's presidency. Please see Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, Foreign policy of the Reagan administration, and even Political positions of Ronald Reagan. So this presidency section is a summary of what is covered elsewhere, namely the first three articles. As I stated in my edit summary, the paragraph you inserted relating to the environmental policies is not completely NPOV and lacks necessary context. Without explaining Reagan's environmental policies, we immediately get how one aide resigned relating to the Superfunds. As I also said, please feel free to add information related to this in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, where this can be covered in more depth.

There no bias, discrediting of certain views, etc. This article adheres to WP:SS, with multiple sub-articles. FYI, Reagan's stance on the environment is also covered in Political positions of Ronald Reagan. There is no cover up, or anything like that, and I think the FAR is, frankly, silly. Happyme22 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better way to shorten the latest

While deregulation was related to Reagan's small government views, Reagan's belief in less government was mentioned before and doesn't need repetition.

Also, deregulation is economic only in the sense that the military, the Cold War and almost everything are economic, in that anything that costs money (almost everything) is economic. However, Deregulation is much more meaningful.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I really do comend you for trying to incorporate my thoughts and yours into your proposed version. And good job. But deregulation was part of "Reaganomics", or Reagan's economic programs, and therefore should not be kept out of that section. Reagan supported deregulation because of his free market and less-government intervention views, so it is indeed an economic issue. And placing it in its own section is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, plus it is a level three header, above even the first term section. I think you are right in that repeating Reagan's small government and free market views is unnecessary, but only in an instance such as this, where the two ideas are related by using the phrase "as well".

So may I propose implementing this version in this article, which communicates the general idea and abides by WP:SS, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:SIZE, and implement a version similar to this in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, which would also abide by WP:SS. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I am going to be bold and do what I feel needs to be done to restore the high quality of this article, and that is implementing my above suggestion. I cite a lack of response from the user above, and the FA criteria. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

After implementing my suggestion above following two days without a response from User:Jimmuldrow, the user has again reverted the edit. I have notified him on his talk page. Jim, I would appreciate if you would please use this discussion page for, well, discussion, rather than simply revert me in article space (as you have done twice now). I've stated my reasons as to why my proposal falls more in line with Wikipedia guidelines/policies WP:RS, WP:SS, WP:SIZE, and WP:WEIGHT.

In your most recent edit summary, you wrote "this is closer to what the cited references say"; actually, you moved the national debt, environmental deregulation, and Social Security into its own paragraph, on on the point of deregulation, your is nearly the same as your first version. My proposed version paraphrased what your version said. This much weight is not even given to this subject in any of the subarticles. Your most recent edit that included very similar material, though not placed in a section of its own, is barely an improvement from the first version. This is starting to get out of hand. Happyme22 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"This much weight is not even given to this subject in any of the subarticles."

The thing is tiny. What do you mean by undue weight, length, and so on?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disagreeable here. The question is sincere.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the guidelines you mention for references said that major news sources are preferred. The Washington Post and The New York Times aren't the Weekly World News.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim, thank you for responding. First off, I would recommend reading, or at least skimming over, WP:SS. The subarticles on Ronald Reagan are more thorough and contain much more content on a single subject than this article does (the same is done for Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc.). They are structured that way because there is too much content to fit entirely into one article. WP:WEIGHT says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The subarticle Domestic policy of the Reagan administration contains some detail of his environmental policies, but not much. That's why I think placing your paragraph on environmental deregulation, Anne Burford, etc. in that article (a detailed mention), while simultaniously placing something like this in this article (a less-detailed mention with a link at the top of the section to the domesitc policy article) is our best solution. That way, if a reader wants to read more about Reagan's environmental deregulation, he/she can do so by clicking the link to the domestic policy article.

And I'm sorry if I came across as doubtful of your sources, because I am not in the least. The Washington Post and NYT are both very reputable sources and I guarentee that hundreds of statements are cited to them across Wikipedia. This is not a matter of sources at all.

I hope that cleared things up, and I hope we are closer to a solution. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for your willingness to listen. However, doesn't the paragraph seem a bit odd? Doesn't lumping together social security and the environment in a paragraph of its own seem a bit out-of-the-blue and random? They are two unrelated subjects. Plus, the paragraph starts without any context and I see that the NPOV language for the social security, i.e. describing why Reagan's administration purged people, is now gone as well.

