Talk:Ronald Reagan

a map of Reagan's travels.

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

Fan Mail

The paragraph "Fan mail," while interesting, is given an unwarranted spin: what celebrity doesn't have someone else answer their fan mail? --Yopienso (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment rate discrepancies

Someone tagged the economics section as being contradictory since it includes two different unemployment rates. The first figures of 9.7% and 9.6% are annualized rates, while the second mentioned high of 10.8% is for the month of December 1982. I can see how it might be confusing, but the numbers are accurate. Should the annual rates and average be removed, and instead use only the monthly figures? Nothing would really change using monthly figures, the rate would still be 7.5% when Reagan takes office, 5.4% when he leaves, and the average is still 7.5%. --FrankieG123 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course more people died from AIDS under Clinton - do you know about the incubation period of HIV? The fact remains Reagan cut and cut the health budget at the start of the epidemic! Why is none of this, major domestic policy not on his main page? This is Wikipedia - not the home page of his own website - this is not the site for canonizing people! The seminal work of the early period of AIDS, Randy Shilts’ best selling “And the band played on” is highly critical of Presidential policy at the time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.241.74 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

This section says almost nothing about his image outside America, which was pretty negative. In particular, I recall vividly that in the UK he was widely regarded as a dangerous idiot (cf George Bush), and regularly satirized, e.g. by Spitting Image (I think it was that show that had a long-running storyline 'The President's brain is missing'), Whoops Apocalypse, and Private Eye. In the archives I found the following deleted paragraph, which strikes me as quite accurate AFAIK; the 'Princess David' incident for example was headline news in the UK, and treated as clear evidence that Reagan was not in sufficient command of his faculties. I think this paragraph should be reinstated with sources:

Residents of Western European countries often saw Reagan very differently from many Americans. In the United Kingdom, though Reagan had the strong support of Margaret Thatcher, he was routinely lampooned by much of the media as being dim-witted, if not senile. This was fueled by certain real-life incidents, including a November 9, 1985, speaking engagement in which he forgot the name of Diana, Princess of Wales and after some hesitation referred to her as 'Princess David', to widespread embarrassment. In the nations of Eastern Europe, however, Reagan enjoyed a good deal of popularity among residents (though not their governments) for his harsh criticism of communism, and has been praised extensively for his role in ending the Cold War.

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

I've never seen media representations of political figures as particularly representative of the public consensus. Worldwide the media is generally more liberal than conservative, and if you look at media trends in satire, conservatives get hit harder. Compare Obama, to Bush. Clinton only ever gets the sex-maniac hit. Just an observation. 60.234.137.101 (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Says who? The international media may be more liberal than you, but that doesn't mean it is more supportive of liberal policies and individuals than of conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.173.37.150 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Political figures, especially US presidents, have always been at the center of jokes, satire, and parody in the US and abroad. As for Clinton.. SNL did numerous skits making fun of him, remember the one with Phil Hartman and Clinton eating everyones food? Carter was made fun of for his accent and verbal flubs just like George W. Bush. It does not have anything to do with being Liberal or Conservative, it is just entertainment.--FrankieG123 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reagonomics

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that he had the largest tax increase in history, and that his average unemployment rate was higher than either his predessor or his successor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.22.141 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is there no section on controversies? His presidency was not the all-singing, all-dancing tenure you might get the impression of by reading the article. In fact there were a lot of controversies that should be mentioned. Also, while it may be true that Reagan's image has become better over the years than under his tenure, this is only true inside the U.S. itself.