Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5



I'm not sure if this is right, but in the article it says Reagan was a Satanist. Is this true, or was this a hoax?

Please tell me this is not a real question. --ScreaminEagle 20:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you agree, I might write something down myself...

please let me know..

That's a bunch of liberal garbage above...always attempting to slander Reagan


Why absolutely nothing on the young Reagan's job as a lifeguard? He personally saved many lives: surely this is worth at least a brief mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Accurizer 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK have done so. Although there seems to be more people taking things off Wikipedia than putting them on these days.


==Attention: Jelly Bean Vandalism== Hello Jelly Bean we know all about you. We will find you.

Someone on another forum I visit informed everyone he keeps vandalizing the "death" section of this page, claiming Reagan was buried with a jar of them because he loved them so much. If anyone sees this again please remove it (this is the second time I've had to remove it). ---Ours18

actually I believe this might actually be accurate, a relative from my moms side of the family works for CNN as a camera man and he was working the Reagan funeral. He said that at the viewing people left jelly beans, personal notes, cowboy hats and flowers, among other items. He told me that he and a few other of the CNN crew saw one of Reagans grandkids put something in his jacket pocket and one of them found out from someone that it was a packet of jelly beans because Ronald spent very little time with his grandkids, or own kids for that matter, and this was one memory he had of him from the times they did spend. Don't really know how this info can be verified, but it's very possible that this could be true.

Party switch

I removed the whole section on his switch from democrat to republican because it's redundant. 90% of it is covered in the preceding paragraphs. Was there a part in what you edited out that included the YAF(Young Americans Foundation)eliminating the Democratic Party part of Ronald Reagan's life, to falsely portray his life as Republican only? If you had left a note on where I could find the original place where the info you say was redundant from, I like to learn.

Glasnost & Arms buildup

I removed the following paragraph, because it doesn't make much sense. Glasnost was a response to Reagan's policies. The lack of a Soviet buildup was a predicted response to Reagan's challenge, and does nothing to disprove the efficacy of his policy.

Many analysts argue that the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union was due more to the re-emergence of separatist movements under glasnost, an inherent weakness in communist economic theory, and the depressed global price of crude oil, on which the Soviet economy during those years depended heavily. Furthermore, Reagan's much heralded military buildup that increased American military spending by 8% per annum in fact did not appear to have the planned effect of forcing the Soviets to mirror American growth: according to CIA estimates, Soviet military spending leveled off at a growth rate of 1.3% per annum in 1975 and remained at that level for a decade, although it more than tripled to approximately 4.3% in 1985 through 1987 (though spending on offensive strategic weapons continued to grow at 1.3% during that period), before returning to 1.3% in 1988.

a good point Viihde 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


You removed valid information based on your interpretation of it. That's not a reasonable edit. You also removed another paragraph you don't mention here. I've fixed this.--csloat 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The information is valid, but the information presented comes with an interpretation. Therein lies the problem. It's inelegant is all. Anybody reasonablyh intelligent can tell that it doesn't make sense. It's my opinion that removing it improves the article. If you all disagree, that's fine with me.

Popularity in Europe

I removed the following paragraph because it's neither scientific nor informative. No poll numbers or studies cited to support any of this.

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.

Democrat to Republican

I removed the bit about "birth of a nation" and jews, because it has nothing to do with being republican or democrat. I also removed the assertion that reagan changed parties because of republican stance against communism, a simplistic explanation. Reagan changed parties in part because of communism, but more so in response to his change in view of the role of the federal government, a change made possible by his tours sponsored by GE in which he met possibly thousands of working-class Americans.

Can someone please fix Reagan's bio? (vandalism)

Some wiseguy vandalized his bio saying Reagan was gay. I would fix it myself but I don't know what it said before it was vandalized.


Earlier this fall there was mention of the fact that Reagan was not circumsized. I wonder why somebody chose to remove it? I believe it is a matter of pubic interest. Natebjones 20:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way is that a matter of public interest, oh, ha, you said "pubic" interest, I get it. Funny. I do hope you are joking about putting that in though, since it does not very important from an encyclopedic standpoint, unless of course he is known for that, which I doubt he is. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


I made a modification to the statement about the debt, expressing it in terms of GDP percentage, since - saying it tripled is misleading and - claiming it decreased as a percentage of national income is plainly false [1] --Emilio floris 17:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Good call

Bold text==Economics student== From the 'Presidential Campaign'-section:

"Reagan ultimately ended up looking well in this debate "reaganomics" ultimately ended up giving the nation its largest period of peacetime growth througout the late 80's and early 90's through a policy of fiscal restraint and Tax Cuts!"

Some comments: -The exclamation mark looks a bit..cheerleader-y doesn't it? Yes, it's enough to vomit, which is why i deleted the entire thing! and although those comments were very transparent, your anti-Reagan bias is not... and our Reagan-lovers points are not altogether incorrect

-"Largest" period of growth? Longest would be more suitable but I'm not sure if it's actually true. I know that the economy went into a recession (negative growth) in mid 1990 so to say that the period of growth lasted into the "early 90's" is perhaps not the best way of putting it.The Reagan expansion lasted 92 months...

-Factually speaking I wouldn't call 1981-1989 years of fiscal restraint since the federal government ran huge deficits during especially the latter half of the 1980's. if I'm not wrong Reagan borrowed more money than all earlier presidents combined.Regarding domestic spending, Reagan was very restrained. Check out the annual percentage increase of domestic spending by the following presidents:

Truman 5.5% Ike 7.5 Kennedy/Johnson 8.0 Nixon/Ford 8.5 Reagan 1.0 Bush 4.5 Clinton 3.0

Also note that, under Reagan, domestic spending declined as a percentage of GDP from 15.3% to 12.9%

-Growth during this period was quite unspectacular so the section about just seems a bit misleading to me. Growth during the Reagan years averaged 3.2% - higher than Eisenhower (2.3%), Nixon/Ford (3.0%), Carter (2.5%), Bush (1.3%) and higher than Clinton's average during his first term (2.6%)... (I don't know about Clinton's second term or GW Bush's presidency)... interestingly, only Kennedy/Johnson had a higher average (4.9%) and a longer expansion (106 months)... Kennedy began his presidency with 30% across the board tax cut...

-Reagan cut taxes twice and raised them twice point is that this entire section makes the article worse.

Any other comments on this part?

From the 'Domestic record' section:

"Opponents charged that while the economy had recovered, Reagan's policies had created an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. The studies on this issue are inconclusive and contradictory."

While the effects of the policies are inconclusive (how often is it possible to determine a cause-and-effect relation in social sciences incl economics) the general development when it comes to income distribution is very well documented. This development (the 99th percentile had a better development than the 95, the 95th better than the 70th etc. all the way down to the bottom)was not unique for the Reagan years (it continued under Bush and Clinton) but it is usually associated with Reagans policies.

during the Reagan years, ALL economic groups saw their income rise in real terms, including the bottom quintile, which rose 6%... what did JFK say? "A rising tide lifts all boats"

here's another interesting tidbit - during the Reagan years, the real household income for white's went up 9.8%, for blacks, 11.0%

Regan was a peaceful man and achived most of his goals. 21:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just wondering?

How come there's no mention of him suffering from Alzheimer's during the presidency? That has to be at least moderatly notable.. don't you think? I mean it takes around 14 years for Alzheimer's to run it's course, there's no way he wasn't showing some signs back in the 80s-- 14:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So find some authoritative source regarding this and put it in the article. I mean, I think you're right, but that's only because of my own original research. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Peggy Noonan writes in her biography When Character Was King that she asked interviewees about it, and it was unanimously agreed that Reagan had not shown signs of Alzheimer's while President. - Calmypal (T) 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
That's absurd, did he have some special type of Alzheimer's that somehow appears overnight? If he had full blown Alzheimer's by the early 2000s/late 1990s, then he had to have shown signs of memory loss, and early dementia far earlier, and speaking as a relative of an Alzheimer's sufferer, frankly, you can see signs several decades in advance, even if full blown symptoms aren't observed..-- 21:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
So find some authoritative source regarding this and put it in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, he did land on his head when thrown from a horse in 1992. - Calmypal (T) 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The late Ronald Reagan did have slight signs of it during his presidency, as it was only officially announced around, what, 1993, 1994? He did zone out a couple times, but he was pretty well off during the presidency. --The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Alzheimers can only be conclusively diagnosed via a brain biopsy (post-mortem), but if he was "officially" diagnosed in '93 the plaques were almost unquestionably growing in '88. You won't find his doctor saying this though.

Justforasecond 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only will you not find a doctor saying it, you won't find a blogger saying it. The article linked to about his dog and Auschwitz does not make any sort of connection between his goofy behavior and Alzhiemr's, and so to say that it does seems to me like origional research. As Jpgordon points out, "find some authorative source regarding this and put it in the article," this is not that authorative source by a long shot. Sirmob 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This extremely odd behavior does bear mentioning in this article. Where do you suggest it belong? That Reagan claimed to be at Auschwitz -- and to the Prime Minister of Israel no less -- is well documented. It's odd behavior. Where should it go in this article? Griot 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
the story is an urban myth spread by Reagan's enemies--there is no actual quotation by Reagan -- merely a paraphrase that was translated at least twice from foreign languages. The paraphrase itself it not well sourced. (A reporter claims to have heard it third hand.) Rjensen 13:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A Democrat

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. I know it to be true but am unable to find infromation on it. Anyone have more information? 03:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)mrsfgc

== Correct, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. But this was only for a portion of his life. As to when his political stance changed, it is unclear. What is clear is that the reasons that he was a Democrat did not change. One of the main reasons that he was a Democrat when he was younger, was becuase his father, Jack Reagan, had made sure that Ronald hated prejudice of all forms. Ronald felt that the Democratic party as a whole held these views as well. Therefor, he became a Democrat. Then, later in life when he felt that his views on prejudice and other issues, such as communism, had switched to the Republican party, he too made the switch. [11-02-05, Diego Nunez) ==

This is a very good example of a well-written, balanced article. Just want to thrown in my two cents worth:

1 - Could be more on the interventions in Central America, or at least links to articles on the relevant topics. They had a huge impact on the nations concerned, and continue to reverberate to this day.

2 - Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any mention of Marcos?

3 - "Residents of Western European countries often saw Reagan very differently from many Americans" Why? This sentence needs some explanation rather than let it hang in the air. For example, when he visited Ireland in 1984 he faced massive protests as a direct result of the repression and deaths he had sponsored and caused in Central American countrys (which were, like Ireland, Catholic). Its not enough simply to say he was percieved differently, it must be explained why. Otherwise people will get the impression it was the result of knee-jerk anti-Americanism (which is rarely the case; it ALWAYS has a cause).

4 - Concerning his short dissertation on Jesus (quoted in the article):

"These and other statements he made about himself, foreclose in my opinion, any question as to his divinity. It doesn't seem to me that he gave us any choice; either he was what he said he was or he was the world's greatest liar." Fair enough, but Jesus did'nt make those statments about himself; the many writers of the Gospels wrote those claims. We have'nt a clue what Jesus ever said of himself. that's a bit like saying that we don't know that george washington was really the first president, or that there ever even was a roman empire... the many writers of history wrote those claims

5 - Alzheimer's disease. I have no problem with it being confined to his post-presidental life. Just wondering why there is not more discussion on it, and possible effects it had while he was still in office.

Please keep in mind that these are not so much critisisms as sincere queries. It is certainly worthy of FA status. Cheers! Fergananim 10:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, That stuff up there isn't like saying thay we don't know George Washington was really the first president at all. He was written about extensively, particularly by all those British soldiers he maimed and sent packing. Also, he wrote a book, among other things. In fact, he's recorded in thousands of existing sources originating all around the world, all in the same period of years. So, uh, good luck topping that one with Jesus, whose existence was intitially recorded in four texts, all of which contradict each other, contain things nobody could have possibly known (like what Jesus said on the cross when no one was there), and derives from the most superstitious, religion-breeding locale on the face of the planet. So, you know, there you go.

What example do you have that no one was at the cross when he stated that? Even Jewish manuscripts from that era mention Jesus existed. The fact that he existed is not a problem. By your stipulation, Plato would be harder to prove he existed because there are far less manuscripts mentioning him from that era than of Jesus durin his era.