Jim, I don't want to call a WP:MedCab, but I may just have to because this simple dispute has turned into something more. Again, for the good of this article and in the hopes of mainting its high standard, I am asking you to reconsider by placing this version in this article and the full version in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration. That is what abides by WP:SS. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The more and more I think about it, although the content is still a bit of a problem, the thing that bothers me most is the sloppy style of writing. Two ideas that are unrelated do not belong in their own paragraph. They were similar when used in a fashion such as this, as their basis was demonstrating Reagan's opposition to big government. But in their current form, they are two unrelated ideas that are grouped together in their own paragraph for some reason. They should be placed back into the paragraph above and be used to demonstrate Reagan's opposition to big government. And as I said, the NPOV language should be restored as well. Happyme22 (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all called economics at your request. I'll add Reagan's belief in small government as the reason for deregulation, but if you think three sentences is too many, the one that was explained before and redundant (Reagan's belief in small government, aside from the military) should be the one to get cut.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you said to combine deregulation of government agencies with the Stock Market Crash of 1987 and the Savings and Loan crises so that ideas are related?? Tell me what I'm missing. I would suggest that deregulation is a more meaningful sub-header than economics.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, why are two sentences (three including the one you keep asking for) "lengthy" or "the full version?"Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The "the full version" would probably be the best way to describe it because it is your original material. As I've said many times, please add the "full version" (and more if you would like) into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration. I am much more fond of the current version, and I comend you for putting it together. Perhaps I can tighten it up, for the readers' sake, with something such as the following:

In accordance with Reagan's less-government intervention views, several government programs were cut during his tenure. He cut the EPA's budget by 22%, and his director of the EPA, Anne M. Burford, resigned over alleged mismanagement of funds. Though he protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, his administration cut outlays for many social programs.

I've used another source to provide additional context. Also, I am not able to access the New York Times article regarding Social Security. I think this is better, anyway, and gets the idea accross. Happyme22 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, why are two sentences (three including the one you keep asking for) "lengthy" or "the full version?"Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this explanation about good article writing, and the FAC process, will address your question. Please have a look at WP:SIZE and WP:SS, particularly how they relate to each other and the guideline to keep articles below 50KB of readable prose (which is loosely applied, since it's a guideline; roughly 10,000 words of prose). Reagan passed FAC with exactly 49KB of readable prose, within the guideline (we do have some FAs that are much longer, but Reagan was held to size at FAC, because every editor has something negative they want to add about Reagan). The guideline encourages effective use of summary style. If every issue about Reagan's professional and personal life, administrations as governor and president, and everything else related to the man is added to this article, it will easily become 150KB of prose. The challenge of good article writing is to summarize the most crucial, relevant, noteworthy etc. to the main article, keeping the size within the 10,000 word recommended range, while exploring greater detail in the daughter (summary) articles. If every editor with a point adds three or four sentences or a paragraph, rather than using daughter articles, the article size quickly gets out of control. It has already grown from the 49KB when it closed FAC, to a current 61KB in size, precisely because every editor who comes along wants to add some new Reagan criticism. HappyMe22 has done an excellent job of balancing these issues, responding to concerns, and adding criticisms when warranted throughout multiple reviews of the article content, and the line has to be drawn somewhere on every additional content addition. The issue is whether the requested text is so central to Reagan's bio that it must be in this article, or whether it better belongs in another article. The current word count at Reagan is 10,082; you haven't made a good argument that the text you want to add is compelling and central to our understanding of Reagan that it simply must be included in this article, and can't be included instead in a daughter article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The following comments by SandyGeorgia are much more plausible than what I was hearing before:

• "Reagan was held to size at FAC, because every editor has something negative they want to add about Reagan."
• "every editor who comes along wants to add some new Reagan criticism."