Visit to Bitburg

It has been twenty years, so my memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but my recollection is that Reagan and his staff, and many in the media, were well aware of the significance of Bitburg before his visit, and that there was something of a small public outcry before he visited the cemetary. Is that incorrect?--csloat 03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Your memory is in accordance with the account given in Richard Reeves's new book on Reagan's presidency. He writes that everyone was fully aware that there were SS soldiers buried there, and that many people, such as Elie Wiesel, asked him not to go, but Reagan chose to do so because of a promise made to Helmut Kohl. If Reeves's version is correct, the Wikipedia version is fictional. --Kevin
This ought to be changed, I think. john k 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

the Hinckley shooting

the Hinckley shooting incident hardly belongs in the Domestic Record section. maybe it can be put in the reagan "humour" and "sunny optimism" paragraph. Doldrums 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

copyedits/rewrites on the economy

note on the edits

  1. removed phrase "successfully slowed the growth" as cumbersome.
  2. added increased military spending that accompanied reduced spending on welfare.
  3. rewrote in active voice
  4. replaced "staunch anti-Communist stance" with "new cold-war strategy" as the logical explanation for increased military spending.
  5. replaced "inflation and unemployment problems had been solved" with the two being lowered.

Doldrums 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums - to appease you, I added the actual inflation and unemployment numbers for the Reagan years to the article, allowing the readers to decide if their decreases were, in fact, dramatic. The inflation numbers are from (which gets their stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics), while the employment figures are directly from the BLS (

additionally, while you think the phrase "slowed the growth of welfare and social spending" is cumbersome, it is not synonymous with "cutbacks" and is historically accurate. (domestic spending increase in real dollars by 1.0% per year under Reagan) if you insist on using the phrase "cutbacks," please justify it with verifiable evidence. your personal bias is not sufficient. 07:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

fair enough, on both points. what i'd like to see (but don'tknow enough economics to do myself) is
  1. verify that the two inflation rate figures are comparable - i understand that on occasion, the means by which inflation is calculated is modified (a change in the "basket of goods"?). so a statement from a "good" source that the two are comparable wld be nice. (as far as i know, no such trouble with unemployment)
  2. interpretation of these figures. the 13% came on the back of an oil price jump in the mid 70s[2]. is there a consensus or "neutral" opinion among economists characterising the change in inflation, unemployment?
  3. i understand that cutbacks and "reduced increases" are not the same. despite that, the "successfully" is unwarranted, - he did it or didn't so it, successfully did it is reduntant. something like "cuts to increases in welfare spending" is ok, i think.
  4. the reagan administration article has this to say

"not only did Reagan retreat from proposed cuts in the Social Security budget, but he also appointed the Greenspan Commission which resolved the solvency crisis through reforms including increases in the payroll tax. Although Reagan achieved a marginal reduction in the rate of expansion of government spending, his overall fiscal policy was expansionary. Social programs grew apace at the behest of the Democratic-controlled Congress."

need to reconcile this with the reagan article.
Doldrums 11:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to civil rights act of 1964

"On his way to California's governorship, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

"On June 17th 1966 California gubernatorial candidate Ronald Reagan was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
I'm removing this quote from the article for now. Even with a source it's hard to tell what to make of it without any context or connection with any greater discussion of his policies. I can find online sources for the quote but most also mention other quotes like, "I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." [3], (or the variant, "'I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet, if necessary.' --Ronald Reagan, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1965" [4]). In any case it's not an appropriate first paragraph about his governorship. Tajmahall 14:40, 10 November 2005
I'm restoring the quote to the article due to the following reference:
"On civil rights, he has abandoned over the last few years his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hotels, restaurants and other public facilities.'
He says that he was against it in his first campaign for Governor in 1966 because he thought that it 'infringed on the individual rights of citizens which are supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.
He opposes busing to desegregate schools and any form of quota for employment or school admission. "
from Douglas Kneeland, "A Summary of Reagan's Positions of Major Issues of This Year's Campaign," New York Times, July 16, 1980.
-- 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is something I've brought up in the talk page for the New York Times article. I'm not sure New York Times references should continue to count as "verifiable", since they've become inaccessible to the majority of Wikipedia editors. I propose that for any New York Times reference, we try to find a reputable, web-accessible third-party reference and change to that; barring this, we should remove said content as unverifiable. However, I would strongly urge anyone reading this to take no such action until consensus is gained, because current guidelines on verifiability and citation of sources allow this. I'm proposing a pretty radical change to account for a radical change of policy at the New York Times; articles used to be free with registration, now it costs money to access them after a short initial free period. -Syberghost 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Reagan wanted to cut the school lunch program, calling ketchup a vegetable, and spun lies about "welfare queens."

Reagan was silent for years on AIDS. He tried to get tax exemptions for racist Bob Jones University. He originally opposed the Martin Luther King holiday before signing it into law. He did veto an extension of the Civil Rights Act in 1988 and defanged the US Civil Rights Commission. He exchanged schools for the prison boom. Reagan's legacy is still alive. The senior President Bush vetoed a major civil rights bill in 1990 and vetoed an increase in the minimum wage. President Clinton slashed welfare. The junior President Bush campaigned at Bob Jones and sided with the white students who wanted to destroy affirmative action at the University of Michigan.

Doesn't affirmative action discriminate against others? Most of those "facts" are bunk.

is this a president bush article? 05:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Program?

I am just wondering why the information about Jimmy Carter, who, when involved in Georgira politics used to seek thw white supremacists, is frequentl;y being erased? That's documnted in Edmund Morris' biography of Reagan, and its suggested even on the Wikipedia Jimmy Carter homepage! Plus, as far as the contra-cocaine conenction is concerned, that is just speculation, and it has never been strongly proven!

I'm the one that keeps deleting it. I'm well aware of Carter's racial shenanigans. I just don't think it belongs on a page about Ronald Reagan. It's not even about the 76 or 80 campaign! It's like dropping an extraneous detail about Ronald Reagan's past into the Carter entry. It's not wrong--it's just irrelevant.

Contra-cocaine connection just got held up in a recent study, incidentally. The very controversial initial newspaper reporting was criticized on certain points, but the central finding was recently upheld.

Which study did you see this in?

The CIA did its own study. Essentially, the core of the story was true--the CIA was working with people who were flooding this country with cocaine. The original story overclaimed, but the corrections were overinterpreted, as well.

This is an article from the LA Times:

There is no denying that the papers were right on one serious count — "Dark Alliance" contained major flaws of hyperbole that were both encouraged and ignored by his editors, who saw the story as a chance to win a Pulitzer Prize, according to Mercury News staffers I interviewed.

Webb asserted, improbably, that the Blandon-Meneses-Ross drug ring opened "the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles," helping to "spark a crack explosion in urban America." The story offered no evidence to support such sweeping conclusions, a fatal error that would ultimately destroy Webb, if not his editors.

At first, the Mercury News defended the series, but after nine months, Executive Editor Jerry Ceppos wrote a half-apologetic letter to readers that defended "Dark Alliance" while acknowledging obvious mistakes. Webb privately (and accurately) predicted the mea culpa would universally be misperceived as a total retraction, and he publicly accused the paper of cowardice. In return, he was banished to a remote bureau in Cupertino, Calif.; he resigned a few months later.

Meanwhile, spurred on by Webb's story, the CIA conducted an internal investigation that acknowledged in March 1998 that the agency had covered up Contra drug trafficking for more than a decade. Although the Washington Post and New York Times covered the report — which confirmed key chunks of Webb's allegations — the L.A. Times ignored it for four months, and largely portrayed it as disproving the "Dark Alliance" series. "We dropped the ball on that story," said Doyle McManus, the paper's Washington bureau chief, who helped supervise its response to "Dark Alliance."

more "true?"

there are a few unverifiable or unverified statements in the article. are there any sources for it? from what i could see, there wasn't any sources listed in the archived talk pages either.

  • (during college years)he made many lasting friendships.
  • Reagan tried repeatedly to go overseas for combat duty,
  • In both of his marriages, Reagan was known as a loving and devoted husband.
  • Believing that the Republican Party was better able to combat communism, Reagan gradually abandoned his left-of-center political views,

the statement "He gradually became a staunch social and fiscal conservative" should perhaps read he talked staunch fiscal (and social?) conservative, perhaps. given his record as governor and president (see below).

the LA times obituary[5] mentions that, as governor reagan

  1. proposed a 10% budget cut but ended up with a 10% raise
  2. the state budget went from $4.6billion to $10.2billion over his tenure, aprtly because of inflation.
  3. he signed "a historic abortion reform bill authored by a Democrat that vastly liberalized the procedure in California. Advocates promoted it as a model for other states ..." despite his later anti-abortion stand.
  4. he signed some of the "strictest air and water quality laws, increased state parkland and started requiring environmental impact reports on state construction projects"

the last two also need to be incorporated into the governorship section. Doldrums 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the testemony of Nancy Reagan in the case of his devotion, is apt. There is not proof otherwise, however, a case can be made from her statements. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

from what i vaguely recall from the Reagans (docudrama) controversy, the family life is a pretty complicated one, and to sum it up in one sugary line, i think, is not needed. further, in line with wiki editing guidelines, it might be better to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than page editors make judgements on how devoted or loving a father he was. Doldrums 16:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Reagan the Radical and Knee-Jerk Anti-Americanism in Western Europe

Although Reagan may be a conservative in the USA, in Western Europe and much of the rest of the first world he was seen a radical right-wing fundamentalist. By the standards of other Western democracies, Reagan was a racist, a religious fundamentalist and an economic fascist (Just compare him to Benito Mussolini. I am NOT calling Reagan a Nazi, but a fascist. They are completely different things). Reagan had a great many good qualities. He saw past his own party's anti-communist paranioa, and along with Mikhail Gorbachev he made significant steps towards world peace. But he is not remembered fondly by most people outside the USA (radical left-wing, centre-left and conservative right-wing alike) because his policies were so extreme by world standards. In fact, Reagan is greatly responsible for knee-jerk Anti-Americanism because his policies were so hostile to the majority in other countries.

Sure, western Europe may have a distaste for one of the most popular presidents in US history. But ask most Eastern Europeans that were under the tyranny and oppression of the Soviet bloq. They will usually express an opposing opinion of their western cousins. This is why statues in his honor are decorated throughout Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, your definition of fascism differs from the general consensus. Reagan was no fascist (it is popular to call people fascist when they dislike them, such as islamo-fascist, another totally false term).
And in eastern Europe Reagan is very popular. For example in Poland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umedard (talkcontribs) 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Other Opinions:Update

"An honest account would mention that Ronnie often confused his movie roles with reality. And how some WWII vets like my father consider the actor a poseur. - Sparky 05:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

Anyone want to handle this? It is a good point - one I remember not a few elderly Americans making in the late 1980's - not to mention his statement of being present at the liberation of one or other of the concentration camps. And there is still far too little account made of the effects of his policys in Central America. Fergananim 14:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


This article has some nice pictures and a lot of info, but wouldn't meet Wikipedia:Featured Article criteria. I would like to try to expand the introduction. Kaisershatner 18:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added information on this... it is one of the parts of Reagan's legacy that have been "forgotten" by American media since his death.

CanadianPhaedrus 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus


The two events shown under Posthumous Honors are not things that I would normally refer to as "honors". Is there a Wikipedia definition of what an "honor" is, for the purposes of our biographies? JackofOz 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add a section of awards and decorations under Honors, I think. I know he recieved the Presidential Medal of Freedom (US), Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum (Japan), and Order of the Bath (UK), but does anyone have a complete list? --ReidComyn 09:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

message to administrator jgordon

please refrain from abusing your power of reverting

you reverted my edit from a couple of days ago... my edit was accurate and valid

you violated wiki rules when you used the one-click rollback on my edit - clearly my edit was not "simple vandalism"

please read, and in the future, do the right thing:


Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with an edit summary of (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary.

Retrieved from "" 09:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove Thatcher quote, 2nd P.

I intend to remove the following quote in "Foreign policy and interventions" 2nd paragraph.

Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher said, "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot."

I think this just serves to push a positive connotation with the the person of Ronald Reagan and is uncalled for in a encyclopedia. I think you wouldn't say: "Nelson Mandela ended Apartheid without firing a shot". The fact that it happened speaks for itself.

Thank you for your consideration.

Boo 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Whereas it would not be appropriate for a contributer to opine that "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot," it is wholly appropriate to include a statement by the former prime minister of the UK.

additionally, the article quotes george bush, walter mondale, milton friedman, "critics," henry kissinger, larry speakes, jose ramos-horta and desmond tutu - mostly to reagan's detriment 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

why do you shout? I'd appreciate if you had the courtesy of signing your talk entry my dear
No other objections? --Boo 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reagan's Job Performance

Dates are for the Poll, not the event. That is why the revert. Reagan's Job Performance--FloNight 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Casey hoax 1980

Congress investigated the story that Casey cut a deal with the Iranians in Madrid. All the newspapers covered the testimony that showed Casey was in London that day. Someone had planted a hoax -- and if they fabricated the Madrid part then they cannot be trusted in any other part. No documents ever emerged showing there was such a plot. Wiiki should say there was a hoax and it was exposed by Congress as false. Rjensen 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

added some sources on the casey "hoax" below. Doldrums 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

removed from Iowa article

I'm removing this from the Iowa article, as it's a very minor event (not even mentioned on this page), but you may want to include it at some point, if it can be verified:

-- nae'blis (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One State, Two State; Red State, Blue State

Maybe we could find an electoral college map which shows the Republican-voting states as red, and the Democrat-voting states as blue. I know that before the current post-2000 paradigm, they alternated the colors every election, and that's most likely when these maps were created. I also know that Wikipedia shouldn't conform to current trends, but I'd rather we settle on simplicity and not confusing politically-inept people than 'tradition'. I mean, it's not like we're lying.

"because of astigmatism"

In the section on military experience it says he tried for combat service but was "turned down because of astigmatism." Is there a reference for this? Not saying it's not true, but without a reference it comes off as an add-on by a Reagan partisan looking to apologize for Reagan pretty much only making during the war movies. Just wondering. . .

RR was indeed in uniform assigned to making scores of training movies. I've seen a few snippets--where he patiently explains how to use this or that piece of equipment. He mostly made films for the Air Force which used it as their #1 training device to show 2+ million airmen how to use all the equipment. One film takes navigators step by step through a bombing run. He narrated one of the Frank Capra war documentaries on China.Rjensen 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The astigmatism story was in a 1995 Wall Street Journal article. I'll get the date and page reference when I get the chance. Ellsworth 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe he also discusses this in his autobiography, An American Life. Supredragon5


I will be back with some more horse pictures! /Gkirk

Why is it that President George H.W. Bush appears to have a bottle of Jack Daniels in the photo of Reagan's cabinet? Is this a real photo?

It's a vandal. I deleted it. Rjensen 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reagan 80s"?

The comment that "the political and cultural dominance exhibited by Ronald Reagan and his message of confidence and optimism led many to call the decade in which he was President, the 'Reagan 80's'" is underdetermined by the evidence. A Google search brings up similar results for "Clinton 90s" and "Nixon 70s." Hence, I think the phrase is meaningless - it also has the odour of a non-neutral POV. Lots of people associate Reagan with the 1980s in a negative way; and recall his message differently. Unless there is some compelling rationale offered for maintaining this sentence, I will edit it out.Fishhead64 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

well no, historians are starting to use the term. See the NY Times Book Review 1-29-06 and The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order by Steven F. Hayward (2001) Rjensen 05:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This phrase does not appear in to Wooldridge article, and Hayward is not a neutral source, but rather a strong defender of Reagan and his legacy. I'm still waiting for some rationale for this evident non-neutrality - I'll give it a few more days. Fishhead64, 05:15, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

Search it in quotes on Google: "Reagan 80s" comes to ~11700 and "Clinton 90s" and "Nixon 70s" are both below 600. 00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's still not a lot of Google results for a descriptor of an entire decade. "Reagan '80s" doesn't refer to the decade as BEING the "Reagan '80s," it comes up (on Google) as an adjective describing things as being "Reagan '80s" in the same sense as valley girls say "that's so, like, 1999." It's an oft-negative descriptor for Cold-War mentality stuff. Check it out. --MattShepherd 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Debate comment

He seemed more at ease, deflecting President Carter's criticisms with remarks like "There you go again."

I can't find this in the transcript of the debate. Did it come from somewhere else?

  • It was certainly uttered in the debate--just not in the transcript! It came up again 4 years later See Cannon bio p 477: [re 1984 debate] "After Mondale had charged that Reagan would find it necessary to raise taxes after the campaign, Reagan had responded with the "There you go again" line that he had used so effectively against Carter. Mondale had been expecting the line, and he pounced on it when it came his turn for rebuttal. Turning and facing Reagan, Mondale said, "Now, Mr. President, you said, 'There you go again,' right?" "Yes," Reagan said. ...." Rjensen 02:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Polemical or humorous attacks

what constitutes a "Polemical or humorous attack"? by a similar standard, should i start moving some of the crud in secondary sources to "polemical and laughable hagiographies"? Doldrums 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The continued vandalism of this article by anti-Reagan fanatics is one of the reasons Wikipedia keeps getting labled as a joke in the research world.

An introduction is just that

Attempts by some editors to include their pet topics in the introduction is leading to edit wars. An introduction is just that, it introduces the topic at hand. Whether you support the President and want to feature the economic growth of the era or ara critic and want to obsess over Iran Contra there are places within the main article to do that.

Furthermore, Iran contra was indeed a scandal, but it was not a "loss of control" of foriegn policy. That term is not neutral and implies that Reagan was not in control of foreign policy. He most assuredly was, he was simply being lied to by those he trusted.

Abel Archer: minor historical even. It sared the pants off the Soviet high command but is not indicative of how Ronald Reagan "almost caused a nuclear war". Even if had had been more than a war alert on the Soviet side it would have been the fault of the Soviets if they had launched nuclear weapons, not Reagan.

The recession started in 1981 and ended in 1982. It did not occur in 1983. It was not "sharp" except for unemployment, which was already high. It started before Reagan's first economic package was approved and ended shortly thereafter. If anything Reagan's policies had the effect of ending this recession, not starting it.

Again these are points to be hashed out in the body of the article, not in the introduction! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realityhammer (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).

The United States was convicted of having supported terrorism in Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice, refused to pay reparations even when a United Nations General Assembly resoultion was passed near unanimously, and then the dirty war was financed by drug money and illegal weapons trade, and you think this is not a major issue? Get-back-world-respect 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I said about an introduction being an introduction? Realityhammer 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Given it was a major issue, the Iran-Contra scandal needs to be included in the introduction. Get-back-world-respect 01:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is the part that 50% of the readers only read. So it has to summarize the main points quickly. "Loss of Control" is the term RR's supporters used (see Tower report) --it means that your top people are lying to you and doing things you don't know about--we all agreed that happened. Recession of 1981 set the stage--it was worst uneployment since Great Depression (isn't that "sharp"?) The point is not whether RR caused it, the point is that people need to know about it (and also about inflation and interest rates, which I added in later section). Rjensen 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My objection to "sharp" is that it implies it was a major reversal from previous trends. It was preceeded by a recession in 1980. If anything, it should have been an "expected" recession as Carter tried to prop up the economy in 1980 by increasing federal spending. Realityhammer 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the only way edit wars are going to stop is if you divide issues into "pro" and "con" sections and let each side write their versions (supported by citations, of course) of events. There are too many unsupported allegations creeping into Wikipedia from all sides. The Abel Archer point is an excellent example of this. Considered by everyone to be relatively minor suddenly someone wants it to be showcased as "proof" that Reagan almost caused a nuclear war. Not even Beth Fischer (cited by as historian in the body, but in reality a political science professor) holds that view. She in fact details that it was Soviet paranoia (spurred on by Yuri Andropov) that caused the alarm in the east, not Ronald Reagan. Yet someone, anonymously at that, wants to highlight this as a major foreign policy failure of the Reagan administration. I don't think so! Realityhammer 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki project is a failure if people can't agree on basic historical facts. Was 1981-82 recession sharp or mild? People at the time thought it was sharp--(worst between 1958 and today), so why call it mild? Abel Archer belongs in the article but not in the summary (mostly because nothing happened.) Again: the summary should say in 100 -200 words why RR is important. Most people will stop there, so we should get it right. Rjensen 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

POV in the Introduction

Two examples:

  • "a confrontational foreign policy towards the Soviet Union and Socialist movements around the world that proved successful and led to the end of the Cold War." Many other historians suggest that the end of the Cold War was an inevitable result of American foreign policy for many years, as well as the Soviet Union's own missteps (e.g., the disatrous war in Afghanistan). Further, the term "socialism" is msileading. I rather doubt Reagan opposed socialist governments in Scandanavia, for example.
  • "The political and cultural dominance exhibited by Ronald Reagan and his message of confidence and optimism led many to call the decade in which he was President, the 'Reagan 80's'" Above, user Rjensen claims that this phrase appears in the Wooldridge article in the NYT. It does not, as a web search for the article will show. And Hayward's hagiographic biography can hardly be cited as a neutral source for such a characterisation. Again, a Google search will yield both positive and negative definitions of "Reagan 80s" - citing such things as support for right-wing death squads in Latin America, for instance. Fishhead64, 05:15, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
Try The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan by John Ehrman (Yale University Press 2005) which has very strong reviews. Or, by a leading Canadian historian, Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980's by Gil Troy (Princeton University Press 2005) -- books published by two of the leading universities. Both of the titles clearly support the "Reagan 80s" tag. Rjensen 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I edited the intro - you may want to have a look. I've retained the "Reagan 80s" tag, as per your citations, by removed the language that suggested that this involves a universally sunny view. Again, I'd refer you to our friend Google, in which people use the moniker in positive, negative, and neutral ways. Reagan was there, he was a dominant figure - hence "Reagan 80s". I also corrected the non-neutral assessment of the effect of his foreign policy, and the incorrect use of the word "socialist." Thoughts? Fishhead64m 05:31, 02 February 2006 (UTC).
Good job in removing the POV. I revised somewhat to emphasize the main points of his presidency, and restored the Wooldridge equote, which offers a European perspective.Rjensen 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Your revision was good - too bad it was tossed into the ether by another user to once again yield a POV. I don't want to get into a tit for tat, but the anonymous edit should be reverted to your's. Fishhead64 16:45, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the support. I will try to repair. Rjensen 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the last paragraph as I edited last night. [[6]]

Sometimes refered to as the "Reagan 80's", the decade is remembered with varying degrees of nostalgia or loathing, depending on the person. Increasingly, his biographers paint a complex portrait of the man who led the free world in the last decade of the cold war.[7] He died at his home in Bel-Air, California in 2004 at the age of 93, after suffering from Alzheimer's disease for a decade.

I think this edit preserves NPOV, accurately states his status(leader of the free world) and even preserves the tie-in with woolridge's new book ... An isbn link in the biography section to the new Woolridrige Reagan bio would be good too. Mytwocents 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The introduction as it stands is riduculous. It is long, detailed, and unnecessary. The intro should be reverted to the version in Fishhead's draft as of 07:34, 2 February 2006 UTC - there were no debatable POV issues, and it was appropriately concise. New parts of the current intro that Rjensen seems particularly proud of should at least be moved to appropriate sections (example: The Wooldridge quote to the "legacy" section) MooCreature 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
when you have such a major person it does get a bit complicated. The intro should explain why he's important, and does so in non-POV fashion. The older versions had a lot of miscellaneous information there. Good idea to move Wooldridge quote to end and I will do so. Rjensen 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be involved in protracted edit wars (especially in the introduction), with partisans insisting on trying to present a biased perspective on Reagan's legacy. I just want to remind anyone contemplating such edits that exposure to a breadth of interpretation and analysis is a good thing. This is a biography - not a hagiography or a bill of indictment. Fishhead64, 23:17, 06 February 2006 (UTC)

National debt

An anon removed the statement that the Reagan administration increased the national debt. My recollection is that he not only increased it, but set new records for deficit spending. Is there any reason why this fact should be suppressed? JamesMLane t c 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

a rewrite of intro

suggest a rewrite of the intro, which concentrates on actions and reduces emphasis on the (mostly contested) effects of these actions. something along these lines (this is not meant to be the whole intro, it has left out the lead paragraph and stuff like "elected president on ...").

The Reagan administration is noted for its economic policy, dubbed Reaganomics, featuring tax cuts and deregulation, combined with increased miltary spending leading to record national debt; its nominations of justices for the supreme court. Reagan's foreign policy included a <shift to a confrontational cold war strategy>, the Iran-Contra affair and interventions in <Grenada, Lebanon>.

His period in office witnessed <changes in inflation, unemployment, gdp growth> and was immediately followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan is noted for espousing <free-markets, anti-communism>. He has been dubbed "The Great Communicator" for <>. Evaluations of his <administration/policies> are controversial, with supporters <saying dum-dee> and critics <saying doo-daa>.


  1. stuff in <> to be determined.
  2. national debt mentioned because the causal link b/w policies and this effect is clear, and (i think) uncontested.
  3. have left out reform of tax code and social security, they can be tagged on, if these were thought to be significant actions. incidentally, is it "reform" or "scaling back" of social security?
  4. should the justices be named in the intro? imo, no.
  5. supporters and critics statemenents to be restricted to one line with two or three phrases, i think.
  6. there is no wiki article on the dissolution of soviet union?

comments? Doldrums 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

some very good ideas here. Please keep the Social Security and income tax reforms. His attacks on labor unions need to be noted. Rjensen 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I added a reference and context to ABLE ARCHER 83. Although not widely documented, the incident adds perspective to Reagan's policy of Confrontation towards the Soviet Union. Historians and Cabinet members of Reagan credit ABLE ARCHER with having an effect on the President's policies.