If these are the real concerns, it would make more sense to say so to begin with. The other stuff made no sense.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, Sandy, about making an argument that this must be in this article. I concur that Jim has not done that, and have removed it from the article. I will place a version similar to it in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration per WP:SS, however. Happyme22 (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AMT

With all due respect to the kilobyte counting, but doesn't that measure also include citations? This is well supported article and citations use a lot of characters. How do the guidelines handle that? Do better researched FACs suffer vs. ones with more prose and less support? Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles are measured by readable prose size, not overall kb count. Readable prose does not count citations. Of course, all featured articles are expected to be very well sourced. And Mattnad, I'm sorry if I did not clarify my point as well as I should have regarding the AMT. As Sandy said above, the argument needs to be made that the text you want to add must be included to help our understanding of President Reagan. Otherwise, the daughter article(s) is the place for this information. The tax cuts are mentioned in this article, as well as the tax increases to maintain Social Security funding. The AMT sentence came across to me as another way to say that Reagan raised taxes, but the increase of taxes is already mentioned in this article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Without exaggeration, the AMT will become a major social and political issue once Congress no longer shields most Americans from the impact. Temporary patches have kept it at the high end of the income ranges, but even now the AMT brings in more tax dollars than the regular tax. It's not that it's a tax increase (which is true), but it's an unpredictable and very complex clawback that's going to cause protests when it hits the millions of American families. The IRS has cited the AMT as one of the most significant problems with the tax code. So this single sentence is not simply a about a tax increase, but a mention of something that will be forcing a discussion on tax reform soon. I understand that this may seem like an arcane detail to some, but no more so than other topics on this page relating to tax reform and his economic theories. The difference is that the AMT is only now having a major impact. And honestly, your addition of a link to a subsection on an already cited article is almost as long as the sentence, and provides less immediate information. Mattnad (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it may become a hot-button issue, it is not right now and inserting information based on speculation of whether something may or may not become a bigger issue in the future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not saying the signing of the 1986 bill is not notable, because it is, but it is more relevant in separate Wikipedia articles that specifically deal with economics. Perhaps we could mention the Tax Reform Act of 1986, though, in this article as an important piece of legislation and include a wikilink for interested readers. I've gone ahead and done so. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In debate, one tactic is to frame the arguments of your opponent on terms that makes your point a given. You've tried that, so it's my turn. So for starters, let me state this is hardly speculation and it's a hot button issue now, just not among the majority of Americans. There are Tens of millions who are affected now. It's a big enough issue that the IRS has it at the top of their problem list. It's been written up in the New York times as a serious problem (in many articles), and conservative, centrist, and liberal think-tanks agree that it needs reform (if not the solution). I won't bother with links since the AMT article and others more than adequately document that.

So how does this help us understand Reagan? He brought in Tax legislation in the spirit of reform that actually complicated the tax code and purposely shifted the burden from the richest Americans to the middle class. Perhaps this falls under some of themes already in the article, but it's a big deal now. These problems have come to light from the mind 1990's onward so it's not part of the Reagan history as you'd like it, but it's relevant.

You may not agree, but you seem to be cherry picking criteria, depending on your mood, to keep it out. And please don't throw all of these WP rules at me - this isn't court. I could trot out rules like WP:OWN and WP:NPOV as far as your edits are concerned. For instance, I noted that you tried to distance Reagan from the legislation on another article by removing the fact that he signed it. Just curious: why would you do that?

So assuming some good faith here, I just don't understand why you're working so hard to make sure this one sentence is not in this article. Again assuming good faith, if I can find a way to trim the 10-12 or so words from other parts of the article to make room for this sentence, will you relent? Or is size not the issue and it's your personal opinion of what's relevant here? Mattnad (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mattnad, please don't insult me like that. After my major additions, copyedits, and a record five tiring FACs, this article finally became featured in August 2007, has only improved since then, and as a featured article is considered some of Wikipedia's best work. I don't resent you or your edits, and I'm happy to be discussing this with you now. I feel that you have the wrong impression of me, which I hope you will change as time goes on. And this is not a debate. It is a discussion aimed at bringing about the best possible outcome.