Have you considered creating an ABLE ARCHER / ABLE ARCHER 83 article? Neither exists at the moment. Jpers36 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I did. It should exist. now you have me worried :-D
Just did a search for "able archer" and it popped up. Natebjones 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's under Able Archer, whereas I was attempting ABLE ARCHER. I will add a redirect. Jpers36 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Noted for defeating the Soviets"

This is clearly not a neutral point of view. I agree that the previous version has its weaknesses, too, honest attempts of improvement are welcome. Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Point. But "collapse" better describes what happened to USSR in 1991 as they were unable to respond to RR's challenges even after giving up their Empire. Rjensen 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To claim that one man 'defeated' the Soviet system is an extremely silly thing to say, and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The most that could be said is that his policies exerted a degree of pressure upon the Soviet economy that was already in a very difficult situation, but note that the Soviet Union was still there after he had ceased to be President. I've lived and researched in the former Soviet Union, and am familiar with the opinions of most British and European academics on the subject. It's clear that the Soviet Union's demise was the consequence of its own internal contradictions, the development of new thinking associated with a new generation, and the attempt by Mikhail Gorbachev to institute a crash programme of reform. The Reagan article is not the place for an exposition of this, but some indication that this claim by his supporters is challenged ought to be included.--Train guard 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your fanciful edits claiming "loss of control" and imminent nuclear war over Abel Archer are far from neutral POV. I suggest you keep to editing things you support instead of things you wish to tear down. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realityhammer (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your statements with ~~~~. The words of the "fanciful edits" are not mine, I just reverted new violations of POV regardless of my opinion that the old version was not completely neutral either. Get-back-world-respect 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The "loss of control" is the consensus among Reagan supporters, so it's not hostile. Archer business belongs to later section, not to summary, where it can only mystify people. The summary should talk about big issues, such as Second Cold War and Ending of Cold War-- all in 35 words. Rjensen 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think Able Archer 83 does provide insight on Reagan's policies and the Cold War in general, though.
Did Reagan know about Archer? Rjensen 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did. Originally, it was planned for him, George Bush, and other high level cabinet members to take part in the exercise (NSA McFarlane nixed this idea before the exercise) Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl participated. He heard of the Soviet fear byway of Oleg Gordievsky, a Soviet double agent controlled by MI6, soon after the operation. In an interview with historian Beth B. Fischer McFarlane divulged that Able Archer 83 had a "big influence" on Reagan. In his autobiography, he does not mention Able Archer specifically-he states that he can not mention classified subjects- but writes:

During my first years in Washington, I think many of us in the administration took it for granted that the Russians, like ourselves, considered it unthinkable that the United States would launch a first strike against them. But the more experience I had with Soviet leaders and other heads of state who knew them, the more I began to realize that many Soviet officials feared us not only as adversaries but as potential aggressors who might hurl nuclear weapons at them in a first strike.

The quote is from An American Life by Ronald Reagan; The Reagan Reversal by Beth B. Fischer and From the Cold War to a New Era by Don Obendorfer go into detail about the incident.

Natebjones 17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So Reagan heard about it later and had no actual role when it happened. That suggests it does not belong in his bio. Rjensen 18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Reagan's role during Able Archer 83 was commander-in-chief of the US military that participated in an extremely (possibly deceivingly) realistic nuclear war game which he signed off on. He also "had no actual role" in Iran Contra. Natebjones 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No-- ABle Archer was a NATO exercise and RR had the same role as 15 other heads of government who all signed off. The "story" as they say in the media is that RR escalated the Cold War and frightened the Soviets. The story is not his nominal role in one particular exercise. This is a biography not a hstory of the Cold War. Rjensen 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But the National Security Advisor's comment that it had a "big influence" on the president suggests that it was a factor in his life, administration, and, policies. I'd contend that does have a place in a biographical sketch. And, that's without the circumstantial evidence of RRs diary entries about conversing with soviet leaders and telling them "Russians had nothing to fear from us" (Reagan An American Life 585) shortly after AA, and his extension of the rapprochement olive branch in early 1984... just my thoughts.Natebjones 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove link to DemocracyNow!

Taxpayer-funded Pacifica Foundation propoganda is not a valid reference link. There is no news content of value regarding Reagan at the DemocracyNow site, just opposition opinion. Not even a range of opinion, or a discussion with multiple points of view represented, just pure one-sided slanderous hatred.


Someone edited out my reference to the nickname "Ronald Ray Gun." As I mention in my revert edit, we cannot simply allow the laudatory nicknames to stand, and I think I have support for this [8]. Quite apart from that discussion, Google yields nearly 27,000 hits for "Ronald Ray Gun" and its variants ("Ronnie" and "Raygun").Fishhead64 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited out the section on nicknames entirely. It would be nice if major edits were accompanied by some explanation of their rationale. Failing this, I've reinserted the section. Fishhead64 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
What you both seem to be missing is that there is an article entirely devoted to the nicknames of presidents. It might be nice to include some of the most popular nicknames, but not all of them--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources

In the references section, memoirs by Reagan and members of his administration were listed as "primary sources." I think this reflects a misconception of what primary sources are. They are things that are contemporary with events, such as Reagan's speech at the Brandenberg gate, diary entries, memos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a memoir is a secondary source, even if it is written by Regan himself. –Joke 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Documents written by Reagan about Reagan are considered primary sources. Historians and librarians normally classify autobiographies and memoirs as primary sources. See for example the library guide at [9]. Rjensen 12:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose in retrospect, that makes sense. Still, it is a bit jarring to see them classed together under the heading "primary sources" when you expect to find documents contemporary with the presidency. How about the more precise "Memoirs"? –Joke 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regan and Central America

I removed the following:

"More disputed was Reagan's consideration of the Salvadoran FMLN and Honduran guerrilla fighters as terrorists, Reagan is widely credited in El Salvador as having helped the country escape the claws of international communism. He helped overturn the communist guerrilla domino effect already reaching El Salvador and Honduras due to Carter´s handing over Nicaragua to the Sandinistas. "

and replaced it with this

"Reagan is widely credited in El Salvador as having helped create the El Salvador Civil War via his staunch support for its undemocratic, right-wing government; the war left 75,000 people dead, 8,000 more missing and and a million each homeless and exiled."

The line about helping (!) El Salvador escaping the claws of international communisim is a bit rich, as it was US support for right-wing regimes that drove the people to leftist partys, only some of whom espoused communism. It and the following line are far too POV, and read like they were written by someone from the State Department in a 1968 mindset. Any comments on the above are welcome, as far too little has being written about the destructive effect Regan and US policy has had on the peoples of these regions. Fergananim 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the Reagan administration was directly responsible for 300,000 deaths in Central America in the period 1980-88. These were overwhelmingly peasant farmers. All this to protect the profits margins of United Fruit and Del Monte.SmokeyTheFatCat 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regan and Brian Mulroney

Should there be some sort of discussion regarding Reagan's friendship with Brian Mulroney in the four years they were leaders together? In Peter C. Newman's "The Secret Mulroney Tapes" on page 305 a conversation is quoted where Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) said (paraphrased) "It's the only thing that'll move mountains around here, when the president gets up in the morning and says, 'I want this done. My pal Brian wants this, and that's that...Everybody in Washington knows that Reagan's special relationship is now with Mulroney."

very good idea. I have not read the tapes so please write up a short section. What were the policies under discussion? Rjensen 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
For Regan's relationship with Mulroney to warrant much discussion here it would have to be shown to have influenced more than just Canada-U.S. relations. --Tedd 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Reagan coalition

A somewhat stubby and POV article may belong in the main article. Alba 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding something on this is quite necessary, but the mentioned text is very POV and should be rewritten entirely. Having an independent article is a good idea, since it could be refernced by many other articles, such as the Republican Party article, and the Reagan article. For now, though, we should consider writing a new Reagan coalition piece, because the current one stinks so much I deleted it, for reasons explained at the article's talk page. Demaratus83 19:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Assassination attempt details

Was Reagan the only President to actually be hit by a bullet as President and survive? Because we've got loony toons changing that section, and saying things like Andrew Jackson survived and assassination attempt? I've never heard THAT one? It's false, right? Demaratus83 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In Jackson's case, the assailant's pistols misfired, so Jackson took no bullets from that incident. With his cane he whacked his assailant, who then was institutionalized. This incident is not to be confused with the Jackson-Dickinson duel of 1806, which happened more than 20 years before Jackson became Pres, & in which he DID sustain a bullet so close to his heart that he carried it for the rest of his life. Roxtar 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing BIO stuff

There are some major points about RR that seem to be missing.

First, my mom, who is still alive, met Ronald Reagan at Chapman college in 1947. What was he doing at Chapman College you may ask? He was a campus recruiter for the American Socialist Party. That's right he tried to recruit my mom into the socialist party! This membership seems to be missing from his Bio.

Second, I believe you will find that in 1949 Ronald Reagan became an FBI informant.

Third, that he testified at the McCarthy hearings is not mentioned either. By the way, he testified against many former friends.

Fourth, his greatest passion was horses and he was an expert horseman in the English style of riding and owned horses trained for Dressage.

07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Great story--please have your mom write it up for a history journal and then we can use the story! (otherwise it is original research.) Rjensen 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me joaquin_menendez_ if you have any questions. Remove the '_'s from the email address before using it.

POV check

Could someone who isn't a Republican or Democrat go through this please. PMA 09:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

reverted, I reverted your edit for two reasons. One, stating that the budget was over 200 billion doesn't really add anything to the page, since it was well over 200 billion long before Reagan took office. Stating that the national debt tripled isn't really true, either, although "nearly tripled" is; however, I'm not sure that by itself it's really necessary. Please reconsider what you're trying to say and try to present it more coherently. References would help. -Syberghost 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


President Reagan did NOT kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS... he spoke at the Neshoba County Fair in MS in August 1980, but 1)it was not his kick-off (his kick-off was in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend, with the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop) and 2) although Philadelphia is in Neshoba County, the fairgrounds, where Reagan spoke, are several miles away

Reagan won 49 of 50 states in his reelection campaign vs. Mondale... that is a landslide

There is simply not valid evidence to substantiate a claim that Reagan's tax policies resulted in a loss of "huge" amounts of tax revenues (because a left-wing author wrote a book to discredit Reagan, doesn't make the book true)

The fact is that income tax revenues doubled during the Reagan years, from $517 - $1032 billion.

Regarding the claim that Reaganomics was unsuccessful in stimulating the economy, consider:

GNP 1-1-81 3084.1 billion GNP 1-1-89 5390.9

Increase during Reagan administration: 2306.9 74.8%

GNP 1-1-93 6580.0 GNP 1-1-01 10.060.2

Increase during Clinton administration: 3480.2 52.9%

Again, your personal bias is not sufficient to revert valid edits (comments by User: Pollinator 10:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit I should have looked this one over more carefully before reverting. But User, you would gain credibility if you would sign in. Most of the periodic vandalism that occurs on this and similar pages comes from anon users, and we administrators on vandalism patrol tend to home in on anon edits. Sometimes it becomes a race to keep ahead of the annoying group of brats and malcontents that live here anonymously. Oh, well. It's time for some shut-eye. Life will get better afterwards. Further, you should sign your posts on talk pages. Pollinator 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

History, grammar, and reality...

1. The Reagan administration holds the record for convictions for corruption in the twentieth century. Over twenty of Reagan's staffers were convicted of crimes against their office. For comparison, Nixon had eight staffers convicted and Clinton one. The level of corruption is so extreme that it is an essential part of any history of Reagan. To leave it out is to be duplicitious as to the full nature of the administration.

2. Only conservative historians regard Reagan as responsible for the downfall of communism. There are no liberal historians or political scientists anywhere who take that seriously.

3.Good grammar dictates that in the chapter entitled "governorship", the opening sentence should read in the "he worked with Democratic Assembly Speaker....", not "Democrat Assembly Speaker". Wikipedia should not be about subordinating good grammar to partisan games.

4. On the subject of abortion, it simply conjecture that he was disappointed by O'Connor and Kennedy's votes. It is a fact of history that he signed into law California liberal abortion policies, and if we're going to discuss whether he was anti-choice or not, his actual historically affirmed actions must take precedence over dreamy-eyed supposition.

5. Margaret Thatcher statement that he won the Cold War without firing a shot is an opinion on her part. And opinion not shared, most notably, by Gorbachev.

6. Reagan did not attend Bel Air Presbyterian regularly. In fact, he virtually never attended. This statement is a flat out lie.

7. If Roosevelt's polio is a legitimate topic of discussion in his presidency, then Reagan's Alzhiemer's is as well. It is a fact of history, observed by millions that Reagan was genuinely incoherent in his first debate with Mondale. It is also a fact that Lesley Stahl found him completely non-lucid in 1986 and that Larry Speakes requested that she not reveal Reagan's deplorable condition to the world. I provided a link on that one.

Here is what is written about Roosevelt: <In August 1921, while the Roosevelts were vacationing at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Roosevelt was stricken with poliomyelitis, a viral infection of the nerve fibers of the spinal cord, probably contracted while swimming in the stagnant water of a nearby lake. The result was that Roosevelt was totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down. At first the muscles of his abdomen and lower back were also affected, but these eventually recovered. Thus he could sit up and, with aid of leg braces, stand upright, but he could not walk. Unlike in other forms of paraplegia, his bowels, bladder and sexual functions were not affected. Although the paralysis resulting from polio had no cure (and still does not, although the disease is now very rare in developed countries), for the rest of his life Roosevelt refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed. He tried a wide range of therapies, but none had any effect. Nevertheless, he became convinced of the benefits of hydrotherapy, and in 1926 he bought a resort at Warm Springs, Georgia, where he founded a hydrotherapy center for the treatment of polio patients which still operates as the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation (with an expanded mission), and spent a lot of time there in the 1920s. This was in part to escape from his mother, who tried to resume control of his life following his illness>

And here is what is written about Woodrow Wilson: <On October 2, 1919, Wilson suffered a serious stroke that almost totally incapacitated him; he could barely move his own body. The extent of his disability was kept from the public until after his death. Wilson was purposely, with few exceptions, kept out of the presence of Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, his cabinet or Congressional visitors to the White House for the remainder of his presidential term. Meanwhile, his second wife, Edith Wilson, served as steward, selecting issues for his attention and delegating other issues to his cabinet heads. This was, as of 2006, the most serious case of presidential disability in American history, and was later cited as a key example why ratification of the 25th amendment was seen as important.> [edit]

Smokingmaenad 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV is coming pretty thick and heavy here. "conviction of staffers" counts acts of people after the left the government. "Downfall of Communism" -- about half the historians and political scientists say Reagan was primarily responsible--groups that are about 15% conservative. He is widely credited--probably a majority--in Eastern Europe and Russia itself. (The problem with the alternative is that Empires don't fall all by themselves.) The statement that "There are no liberal historians or political scientists anywhere who take that seriously" is simply false. Start with John Gaddis latest book. For example what scholars call the "Orthodox view" is "the Soviet Union's capitulation and the Cold War victory for the forces of freedom and democracy were ultimately due to the relentless application of the West's military superiority and the dynamism of its ideas and economic system. These factors revealed communism's moral illegitimacy and highlighted its economic stagnation." [Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations ed Salla and Summy . 1995. P 3]. Now there are dissenters from the orthodox view, but it dominates the literature. As for medical diagnosis, Wiki should stick with the standard biographies. Rjensen 03:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree; Smokingmaenad, have you read the policy on Neutral Point of View? From your recent edits, I have to ask. -Syberghost 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact, my edits are historically neutral. The heavily biased point of view that existed in the article before hand is being eliminated. Reagan did have significantly more staffers convicted of corruption than any other president in the twentieth century - that is a historical fact that is significant and revealing. And this nonsense idea that he was responsible for the fall of communism is not echoed anywhere in serious scholarly articles across the spectrum. It's just not there. It's pure fiction and is not appropriate POV for a neutral article. 18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Smokingmaenad 18:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The convictions of staffers related to crimes commited against their office. Whether they weren't charged until later is irrelevant. Two staffers - Nofziger and Deaver - were convicted of illegal lobbying. Had they not recently left a job in the administration, they wouldn't have been violating the law. I'm finishing drawing up a list of the convicts and their crimes and will be adding in this week.

As for this nonsense about Reagan and the Soviet Union, serious historians consistently agree that the Russians themselves were responsible for getting rid of their despised tyranny - the communists were not popular with average Russians. CIA estimates in the late seventies predicted the Soviet Union would collapse in the next decade. Those estimates, ridiculed by Reagan, proved to be accurate. In order to give Reagan credit, you have to ignore the fact that the Soviets had sufficient nuclear weapons to blow us to kingdom come, and you must also ignore the tens of thousands who went to their deaths and to the gulags to protest their government. No, Reagan does not seriously get credit for having any impact of the Soviet Union. They were a broken, tottering government when he took office. This is just childish hagiography. I have no reason to think of Gaddis as anything other than a fairly conservative professor - there are lots of them. I've read a fair amount of books, and I know of no one outside of partisans who feel this way. In particular, in the east, where people who had family members that went to their deaths opposing the Soviets, the idea that Reagan is responsible is regarded as American egoism and ignorance.

Reagan's notorious senility, in particular during his second term, is a matter of historical record and it is as relevant as FDR's polio and Wilson's stroke. Smokingmaenad 18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that POV is a high risk for this article. Every assertion has to be the consensus of scholars and fully documented. If there is no consensus then the two or three leading theories have to be presented, and references, and with Wiki staying neutral. We don't talk about "childish hagiography" here we talk about history. Rjensen 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No one has documented in any way Reagan's responsiblity for the fall of the Soviet Union; it's simply an assertion made - nothing more. If you can come up with numerous, well regarded American scholars who agree he's primarily responsible, then it's a fair addition. No one has presented any evidence that he's held in high esteem in the east, and I've never read anything that indicates that he is. Gorbachev complained that Reagan made his job harder. I'd suggest you come with fifteen or twenty mainstream American scholars and another twenty or so eastern ones if you want to stand a chance of making the claim that anything besides American ego drives that assertion.

Go ahead - document that most scholars feel that way - well known liberals as well as well known conservative ones. I think you'll quickly find it's a partisan fairy tale. Smokingmaenad 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Documentation: the "Orthodox view" is "the Soviet Union's capitulation and the Cold War victory for the forces of freedom and democracy were ultimately due to the relentless application of the West's military superiority and the dynamism of its ideas and economic system. These factors revealed communism's moral illegitimacy and highlighted its economic stagnation." [Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations ed Salla and Summy . 1995. P 3]. People who have not read all the info about east european admiration for reagan ought to get started with the books listed in the bibliography. Rjensen 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The "relentless application of the West's military superiority" began under President Truman in Greece with the Truman Doctrine. I don't see how the above quote validates the notion that Reagan is chiefly responsible for ending the Cold War. Griot 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One book does validate your assertion. By your standard, it must be agreed on across the board, and by genuine scholars. You're presenting one book that may, or may not, validate that view. Considering the thousands of lives lost protesting conditions in the Soviet Union, it's going to take a lot more than one book to make the case that Reagan is held in high esteem in eastern Europe and that he is widely regarded as being the primary factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Smokingmaenad 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the bibliography lists a dozen or so books, esp collections of scholarly essays, that evaluate RR and ending of Cold War. Most of them give him X credit, where X ranges from 10% to 50%. Rjensen 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The book is still only the author's opinion and may well have taken the other writers statements out of context. In order to make your case, you're going to need to assemble a list of books by many different authors - across the political spectrum - that make that point. One book with lots of references does not accomplish that. I've read a lot of books on Reagan and on history and I know of no one serious who credits Reagan with the downfall of the Soviet Union - it's almost entirely a partisan point of view. So yeah - your job is to assemble a broad of scholars with credentials across the political spectrum, along with the titles of the books they're written, and then you'll have something. But presenting one book with a burgeoning bibliography doesn't even remotely accomplish what you wish. Smokingmaenad 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

here's a quote from Poland: by Lech Welesa "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989" (2004 at [10] Helmut Kohl, chancellor of West Germany in the 1980s, said, "He was a stroke of luck for the world. Two years after Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear down the wall, he noted, it fell and 11 months later Germany was reunified. We Germans have much to thank Ronald Reagan for." Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said, "President Reagan was a determined opponent of Communism and he played an important role in bringing an end to Communism and to the artificial division of Europe imposed after the Second World War." Vaclav Havel, who became the Czech president in 1989, said, "He was a man of firm principles who was indisputably instrumental in the fall of Communism." [11] Need more quotes? Rjensen 06:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One Polish revolutionary, whose own beginning work pre-dates Reagan's ascension, and one book do not substantiate the claim that is being made - that Reagan is held is high esteem through out Eastern Europe and that he is widely responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union. What must be present is the opinion of scholars across the political spectrum through out the world. If you want to make this claim, you have a lot more digging to do. Smokingmaenad 18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have listed dozens of scholars and some of the top national leaders who made very explicit statements. The problem I think is POV here. Time for the critics to produce their FIRST quotes and their FIRST scholarly cites. Rjensen 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact, you've only listed one scholar and a handful of unveriable statements from statesmen with no context provided whatsoever. You're making the claim that Reagan is responsible for something. I'm challenging the claim because you cannot document it. Again, you need to produce a list of scholars across the political spectrum that validate your claim. You make the claim - you validate it.

I'm making the claim that he had over twenty staffers convicted and I'm putting together a list of convicts and their crimes, along with online links whereever possible to validate that. A conviction is a black and white matter unlike the mountain you're trying to climb.

I'm also making the claim that he was senile while in office and produced the link to the Lesley Stahl book to verify that. I could also provide a link to David Stockman as well, I suppose. He also complained about Reagan's early senility. Smokingmaenad 18:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No I in fact was the person who compiled the bibliography for the article. You really ought to start reading some of the titles--you will be amazed at the information that they contain. As I said, most of them talk about his role in ending the Cold War. I guess if one has to choose betwen senility and wilfull ignorance---well you decide. Rjensen 07:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, then validate your claim here and now. Which of those books, and those authors specifically make the claim that he was responsible for the downfall of communism. Be direct. You've referenced only book so far - I personally don't think you've read any others. So, here, in this discussion forum, tell us which books claim he was responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union, and what specifically they said in their assessment.

BTW, with the exception of Walesa's quote, all of your quotes were from Reagan's funeral. It's very sweet those people said that but eulogies are not noted for their sober, and austere historical assessments, but rather their graceful indulgence of family mythologies. Smokingmaenad 18:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're taking other people to task for not citing sources, but you've spent the day throwing in unsourced accusations carefully worded for maximum POV. Are you trying to make good-faith NPOV additions to this article, or are you on an anti-Reagan crusade here? -Syberghost 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced accusations? Sleepwalking through history is listed in the bibliography. He details the corruption in the Reagan administration in detail. OTOH, this ridiculous idea that he had anything to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union has no real documentation. This guy lists ONE book and quotes from Reagan's funeral. It's preposterous. Anyway, I'm bringing the opening bio into sync with other opening bios of presidents who were equally corrupt. It's motivated me to prepare an entire section that details the scope of the corruption in the Reagan administration and I will be adding sections that explore each of the scandals and the resulting convictions. If I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna do it the whole way.

19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a book with context and footnotes is one thing; writing your own summaries and conclusions is original research. Posting quotes without footnotes is plagiarism. Both are against Wikipedia policy. If you're "gonna do it" the way you've been doing it, you're gonna get reverted, piss people off, and pollute Wikipedia until you finally piss off enough people to get banned. Or, you could drop your crusade, and start acting in good faith to improve the article. Your choice. -Syberghost 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL = Please, quote my original research. And then demonstrate that I plagarized. This ought to be good. 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When you write something that's a conclusion or comparison, it can only be one of two things; original research, or somebody else's material. You originally posted things without citation, then came back later after prodding and provided a citation for them. Either the citation is fraudulent now, or what you posted before was plagiarised. Both times you posted it can't be correct; Haynes didn't write it in between your postings. Also, you have been including conclusions like "the most in the 20th century" that are either original research (your own conclusions) or something Haynes said (that you're not properly indicating is a quote). Either way you're violating policy. That's why we keep editing your information to come into alignment with policy, but try to keep as much of it as we can. If I had a copy of Hayne's book I could do a much better job of keeping the information you want in there; or, you could include it in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies, and then nobody else would have to. I've linked you the policies several times. Read them. The standards for information found in obscure books is higher than that for information readily available on the web, because any editor who cares to can look it up if it's on the web and we're more likely to edit in a citation. With a book, it's up to you to properly cite the source, and if there's doubt it's more likely to get removed as unverifiable. This is why it's customary to discuss substantive changes before adding them, and seek a consensus as to how to phrase them. On an unrelated note, please make use of colons to properly indent your responses. You keep dragging threads back to the lefthand side and it's getting nearly impossible to follow these discussions as a result. -Syberghost 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What are my unsourced acccusations? Be specific. What I am in favor of removing is the POV that Reagan is chiefly responsible for ending the Cold War - that POV must be substantiated, and having read several books on the subject, that's going to be a very hard thing to do. Whoever is making the claim that Reagan is responsible is the one that must document it. I'm making the claim that Reagan ran the most corrupt administration of the 20th century and I'm happy to document that. Meantime, the bibliography already has Sleepwalking Into History listed, and that is the book that made that claim initially and fleshes it out quite thoroughly. Reagan had over 20 staffers convicted of crimes against their office and that is an extraordinary twentieth century record. that's the claim I'm making and I'm happy to validate it. Whoever is claiming Reagan has the responsibility must flesh out theirs. They aren't. Smokingmaenad 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Still: ZERO quotes, ZERO citations. Here are some more statements by scholars: 1) "Reagan wedded a dramatic increase in military capabilities to a clear exposition of purpose, and it was only at that point that the Soviets became genuinely apprehensive about the new turn in the Cold War. Winning the World: Lessons for America's Future from the Cold War. By: Thomas M. Nichols Praeger. 2002. Page 199.