I've compromised with you: as you will see, I inserted the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into this article and wikilinked it in the hopes that, as I said above, interested readers will click on the link for very detailed information. They are not "WP rules", but they are guidelines and policies on how to write a good encyclopedia. Of course I don't own this article, but I keep it watchlisted after all the work I've done on it for the past, well, year and a half. And what's not neutral? I find this to be one of the most neutral on Wikipedia, as it is featured. There is no disputing the fact that Reagan signed the law (see here), and if you are reffering to this edit about me "removing the fact that he signed it", well that's silly because it is evident that he signed it and that was simply an edit to improve the prose and add in additional information that I said I would (and I see you have reverted me). If it bothers you, please feel free to add "Ronald Reagan signed this". The part that I added a {{cn}} tag to was "In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code" because a citation was not provided.

As you said, the material you want to add already falls under the themes already mentioned in this article, so it would be repetitious to say it again. And as I said, I've compromised and already added the name of the bill and a link; we should take WP:WEIGHT into concern. It might be a mere sentence, but it is a powerful sentence. There is no personal motive behind any of this, rather I am writing according to Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and the featured article criteria. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we put it up for discussion by others. We clearly disagree on this. As you should note, I haven't bothered reverting your reverts (so to speak) because there's no point given our respective positions. What it comes down to is emphasis. I personally don't like replacing any/all details with another article link. If we were to take that approach to this article to the extreme, we'd have nothing but a list of wikilinks. So are you up for formally bringing in others to review whether a single sentence is just too much weight for the article to bear? Mattnad (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends what you mean by "formally bringing in others". If you mean WP:ARBCOM, then no, as that is an absolute last resort. Perhaps a WP:MEDCAB or an WP:RFC, although other editors tend to jump into discussions on this page without us taking many steps in dispute reslution. Happyme22 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait on it for now and see if there are other editors who want to parse this long discussion. In the meantime, I recommend you have a read of the AMT article and a few of the original source materials to get the flavor. I'm being persistent because of the many changes Reagan made in his presidency, this little bit of legislation is now the biggest single issue in the US tax system. That's quite amazing and in my view as an editor, worthy of calling it out. Somehow a link to "tax reform act" doesn't quite do that.. Mattnad (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I was wondering if someone could please give a short summary that quotes the pertinent language that is now in the Wikipedia article (and/or the language that people want to insert into the Wikipedia article)? Maybe this is the stuff at issue:

Furthermore, changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax under Reagan has since increased the tax burden on middle class Americans who have children, own homes, or live in high tax states. See Leiserson, Greg. "The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax: Historical Data and Projections" (2008 Brookings Institution & Urban Institute).

I'll assume that this is the material that people are talking about.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the material I've quoted above is what this disagreement is about, I feel pretty confident in saying that it should not be in this article on Reagan. Here's why: the cited source does not mention Reagan. Additionally, the cited source says that the AMT was initially enacted in 1969, i.e. when Nixon was President. That's Nixon, not Reagan.

Also, my understanding is that the reason why the AMT has now become such a big issue is because of inflation. If I recall correctly, the AMT is not properly indexed to inflation, and so it is now having effects that it's creators did not anticipate. So, if anyone is to blame here, I would think that the current 2008 President and Congress would be culprit #1, and the 1969 President and Congress would be culprit #2. Reagan hardly seems to be a culprit at all. I could be mistaken, of course, but people would have to come up with a much better cite than the Leiserson article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You picked only part of the relevant material. See this, as quoted from the wikipedia AMT article and the link to the New York Times article,

"The original AMT targeted tax shelters used by a few wealthy households. However, when Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive. "A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states." See NY Times, Alternative Minimum Tax

The Leirerson article looks at it from the perspective of the impact. The NYT article specifically names Reagan and is very specific that changes under the 1986 Tax Reform act are the reason it's hitting middle class families. Moreover, it's not just that the AMT wasn't indexed to inflation, but that they focused on everyday deductions like state and local taxes, home mortgage deductions, and deductions for having children. While administrations since Reagan have not fully addressed the inflation issues (they have used temporary patches to raise the income thresholds), the 1986 law is Reagan era.Mattnad (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the NYT article. I'll read it later today.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Okay, I went ahead and looked at the NY Times link. No author is listed, but it appears that much of that NY Times material is from a separate NY Times article dated March 4, 2007 by David Johnston, titled "The Untaxed Rich, Found and Then Lost". That article by Johnston provides the following details:

[I]n 1986, when President Ronald Reagan and both parties on Capitol Hill agreed to a major change in the tax system, the law was subtly changed to aim at a wholly different set of deductions, the ones that everyone gets, like the personal exemption, state and local taxes, the standard deduction, certain expenses like union dues and even some medical costs for the seriously ill. At the same time it removed and revised some of the exotic investment deductions. A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states....But in 1986, when the ’69 remedy was fundamentally changed, there was virtually no news coverage because at the time the changes affected only a few people. The initial amount of deductions before the new alternative minimum tax kicked in was set so high that in the first year it raised only the $1.7 billion needed to plug a hole in President Reagan’s budget. The alternative tax’s long-term effect was given no more consideration than, say, the exemptions on fuel-economy standards the government in the 1960s gave to sport utilities — vehicles that at the time were far less common and were used mostly for work that required hauling.

So, what have we got here? The 1986 changes in the AMT were a result of agreement between the Democratic congress and Reagan, rather some regulatory action that Reagan took on his own. The changes affected "only a few people." The long-term effects due to inflation were given little consideration at the time, by either the executive or legislative branches. My view remains that AMT stuff should not go in this article, because the 1986 AMT deal was bipartisan, it affected few people, and no one really considered the long-term effects that it would have due to inflation.

I hope these comments have been helpful. I probably won't have much time to comment further on the subject. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Err.... Not sure I follow: Are you suggesting so we should only include Reagan facts that when he takes a strongly partisan position that has all of the impact while he was in office? That would be like ignoring JFK decisions to get the US deeper into Viet Nam because LBJ and Nixon did most of the escalation afterward. There's no doubt the Congress gets some credit for the law as they would for any law that's passed. I see no reason why his contribution to this major tax issue should be ignored just because he worked with Republicans and Democrats in congress on it. Whether or not the consequences were intended is not for us to speculate (and there's plenty of opinion on both side of that discussion). So I think we agree on the facts, but we disagree on the value.

So to Happyme22 et al, I'd like to bring back that one little sentence. If you plan to revert per the oft cited reasons as listed below, I'd say we should take this outside of this talk page for more formal discussion. Mattnad (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The NYT clearly indicates that the present consequences were not intended ("long-term effect was given no more consideration than, say, the exemptions on fuel-economy standards the government in the 1960s gave to sport utilities"). Your analogy to withdrawing from Vietnam is flawed because the present Congress can index to inflation whenever it wants, without worldwide humiliation. Reagan may have conspired to do lots of nasty things, but the NY Times clearly indicates that this wasn't among them.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Worldwide humiliation"?. Wow, that's adding a dimension to this discussion I wouldn't have imagined. Please read carefully. I was pointing out that we give JFK credit for his role in Viet Nam even though the consequences were realized well after his presidency. And read more on the AMT - the reason Congress hasn't fixed it is because they can't afford to. Bush's 2001-2003 tax cuts are balanced in part by the AMT as it's now. Your point about unintended consequences does not change that. Anyway, it's clear to me that this discussion has come to an impasse. We should get editors who don't have a stake in this article to weigh in - formally. And remember, this is just one sentence you cannot tolerate. I find this really amazing. Mattnad (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When Nixon became president in 1969, a quick and unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam would have resulted in worldwide humiliation for the U.S. just as the eventual withdrawal in 1973-1974 resulted in worldwide humiliation for the U.S. In other words, Kennedy and Johnson set something in motion that was inevitably a disaster. Not so with the AMT. Congress can scrap it at any time, and replace it with a fairer tax, without any worldwide humilation, without any domestic humiliation, and really without any negative repercussions whatsoever. Why do you disagree? And surely a war, with concomitant deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, together with hundreds of thousands (or millions) of other fatalities, is a more notable matter than an easily correctable and unanticipated flaw in the tax laws --- which is another reason why I think your comparison does not work.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion albeit OT. Given how hard it's for Congress to do anything, I wouldn't say it's "easily correctable". That's a gross understatement of the challenges. The AMT involves the redistribution of billions of tax dollars every year impacting millions of households - more than 50% of Federal government revenue now comes from this tax system. Also, I think you see this as a critique of Reagan - hardly - it's a fact that now has relevance because the AMT is such a major tax challenge. Why exactly is that so difficult to include an undisputed fact that Regan singed the law that has made the AMT what it is now?Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an understatement at all. Congress has already repealed the AMT for corporations, retroactive to 1986.[4]