2) " Ronald Reaganism Ended the Cold War--in the 1960s" by Robert Elias p 33 "Reaganism (more than simply Reagan) helped end the Cold War only because it significantly motivated the global forces that more directly produced the changes we have seen in the last few years. In particular, Reaganism helped create, rejuvenate, and launch the social and political movements--both in the East and the West--that deserve far more credit for the Cold War's decline. " p 33 3) Daniel Yankelovich and Larry Kaagan, "Assertive America," Foreign Affairs. America and the World 1980 59, no. 3 ( 1981): 696. they congratulate President Reagan for exorcising the ghost of Vietnam and replacing it "with a new posture of American assertiveness." 4) John Lewis Gaddis, “Hanging Tough Paid Off,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 45 (January-February, 1989): 11-14. Rjensen 08:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actual quotes from Russians themselves:

1) Genrikh Aleksandrovich Trofimenko in President Reagan and the World p 134 [Professor of Diplomacy and Chief Analyst with the Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.] "I also believe that it was President Reagan who won the Cold War, though prerequisites for such a victory were building gradually, and the policy of containment was really a well-devised strategy "to increase enormously the strains under which Soviet policy must operate," and, in this way, "to promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the breakup or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power," 2) Jack F. Matlock, Jr said: The head of the Russian cinematographers union told me: "I tried to explain that Russians consider him a great leader because he told the truth about the Soviet Union and then tried to change it. The change was in the interest of both countries. That's what the great majority of the people of the Soviet Union believed that Ronald Reagan did. And that's why, in any poll of great world leaders at that time, he rated very near the top--the top of any foreign figures, and even ahead of most of their own politicians." Both in President Reagan and the World 1997. page 122,134.

The person who makes the claim must validate it - not vice versa. It's up to you to prove that's your claim is well grounded. You haven't even begun to accomplish that. Because so much work was done to destabilize the Soviet Union long before Reagan came on the scene, by both Soviet citizens and governments of the free world, you must be able to cite a significant number of well-received scholarly works which have a central theses, that Ronald Reagan is the reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union and which spell out over hundreds of pages why he is the central element in the downfall.

Making a glib statement is one thing. Fleshing it out over 400 pages is another. Getting those four hundred pages past your peer is another thing again. Smokingmaenad 18:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to present something that is factually true while still conveying one's opinion. This is what smokingmaenad is doing when he adds the note about how "The Reagan administration was marred by an extraordinary level of corruption". Words like "marred" and "extraordinary" have no place in an encyclopedia article. And the lack of context is also equivalent to a statement of opinion. The majority of these convictions came from a single incident, the Iran/Contra scandal, in which Reagan was not implicated. Calling it a "twentieth century record" is just editorializing. There may be a place for the convictions in this article, but the proposed text is blunt and opinionated. Rhobite 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Smokingmaenad, please stop adding that statement in the article while we discuss it. Several editors, including myself, have taken issue to the point of view and verifiability of the addition:
The Reagan administration was marred by an extraordinary level of corruption. Over twenty staffers were convicted of crimes against their office - a twentieth century record.
First, please provide a verifiable source for your information. Wikipedia only accepts information that is reliable and accepted. After you have done so, please try and make all additions to the articles neutral. As it is now, the statement is very biased, even if true. The Reagan administration is not noted for extraordinary corruption that warrants mentioning in the lead besides the paragraph prior which already names all the major scandals, etc. As several others have already pointed out above, the tone of the addition, along with the choice of many connotative words, contributes to the bias. Please do not re-add this sentence in; you may wish to familiarize yourself with the three revert rule, which may be grounds for blocking if you continue to revert without discussing. Discussion and consensus is the key to Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the bibliography, you'll find listed Haynes Johnson's Sleep Walking Through History. Here's a quote from that book: "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

And here is who Haynes Johnson is:

And here's Pulitzer Prize winning Joe Conason at Salon putting some meat on those bones:

The millions of words of hagiographic copy uttered and written this week will make scant mention of the scandal epidemic that marred Reagan's presidency (aside from the Iran-contra affair, which few commentators understand well enough to explain accurately). Disabled by historical amnesia, most Americans won't recall -- or be reminded of -- the scores of administration officials indicted, convicted or expelled on ethics charges between 1981 and 1989. snip These cases affected the nation's health, security and financial soundness. Consider the example of the EPA, where Reagan's contempt for environmental regulation led to the appointment of dishonest, incompetent people who coddled polluters instead of curbing them. Dozens of them were forced to resign in disgrace, after criminal and congressional investigations, and several went to prison. Or consider the HUD scandal, in which politically connected Republicans criminally exploited the same housing assistance programs they routinely denounced as "wasteful." Billions in EPA Superfund and HUD dollars were indeed wasted because of their corruption. Reagan's HUD Secretary Sam Pierce took the Fifth Amendment when called to testify about the looting of his agency -- the first Cabinet official to seek that constitutional protection since the Teapot Dome scandal. But he wasn't the only Cabinet official to fall in scandal. So did Attorney General Edwin Meese, in the Wedtech contracting scandal, and so did Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the Iran-contra affair (although he was pardoned at the 11th hour by President George H.W. Bush). The Pentagon procurement scandals, which involved literally dozens of rather unpatriotic schemes to rip off the military, revealed the system of bid-rigging and gift-greasing that accompanied Reagan's defense buildup. Worse, the president had been warned, two years before the scandal broke, about the growing allegations of fraud within the Defense Department by a blue-ribbon commission he had appointed. When the scandal broke with a series of FBI raids in 1988, he was about to leave the White House. Now, I recognize that there are those who will want to disregard the paragraphs above because they're written Conason. I use them merely to illustrate that the corruption is recognized as being across the board and staggering in its breadth. And again, no other president in the twentieth century comes close. Not Nixon. Not Clinton. Not Hoover. No one had so many scandals with so many people involved.

Here's a source that includes the extreme number of people who were forced to step down as well.

In Nixon's opening bio, his being forced to step down is mentioned. In Clinton's opening bio, impeachment is mentioned. In Harding and Grant's opening bio, the extraordinary level of corruption in their presidencies is mentioned as well. Reagan shouldn't be allowed to slide - setting the record for the greatest level of convicted staffers is something someone looking Reagan up needs to know. Smokingmaenad 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he was asking for you to defend your position, Smokingmaenad; he was probably asking (and I was asking) that you cite sources in the article, and in the proper manner. Also that it be placed in the proper section. Your most recent edit that I moved met all of these things in my opinion except placement, and I fixed that for you. Thanks for joining us in consensus on this; it makes the article better. -Syberghost 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

However, all the other presidents that had extraordinary corruption had it listed in their opening bio as I listed below. Is Reagan to be held to a different standard than Nixon? Is Reagan to be held to a different standard than Clinton. I'm putting it back unless you can demonstrate why it's unfair. Smokingmaenad 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(ec and before I saw the new addition) Thank you for clarifying your souce. However, as pointed out above, facts can be worded so that they are biased and convey a point of view, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The article may mention scandals, resignations, and such, but using language with many connotative meanings (contempt, dishonest, disgraced, exploited, etc.) is also not acceptable. We strive to provide the most factual, accurate and comprehensive information possible, and wording which may indicate the author's bias cannot be accepted. Also, I note that you've made reference to several of Wikipedia's other articles - note that each individual president is unique, and a general comparison of them would be flawed. Nixon's resignation, along with the scandals under Harding and Grant, are considered notable events that are of major significance in the respective articles; the inclusion was because of agreement on editors on those pages, who agreed that the events were considered significant and important enough to merit inclusion in the lead. In this case, it may not; you may wish to see Wikipedia's policy on original research for more information. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reagan had more staffers convicted on corruption charges than any other president in the twentieth century. Nixon had only staffers convicted, and Harding even fewer. How is the fact that Reagan had the MOST corrupt administration by OBJECTIVE standards not a significant factor in his presidency? Smokingmaenad 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Clinton and Nixon had impeachment problems for their own behavior not that of aides, In the Haynes Johnson tabulation, the alleged crimes hapopened after the people left the government. Note that Johnson footnotes his book--except for that page (184) which is not referenced--no source given. That indicates rumor rather than research. Rjensen 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the convictions were from crimes that took place during Reagan's presidency and in fulfillment of their appointed positions. Smokingmaenad 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sleepwalking Into History is a book that exposes the corruption of the Reagan administration and details the investigations, the participants and the crimes the Reagan staffers committed. Everyone of those people is listed in the book, along with what they were investigated/indicted/convicted for. It is a summary of his work that is fully explored through out the 500+ pages. The only way you can argue with this is to do your own research and prove him wrong. It is a statement of fact that he fleshes through the book. Smokingmaenad 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

well it's true that Johnson is a very hostile source. However he does NOT provide any information on other presidents. So Wiki has no verified source that Reagan's team had more or less convictions than other presidents. Johnson normally footnotes his evidence but NOT this time. He also includes people who were found innocent--surely they should not b counted as guilty.Rjensen 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know he doesn't footnote it? Do you have it at hand? Please, tell us what he said exactly. And remember, two Pulitzer Prize winning, research journalists have stated for the record that Reagan had the most convictions. I think it's up to you to prove that false. Nixon, Bush Sr. and Warren Harding are the only others in the twentieth century that could even begin to compete. Eight people were convicted in Watergate - read All The President's Men. I'm gonna find something on Harding.

Smokingmaenad 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Reagan "virtually never attended" Bel Air Pres., calling it a "flat-out lie" ? I attended Bel Air Pres while Reagan was alive and I saw him (and Nancy) more often than not before his Alzheimer's got very bad...

His Alzheimers was bad when he left the White House. He barely even went to his office in Century City. But go read Dutch - the author addresses the fact that Reagan never in his adult life attended church with any frequency. I'm looking for my copy right now. When I find it, I'll get a quote up. In the meantime, unless you have a verified, news source or credible historian saying otherwise, it doesn't belong up there. By the way, what pastor was there when you attented? 01:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've provided a two mainstream, credible news sources for my statement that Reagan had more staffers investigated, indicted and/or convicted than any administration in the twentieth. I've taken out the legal phrase "crimes against their office" - a phrase used to connote various corruption charges - and replaced it with the mysteriously preferred "criminal charges", and I've demonstrated that the other presidents who had extraordinary levels of corruption in their administration all have that corruption referred to in their opening bio. So my question is - as I have documented the statement and as the statement is in keeping with the bios of other presidents, why does the line keep getting removed? It no more belongs down the page, than Grant or Harding's corruption does. 138 staffers is a twentieth century record - that deserves to be noted upfront. Smokingmaenad 02:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a criticism for which he's not generally known. It's obscure material, and belongs in his Criticism section now that you're citing sources. That's why it gets moved. Grant and Harding are known for extraordinary corruption in their administration. Reagan isn't. There's therefore no CONSENSUS for putting this information at the top. Please note that word "consensus" this time; it's something you keep leaving out. -Syberghost 13:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. It's partisan and it's preposterous. Reagan set the record for corruption in the twentieth century. That is an essential feature of his administration. Like every other president known for corruption, it should be acknowledged in his upfront bio and expanded upon in the body of the article. Smokingmaenad 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it Wikipedia's point to provide information, not reaffirm information that is already well-known? Whether it is common knowledge or not, the corruption in the Reagan administration is a major part of the history of his presidency, and I too feel it should be included at the article's beginning (devoid of POV wording, of course). -- Fearfulsymmetry 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Smokingmaenad, I sympathize with your desire to include this vital information, but you have to keep the wording in a neutral tone if you want the editors to keep the information in the article. Adding negative information is not the issue here, its the negative tone you present when you add the information. If you include the Reagan administration's negative actions into the article with a neutral, scholarly tone, it is much more likely to remain in the article. Just a suggestion -- Fearfulsymmetry 18:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I started attending Bel Air Pres shortly before Donn Moomaw left... Rev. Paul Pierson came in after him... 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Somokingmaenad, I've removed the following paragraph that you added:
In 1984, in the first presidential debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan appeared to be incoherent and wandering in his responses. He recovered sufficiently during the second debate to win the election. In 1986 however, while interviewing him for a "going away article," reporter Lesley Stahl arrived at the Oval Office to find Reagan in a glazed-eyed, non-lucid state. She writes that she was worried she was going to have to tell the nation that the president of the United States was a "doddering space cadet"; however, he recovered and the interview went forward. White House Spokesman Larry Speakes asked her not to reveal to the nation the condition that she found the president in, and she obliged.
This paragraph needs to be referenced by verifiable sources, and also needs to be rewritten in a non-point of view manner. Currently, it consists of unsourced facts and opinions, such as saying that he appeared "incoherent and wandering". (Who thought he was "incoherent and wandering"?) Could I request that you don't re-add that paragraph until you discuss it on the talk page first and gain agreement that it is ready to be re-added to the article? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is a site that descrbes the Lesley Stahl quote (it's about halfway down) [12] There's also [13] but considering it's a left-leaning organization, I didn't know if you would accept it. -- Fearfulsymmetry 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I've also removed the section titled "Who was Ronald Reagan?" There's absolutely no need for that section; the article should answer that question already. The section consisted of a few quotes about Reagan, most of them negative, with no context at all. We're not here to have a collection of quotes about Ronald Reagan (as such a thing would be more appropriate for Wikiquote); we're here to write an article about him. While some quotes about him may be appropriate, another section for a few random quotes is not appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple notes - someone rewrote the Lesley Stahl paragraph after I put it in and that's when the link to the Lesley Stahl book was deleted.

It seems to me that you only remove negative stuff about Reagan. There's a lot of fatuous information there - the whole section entitled the Great Communicator for one. Have you considered removing the fluff before you remove the substance?

Smokingmaenad 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the wording of the Lesley Stahl paragraph because it was poorly writen, and edited the paragraph before that because it contained vandalism. The content remained the same. -- Fearfulsymmetry 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Waiting on the evidence that Reagan did NOT attend Bel Air Pres regularly

Grammar - Democrat vs. Democratic I've often wondered about this. You are upset about the usage of 'Democrat Assembly Leader'. Had the Assembly Leader been a member of the Republican party, you would say 'Republican Assembly Leader."

The problem is that Democrat and Democratic are both used, while Republican is used for both the noun and the adjective. So people get mixed up. I think your classification of it as "partisan games" might have been a little heavy-handed.

The other problem is that people get democratic and Democratic mixed up. (Of course it doesn't help that the USA is not even really a "democracy" in the purest sense, but that's a whole different argument) Dubc0724 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversies and Scandals:Ronald Reagan

I think we should leave the first paragraph which mentions the scandals and number of convictions to establish the point. We should fork off the list of convictions and scandals to a new Controversies and Scandals:Ronald Reagan page. This will give more room for that subject and will reduce an already huge wikiarticle to a more digestable size.

Mytwocents 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not oppose this, as long as the mention in the opening was something neutral which didn't draw conclusions (especially ones that are patently either original research or improperly-cited sources) and merely pointed out to the reader that there was a section for scandals. I'm not certain it should be in a seperate article; I think there's value in keeping it as a section in the same article, just with a link down to it. However, I can live with it being seperate also, and would not stand in the way of consensus on that. -Syberghost 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong on the Reagan administration page - it's a significant part of his presidency. He picked those people and empowered them. One or two convictions over eight years is not indicative of a corrupt president - 19 convictions among appointed staffers is. That's a very, very big deal. It should remain right where it is. There is a lot of redundancy on that page, and ephemera. This is substantial information about Reagan that is critical to anyone who is reading up on it.

By the way, are you defining the fact that I counted the convictions as "original research"? 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply write this article in summary style and create daughter articles. Iran-Contra should have its own article already, for example. No need to move all of Reagan's bad policies to another article...savidan(talk) (e@) 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how the list of every conviction benefits this article about Ronald Reagan. None of these significantly impacted his presidency, like Iran Contra did, and a mention of them is already given in the paragraph above. There is simply no reason why a list of every single conviction should be provided here; at best, it would fit in a sub-article, but is certainly not important enough to deem inclusion here. As such, I've gone ahead and removed the list. Please feel free to include the list in a sub-article, when appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It benefits article because it is one the most remarkable of his presidency. Holding the record for the amount of indictments and conviction is a very important thing to know about. I'm absolutely stunned by this and am going to expose to as wide an audience as possible. As with all other presidents, the scandals should be referred to in the opening bio, and there should be a fairly lengthy explanation of what the problems are. This is an absolutely disgraceful decision that benefits who prefer ignorance to knowledge. 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Holding the record: that's imaginary. What are the numbers for other presidents? Without knowing the others the statement is simply empty. Rjensen 05:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't imaginary. You have the on record, plublished statement of two Pulitzer Prize winning research journalists that it's the case. However, I'd be happy to research the Nixon administration, and prove it's the case, providing the same kind of links I do here for Reagan. What is so disgraceful here is that the statement about corruption - which Reagan has fully earned - has been removed from the opening bio as it is with every other president who was known, as Reagan is and was, for an extraordinary level of corruption. This is Wikipedia embracing ignorance, prefering mythology to empirical reality. Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. 06:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote Reagan, "there you go again". You're saying you'll do original research to prove your claim. If Haynes said it was a record, quote him. If he didn't, quote another source. If not, provide sourced numbers for if not all other presidents, then at least all presidents known for having a lot of them. Otherwise, it's either original research or you're not citing sources. You have an agenda you're trying to push; wanting your POV out isn't our own POV, it's Wikipedia policy. If anything, the efforts of those who disagree with you has led to MORE information being on Wikipedia about these scandals, not less. But regardless, pointing out that it's a record is POV by definition. There is an example in the official policy on this, that talks about calling Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler evil; that's POV. Listing their deeds tells the story in an NPOV way. Labelling it is POV. It's the same for this. Calling it a record is POV. Listing the convictions isn't. Numbering them isn't. This is established policy. If you think it's wrong to follow, then you should be commenting on the talk page for the policy and seeking consensus to change it. Good luck, though; Jimbo has declared this policy to be "absolute and non-negotiable" Oh, and would you 'please' sign your comments on talk pages? All you have to do is type four tildes: ~~~~ -Syberghost 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go again - counting is not original research. Providing links to articles that establish the convictions is not research. It's simply providing verification so that partisans can't dispute the charges as some did here.

Fine - we use Haynes Johnson's quote in the opening bio, and include that 19 staffers were convicted. That way he's the one saying that Reagann set the record - not me and no one can accuse him of partisanship. Then further down the page we include a fairly substantial on Iran/Contra, the HUD controversy, and the EPA scandal. Smokingmaenad 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

But the Haynes Johnson book doesn't say 19 convictions. It says 138 convictions, indictments, or "subject of an official investigation". Ellsworth 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Scandals and Controversies

I added a Scandals and Controversies 'Main article: Scandals and Controversies:Ronald Reagan' link with a descriptive paragraph and created a Scandals and Controversies:Ronald Reagan. article, with all of the previous scandals listed there. Someone has already left a template on the talk page asking to rename the page and discuss the page content, which is fine by me.

Alright, I've added the Haynes Johnson to the upper bio to assauge concerns of original research and plagarism. It's short as are the references to corruption in the Grant, Harding and Nixon bios. I've expanded information on the scandals and moved the scandal section up so that it is beneath domestic policy and above "the great communicator". I've provided links to the Reagan scandal page. It seems to me that it addresses everyone's concerns and is a fair compromise on how the subject should be handled.

Smokingmaenad 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement has covered the scandal subject pretty well;
The inability of the numerous scandals during his tenure, including the Iran-Contra Affair, the bombing in Beirut, and convictions of officials in his administration, to negatively impact his approval ratings earned him the nickname, "Teflon President."
I think that is an adequate mention for the opening statement. Regarding weight and balance, this article got by with just this statement to cover the scandal angle up until this week. Now we have a scandal section, and a Scandal and Controversies subpage, that I made last night, using the list of scandals that was inserted into this page. I think this page now puts too much emphasis on scandal to be considered a neutral article. We need to pare down the scandal statements.
Mytwocents 04:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement then should be removed. If you think that makes too heavy, I have no problem taking that. It's an insubstantial statement that adds nothing to the discussion. Smokingmaenad 05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But this statement has stood the test of time, in this article. It reflects the reality of the time; Reagan's approval numbers remained high, despite the scandal coverage, and it is more NPOV than the statement that was added last week. There is too much weight given to scandal now than the facts warrant.
Mytwocents 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Record level convictions require more reference than the other presidents he's being compared to. It's that simple - you set the record on something significant, then that deserves to be prominent and upfront. Subordinating to a half a sentence cloaked in compliment is dishonest, it's bad faith, it's misleading. The article is disgraceful and dishonest on so many different fronts - let this be one part that's right on.
Smokingmaenad 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've reinserted the sentence back into the lead, because the Iran Contra Affair was a significant part of Reagan's administration. Being known as the "Teflon President" is also very relevant to Reagan and is considered significant; the sentence adequately summarizes the scandals in the lead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So a nickname is as signficant as record level corruption? That's just nonsense. It's biased and it reduces Reagan to a joke. Ohhh, isn't he cute - this is his nickname. For Pete's sakes - I under you like the guy, but c'mon - if you like him, stand with what he did. Don't turn him into a fetish. Say, yeah, this is what he did, and this was the fall out, and I approve.

Thanks! 06:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Smokingmaenad 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It stood the test of time because no one has taken the time to compare how Wiki handles other president's with corruption in their record. I notice that neither of you have the courage to address that directly. You're taking the worst corruption in the twentieth century and cloaking in a compliment. That's fundamentally dishonest and unworthy of what this resource tries to be. Further, the scandals are much more important than the fact that he was known as the Great Communicator. I'm putting it back, and we'll just have to battle out I guess. You want a dishonest picture and I want an honest picture. Smokingmaenad 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you meean by 'battle it out', but I would ask that you assume good faith regarding other editors, and that you would participate in consensus on any additions made to this article. This page needs to maintain NPOV.
Mytwocents 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain how moving the paragraph about the scandal BELOW a paragraph about his nickname produces balance. You flcelloguy are both reducing Reagan to a cartoon character. His nickname is a minor aspect of his presidency - it tells what the press thought of him. The corruption tells us something about him. It's bizarre to me that anyone anywhere would think that there should even be a paragraph entitled, The Great Communicator, and that it is more significant than a paragraph on record level corruption, Bizarre. As someone pointed out to me, it reads like hagiography.
This is what it says about Nixon (who was, objectively speaking, not as corrupt as Reagan):

and the only president to have resigned that office. His resignation came in the face of imminent impeachment related to the Watergate scandal.

This is what it says about Warren G. Harding who couldn't hold candle to Reagan when it came to corruption:

Due to a number of scandals involving others in his administration, after his death Harding gained a reputation as being one of America's least successful presidents