Regarding individuals, the AMT has frequently been amended since 1986. The two key parameters of the AMT are the basic exemption X, and the rate Y applicable above that basic exemption level.[5] In 1986, X was $40,000, and subsequently Congress raised it to $45,000 in 1993, raised it to $49,000 in 2001, and raised it to $58,000 in 2003. In 1986, Y was 21%, and subsequently Congress raised it to 24% in 1990, and raised it to 28% in 1993. Attributing the thing to Reagan is undue weight, especially when you also consider that Reagan and Congress really did not consider the future effects of not indexing to inflation.[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the patches. I'll grant that it's easier to change a tax law, than say, get out of Iraq.... We can agree to disagree on this one in terms of weight - I do wonder if you are cherry picking which laws Reagan endorsed as president. So what if it was bipartisan? So what if he didn't have the economic foresight to understand what he was signing, as you point out (which is not necessarily a point in his favor). The law he signed is still here, and still effectively raises federal taxes for people who do terrible things like own a home or start a family.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are aware of the patches, you don't seem to even take them into consideration. Congress and the President have the options of changing a tax law at any given time. It is too much undue weight to trace this back to Ronald Reagan and blame him for raising "federal taxes for people who do terrible things", because, as Ferrylodge pointed out, this was a bipartisan bill, the NYT article says that the President and Congress did not intend for the long-term consequences, plus Presidents Clinton and GW Bush have amended the AMT. I am not disputing that Reagan signed the bill, and, as I said to you before, I have included a mention of it and link to it in the article. There is no "cherry-picking" going on -- heck, the law you keep referring to is in the article! Happyme22 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mattnad, "In 1985, regular tax brackets and exemption amounts in the regular tax code began to be indexed for inflation...."[7] I don't see you trying to heap credit on Reagan for his great wisdom and foresight in doing so. If he hadn't signed that law, then middle and lower income people would now be paying much higher rates (assuming that Congress would have done nothing from 1986 to 2008).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing paragraph about Anne Gorsuch

The present article includes the following recently added paragraph:

Reagan's appointees shared Reagan's policy of reducing the size of government, which resulted in a 22 percent reduction to the EPA budget, accusations that the EPA mismanaged a $1.6 billion superfund for cleaning toxic waste sites and attempts to purge tens of thousands of allegedly disabled people from the Social Security disability roles. FICA payroll tax rates increased to maintain Social Security funding.

Most of this material is from an obituary in the Washington Post.[8] The obituary describes one of Reagan's EPA directors (Anne Gorsuch Burford), who "resigned under fire in 1983 during a scandal over mismanagement of a $1.6 billion program to clean up hazardous waste dumps....Ms. Burford cut her agency's budget by 22 percent...."

Thus, the 22 percent figure only covers Ms. Burford's tenure during a piece of Reagan's first term. Likewise, the first sentence of the obituary mentions that she was involved in a scandal regarding hazardous waste dumps, but the obituary does not suggest that the scandal was a result of Reaganomics, nor does the obituary suggest that the cause of the scandal was anything other than garden variety mismanagement and a routine conflict over executive privilege.

This recently added paragraph doesn't address Reagan's overall impact on the EPA, much less his overall impact on the federal government as a whole. Burford resigned in the middle of Reagan's first term. Her obituary is a very odd place to look for information on "'Reaganomics' and the economy" which is the title of this subsection of the present Wikipedia article.

The other source for the new paragraph in this article is a 1992 NY Times article about Social Security disability payments.[9] Contrary to the new paragraph's implication that the Reagan administration alleged that disabled people should be removed from the Social Security rolls, actually the Reagan administration alleged that many people were not disabled, and that is the reason why the administration removed them from the rolls. The "tens of thousands" of people refers to the number of cases that the Federal government agreed to reopen according to this NY Times article, not the number of cases in which the Administration was found to have wrongly removed people from the rolls.

So, I don't find this new paragraph in this Wikipedia article to be particularly accurate. It is also very narrowly focussed, whereas I would think that a biography like this should be written in broader strokes.

I understand that other people have also had some problems with this new paragraph. I don't know exactly what their reasoning was, but this is mine. I'll remove the paragraph in question, and urge that people should try to take a broader view of Reagan's life and work, perhaps using more general and comprehensive sources (e.g. books about Reaganomics).Ferrylodge (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is definitely a problem here but the Superfund scandal was a big deal during the Reagan administration and should not be removed entirely from this page. csloat (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that things that happened during Reagan's first term belong in that section rather than elsewhere. And "Economics" was an imprecise description of the material in question. "Deregulation" would be much more informative. So you made some good points. As to whether people removed from SS disability roles were disabled, the word "allegedly" refers to that debate. According to the article, the Reagan administration had one point of view and many courts had the opposite point of view. As for sources, Wikipedia guidelines mention The Washington Post as an example of the kind of major news sources that are preferred for news references.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt WaPo is a reliable source. However, please see WP:Topic: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic." For example, a better topic for this info might be Anne M. Burford. Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See below for the repeated opinion that the article is only about "Reagan the person" and words to that effect. Reagan's EPA policies arguably affected more people than the air traffic controller strike.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For sure. However, the WaPo obit does not establish that. The obit says Reagan forced her out of office.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reagan refused to support Gorsuch when controversies escalated, which comes close to what you said.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, I for one oppose some of the paragraph you just inserted. This is a featured article, and having one paragraph under a level four heading which is structured poorly literally lowers the quality of the article. Please place your new proposed paragraph here, so that we may discuss. Happyme22 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To make things easier and quicker, I've gone ahead and removed it myself. The new (and I'm pretty sure third or fourth) paragraph in question is below, inserted by Jimmuldrow:

Deregulation (level four heading)
Reagan's appointees shared Reagan's policy of reducing the size of government, which resulted in a 22 percent reduction to the EPA budget, accusations that the EPA mismanaged a $1.6 billion superfund for cleaning toxic waste sites and attempts to purge tens of thousands of allegedly disabled people from the Social Security disability roles. The EPA controversies subsided when EPA director Anne Gorsuch resigned in 1983. FICA payroll tax rates increased to maintain Social Security funding.

First off, this is, yet again, virtually the same content that you have pushed for from the beginning, this time awkwardly construed into three sentences and placed under a level four heading. I don't know what you and Ferrylodge favor, but I do not favor placing this content under a level four heading, as I feel it gives much too much undue weight to the content. Also, why do you keep insisting that this content stay together? Social Security and the EPA are barely relevant to each other, so why not intersperse the content, as was done here, but we first must determine whether the content is relevant and supported by WP:SS and WP:WEIGHT. In my opinion, Social Security is relevant and should go into the article, while the EPA is one example of a government program the Reagan administration cut. Allegations of mismanagement with the Superfunds may or not be mentioned, though it probably should. I do not favor placing the content all in one paragraph, rather integrating it throughout the Reaganomics section. These should all be mentioned in the sub-article.

Furthermore, I cannot access the NYT link that you use. I do not know if it is only me, but this presents somewhat of a problem. I have given an alternative, this, which you seem to have disregarded, which says the following:

The President vowed to protect entitlement programs (such as Medicare and Social Security) while cutting the outlays for social programs by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse."

Reagan's actions in the Air Traffic Controllers' Strike are completely relevant as well, and please stop comparing that event with Reagan's EPA policies. Upon the firing of roughly 12,000 federal workers, the article cites that Reagan essentially broke the union and sent a message to other unions. It is completely in line with WP:SS, something that I now doubt that you have read. Happyme22 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, this article does not seem to mention the "environment" or say much about "deregulation", so I do think that the lead editor, Happyme22, ought to think about putting in a few words on those subjects. "Deregulation" is almost the same thing as "laissez faire", so there is already a little stuff about this in the article. However, I don't think we need any separate subsections on these matters yet, and certainly the article should not focus on just one person who ran just one agency for just a small part of Reagan's presidency. Here's how one source describes things: "As part of the deregulation process, Reagan relaxed environmental and safety standards, stating that the time and expense spent complying with these regulations caused undue hardships for American businesses. His environmental policies reversed a growing trend toward more government legislation and regulatory bodies designed to protect and improve the quality of the environment. He appointed Anne Burford, who opposed many regulations on air quality and the disposal of toxic waste, to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). James Watt, Reagan’s secretary of the interior, supported allowing businesses such as mining and timber harvesting to use the resources on public lands."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Would a version such as this be a step in the right direction, Ferrylodge? It mentions the cuts in social programs, specifically highlighting the EPA, and sheds light on the Social Security issue. Happyme22 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That still cites the Burford obit as the main source. I think you ought to get a more general perspective. One of the interesting things about deregulation is that Carter did a lot of deregulating too. Maybe you could address how Carter's deregulation efforts differed from Reagan's. Carter deregulated trucking, rail, communications, oil and finance industries so why isn't Carter known as a laissez-faire free-market type? Anyway, I've got to go for awhile, but will try to check back in a week or so.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point about Carter, though that probably belongs in the subarticle (we have to keep things tight around here due to WP:SIZE). Here is my proposal; new proposed material is bolded:

The policies proposed that economic growth would occur when marginal tax rates were low enough to spur investment, which would then lead to increased economic growth, higher employment and wages. Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor. Questions arose of whether Reagan's policies benefitted the wealthy more than those living in poverty, and Reagan was seen as indifferent to many poor and minority citizens. In accordance with Reagan's less-government intervention views, the budget and several government programs were cut during his tenure, including that of the EPA. Though he protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, his administration cut outlays for many social programs. FICA payroll tax rates increased to maintain Social Security funding.

Footnotes

--Happyme22 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad reasons for edit wars (multiple reverts and endless controversy)

• A very innaccurate comparison of Reagan to Thomas Jefferson (they went opposite directions on deficit spending and military spending).
• The assertion that "this article is not about Reagan's presidency. It's about Ronald Reagan, the man." The article currently includes "Air traffic controllers' strike," "Reaganomics and the economy," "Judiciary," "Lebanon and Grenada 1983," "War on Drugs," "Challenger disaster," "Libya bombing," "Immigration," "Iran-Contra Affair," and "Cold War."
• The assertion that three / two / one sentences are too "lengthy."
• That a less lengthy way of doing things would include Reagan's entire career in a less "lengthy" description.

Hi, Ferrylodge. Howareya?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing good, Jim, though spending too much time on Wikipedia, as always. I hope you're well.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You probably won't believe this from me, but I think some of you're edits are pretty good. I guess we all have opinions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What a pretty page, too bad it's so opinionated. LinoPop (talk)

Rearranged sections a little bit

I rearranged the sections a little bit. Please revert back if I got it wrong. The sections on Reaganomics and Judiciary don't fall within either term, so I moved them to separate subsections. Also, it seems like the Cold War section should be in first term, and I moved the End of Cold Section to the top of the second term.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yep it seems okay to me. I'm actually thinking of completely re-doing the sub-sections in a domestic policy/foreign policy format, similar to that which is at George W. Bush. That way, everything has a sub-section and we don't have to have two "uncategorized" sections at the bottom. What do you think? Happyme22 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't mind a hybrid approach, where you list some stuff by term, and then have some additional stuff listed by topic. But, the GWB approach might be okay too.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can try it out and see what happens. If we don't like it, we can revert. Happyme22 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I guess if we take the GWB approach we would have to reformat the entire article which I do not think is a good idea, because the 1984 campaign was not really Domestic policy, and neither was the assassination attempt. I don't have a problem with the judiciary being at the bottom, but perhaps Reaganomics can go back into the first term section? I know the economy was part of the Reagan presidency for all eight years, as is with every president, but the major economic initiatives were enacted very early in the first term. I don't think it would be a problem to place it in the first term section. Happyme22 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's your call. Stuff like the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986, the stock market crash of 1987, the appointment of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, all happened in second term.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reorganized some of it. You are correct, though, that the Cold War should be in the first term (nice catch!). Happyme22 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)