And this is what it says about Grant who didn't have nearly as much corruption either:
By contrast, presidential historians rank his administration near the bottom, primarily because of corruption, even though Grant's own reputation for personal integrity has remained largely intact.
So go ahead- explain how Reagan, who's administration succumbed to many more convictions than any of those, rates a reference to corruption cloaked in a compliment?
What you guys want is a biased, dishonest article. You want to pretend as if Reagan's corruption is no worse or different than anyone elses. That isnt' the case. He made choices that other president didn't and wouldn't make. Those decisions resulted in him appointing and nominating people who didn't follow the law. The number of people he appointed who were criminals, by objective standards, is the single most remarkable and enduring aspect of his presidency. It should upfront.
Smokingmaenad 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad, could I politely ask you again not to insert any significant text or do any significant moves of text on this article without asking here on the talk page first and gaining a consensus to do so? That way, we can discuss the changes beforehand. I've reverted your move now because "assassination attempt" has absolutely nothing to do with "Religious beliefs", which is what your move did. I'll comment on the move later when I have some more time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Great = let's move religious beliefs farther down the page, and put corruption and scandal where it belongs - underneath domestic/foreign policy. His corruption is the most enduring aspect of his presidency - surely, that's obvious to you. Then put the Haynes Johnson quote back in the opening bio because Reagan set the record and that should be acknowledged upfront. We can finish that paragraph with the reference to him being the Teflon president - everyone is happy then. Smokingmaenad 06:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the 'teflon president' statement to the intro. It was lost to an earlier revert and left the introduction without any reference to scandal. I think the criticism and scandal sections should remain at the bottom of the sub-sections on his presidency. They're basicly sour grapes; putting emphasis on them would be POV. Reagan is remembered as a two-term president that won by landslides, and who stared down the Soviet Union. The scandals, as noted, failed to tarnish his name, or lower his popularity, then or now.
Mytwocents 15:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sad - but this is why the Republicans are going down. They just don't know right from wrong. Record breaking corruption is less important than nicknames. Empirical reality falls to mythologizing. Shame. This is a disgraceful bio and you two are a joke. Smokingmaenad 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mytwocents here. It's not a matter of whether it's "surely obvious to me" - our opinions should have nothing to do with writing a comprehensive, NPOV article. Scandals and controversies is in an appropriate place right now - there's no reason to move it above other major aspects of his presidency which are regarded as more major and defining. Also, as we've pointed out several times, the Haynes Johnson quote does not belong - it simply places too much emphasis on scandals and controversies. I'm sure many Presidents set many different records, but not all of them are deemed important and/or neutral enough to be included, and this is one of them. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because Reagan isn't "remembered" for being corrupt doesn't make it less true. Wikipedia's job isn't to reaffirm well known facts, its purpose is to provide information, and the scandals of the Reagan administration are important information considering their magnitude. Blowing them off by saying that they aren't well known or defining is just ludicrous, almost as ludicrous as saying including them near the top would seem negative, especially in an article that contains a great deal of positive information. The Iran-Contra scandal is one of the most serious presidential scandals of the 20th century, and the Reagan administration's involvment in it is just as important as his successes. Turning this article into a puff-piece by saying the scandals aren't well-known enough is absurd. -- Fearfulsymmetry 13:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This page a 'puff-piece'? There is a large 'critcisms' section and a new 'Scandals and Controversies' section. This page is balanced, NPOV, and provides links to more detailed information. In short, it does the job of a wikipage.
Mytwocents 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is not balanced. it's a joke and Wikepedia should be ashamed of it. You're afraid to deal with Reagan's corruption head on. Smokingmaenad 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Our job is to provide the most accurate, comprehensive, and non-point of view article on the person as possible. Placing undue emphasis on a certain part of someone's life and/or administration makes the article biased. The Iran Contra affair, by the way, already has mention in the lead and is discussed several times in the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you taking my contributions out. Are you saying record breaking corruption doesn't deserve to stand on it's own? Are you saying that they only way it can be referred to in the opening bio is if it's cloaked in a sentence that does nothing minimize it? Smokingmaenad 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the (mistaken) impression you gentlemen (or women) were attempting to expunge any aspect of criticism from the top of the page, not merely against moving the criticism section higher. That is what I meant by turning the article into a puff piece. I apologize for the misunderstanding. The current status of the article suits me fine enough. -- Fearfulsymmetry 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No, what they're attempting to do is make Reagan's corruption as invisible as possible. It's a deeply dishonest piece, and is incredibly biased. My contribution, of course, is factual and allows Reagan's corruption to stand on it's own. Their heavily biased contibution makes a glancing reference to the corruption with cozy environs on his nickname. Obvioiusly, what they want is to emascualte Reagan and turn him into a fluffy little feather of a man with no constitution, no depth, no vision - just a one dimension and juvenile fantasy of a superhero. Go ahead - find a real man anywhere in that bio. Find evidence Reagan can think. Find evidence Reagan had principles. It's not there. All that's there is a rightwing fantasy - and it's utterly disconnected from anything human.
But you were right - they are attempting to turn it into a fluff piece.
Smokingmaenad 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad, your entire list of contributions to Wikipedia appears to consist of: a) injecting negative POV into articles about conservatives. b) injecting positive POV into articles about liberals. c) deleting references to Juantia Broaderick from Bill Clinton. You accuse us of hagiographic editing for trying to work with you to include the information you want in a balanced way, while simultaneously removing bare, cited facts from other articles merely because they portray your heroes in a bad light. You are clearly biased, and if you're not willing to work with the community on this page, you should go edit other pages. You don't care about the integrity of Wikipedia or of this article; you care about pushing your agenda. You can't even be bothered to sign your posts or maintain integrity of discussion threads. -Syberghost 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Broderick reference in the Clinton article because Broderick, when offered the chance to tell her story under oath, refused it. She would not tell her story in a forum where she could questioned or held legally responsible for what she said. Significantly, contemporaneously published public documents dispute her chain events - he could not have been where she says he was when she says he was. Now, if you want to keep the Broderick story in the Clinton bio, I'd be happy to add it to the Reagan and Bush Jr. bios. Fair's fair, right? And actually, the woman who reported the Reagan rape to Kelley did so in a forum where she could personally sued, and held responsible for the story. Broderick never engaged herself in a similar forum.
I'll be happy to pick up the Kelley book and include tales of Reagan violently abusing women - it does add thoughtful perspective to both his domestic and foreign policy. If you don't think that's fair, then the unsubstantiated allegations in the Clinton bio should come out as well.

Your assessments of my contributions are completely dishonest. What I provided on Clinton was some substantiation as to why the charges of impeachment failed - essential information, I would think (ahhh, there's the rub), removed an explanation as to why Bush lost in 92 (belongs on the Bush page, not the Clinton page) and substantiated why Willey's charges went nowhere - she was repeatedly caught in lies by Starr and even needed to have her immunity "refreshed" because she lied so often. Now - how do those contributions display bias?
The problem isn't that I've displayed bias. It's the I've removed bias and you don't like that.
I await your enlightenment.
Smokingmaenad 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Smokingmaenad that the corruption of the Reagan years should be one of more important focuses of this egregiously biased article. I cannot imagine a more bronwn-nosed piece of so-called literature in the history of written language. I read quite a lot of historical texts, and this is simply not an accurate presentation of the facts. I don't know how many people on this board were living and cognizant during the Regan administration, but those who were, had to be aware that nightly cavalcade of news releases that chronicled in great detail the myriad abuses emanating from the White House of those days. The corruption aspect of Regan and his cronies needs to play a much larger role in this bio, as this was the defining characteristic of his tenure of office. If smokingmanead is correct in the assessment of level of corruption of the Regan's years, then this must be upfront and visible to anyone reading any bio of this president. Pletho 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Smokingmaenad, please stop reverting back to your preferred version. You've been reverted back multiple times by various editors, and we've discussed this issue lengthily - most people here do not believe that your changes are appropriate to the article. Remember that this article should be as neutral and unbiased as possible. I'll reply in greater detail later when I have some more time and I'm more awake... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll put it back up until you can provide some kind of answer to my enquiries. If you have a reason why he shouldn't treated as other presidents other than some ridiculous idea that his corruption is "obscure" - I'll be interested in hearing what you have to say. In the meantime, he deserves the same kind of treatment as other presidents.
And there we have it again. "There's no consensus; but everybody stopped talking to me when I yelled, so I'm going to unilaterally put it all back in there despite lack of consensus because I'm Smokingmaenad and what I say GOES." Reverted. -Syberghost 13:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Liars and a partisan Republican agreed it shouldn't go in. That's it. People, such as yourself and RJenson, who are willing to lie in this discussion can't be part of a "consensus" - so yes, I'm putting it back in.
Smokingmaenad 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the fact that you disagree does not mean consensus. Consensus is when everybody either agrees, or can live with a particular level of disagreement. Consensus is not "I feel your arguments are invalid, therefore we will do it my way." If you don't want to work that way, you're in the wrong place, because that's Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if you don't like Wikipedia's policies, but you still have to follow them. -Syberghost 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not that I disagree, it's that you've assembled a deeply POV article and you're objecting to non-POV additions. Two of you who are part of the alleged consensus have been caught lying (that would be you, Syberghost and RJenson), and a third member of the consensus is a partisan Republican. My edits are factual, substantiated and relevant - and that's why you object to them. What you are taking out is factual information handled in the same way that other president's bios are handled - there's no excuse for what you're doing, other than you don't like the truth about Reagan, so you don't want it in. You want your cozy little Care Bear fantasy of him to remain unchallenged. When you revert my edits by the way (which you need to stop doing), you insert blatantly false information. Unlike you guys, I have risen to the challenge of what you demanded - when my paragraphs met all your standards for inclusion, you decided it was "obscure". Ain't gonna work.

Smokingmaenad 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Now, it's time for you to stop reverting substantitive, substantiated and NPOV information that is added. Thanks.

Smokingmaenad 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that you and your sockpuppets are getting 3RR bans, it looks like it's time YOU stopped reverting and started participating meaningfully in building consensus, instead of throwing bricks through the windows of the articles. -Syberghost 19:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppets? LOL! What do you think you're talking about?
Your obedient servant,
This is one way coversation. I'm responding - you aren't. Now, both Jenson and Syberghost have been caught lying = Jenson about Reagan and the rape charge, Syberghost about me and what I've contributed. Someone referred to a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist as hostile, and MyTwoCents alleged "sour grapes". And some of the copy is simply false - there is no one outside of conservatives who regard Reagan as having any responsiblity of the fall of the Soviet Union. When challenged, no one presented any evidence other than ONE book, and eulogies to substantiate this. Somebody also changed the section on scandal I provided to a totally false account , alleging, untruthfully that only ten people were convicted and that several of them for activties that took place after they left office. Lobbying is perhaps what they are thinking of (Nofziger and Deaver) but they broke the laws the restrict when and how an administration staffer can pursue lobbying work AFTER leaving office - iow, it's still a corruption crime because, had they had not held office recently, it wouldn't have been illegal. Saying it was only ten is a blatant lie, and that isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I've added the rape charges as well since Syberghost seems to think that deleting them from the Clinton page was inappropriate. Personally, I'm mystified as to why he wants them in, but he seems to, so take it up with him, if you think it's inappropriate.
As I found the article tonight it was deeply biased or POV as you like to say here. I've restored some NPOV but this article is deeply flawed and dishonest. I will point out that at least two people who object to my changes have been caught lying. Why would you think they know anything about dispassion or truth? Why would they lie?
Smokingmaenad 03:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad, I've tried to explain everything very clearly to you, so apologies if I sound blunt: we encourage discussion here, and we appreciate your input. However, calling other editors "liars and... partisan Republican[s]" and saying that they "are willing to lie in this discussion" is simply not acceptable. The two quotes I cited from you above are only a fraction of the comments you have made that have either implied insult at other Wikipedians or that have suggested that we are acting in bad faith. You may wish to take a look at our policy of no personal attacks and civility. Expressing your opinion on an issue is one thing, but insulting other editors simply is not. Remember to assume good faith on the part of everyone; we're all volunteers here trying to write the most comprehensive, neutral, balanced, and accurate article here.
On that note, Smokingmaenad, I will request once again that you stop reverting the article. We've discussed the issues lengthily here, and most editors think that the additions you inserted are not appropriate. There's simply no excuse for reverting over and over, especially after a discussion; I hope that being blocked for violating the three revert rule makes you realize that wheel warring, edit warring, and blindly reverting going against what is agreed on the talk page is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In addition, would you also mind using edit summaries? I've noticed that most of your contributions don't have any; they really help us by summarizing an edit and also help the hard-working and dedicated people who fight vandalism.
I hope I've explained everything clearly, and I look forward to working with you to improve this article. Please consider my words carefully, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I apologize. We'll move on.
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...I'm clearly coming into this controversy about Reagan's corruption. For those just catching up, here are my contributions to the Reagan hagiography, er, biography that have been reverted out. All are documented with sources. The interesting thing here is that, although what I cite is factual, it's apparently editorializing. You know, like those anti-administration facts...Apparently the idea of conservative bias, or spin-doctoring Reagan's history is lost on the wiki editors.

The reverted (and now gone) text:

...continued deregulation of business, a sharp recession in 1981-1982 followed by an economic expansion starting in '82 that is accurately characterized as an average businesss cycle recovery (See Paul Krugman's "Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations"). It remains a touchstone of neo-conservative deception, however, and is touted by such right-wing Reaganites as run the Wall St. Journal's editorial page as "Morning in America." His "elimination of loopholes" included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing--retroactively--destroying many real estate developments made with this tax break as a premise. This with some other "deregulation" policies (ratified by a Democratic congress) ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history: The S&L Bailout.

"The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980's is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources...the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." --from Martin Mayer's THE GREATEST-EVER BANK ROBBERY The Collapse of the Savings and Loan Industry (Scribner's) ... His detractors cite his domestic failings, like the S&L scandal, and his willingness to pursue what amounted to a foreign policy of terrorism. Consider his administration's depredations into Nicaragua, of which the "Iran Contra" scandal was only a part. Noam Chomsky says "the per capita deaths in Nicaragua would be comparable to about 2.5 million in the United States, which as they have pointed out is greater than the total number of casualties in all U.S. wars, including the Civil War and all wars in the 20th century, and what's left of the society is a wreck." One of the results of this is that U.S. is the only country in the world to be convicted in the World Court of terrorism(See for and account of this citation and accusation) ... "Historians remain divided over the actual grievousness of many of these allegations and crimes. Scholars reasonably describe the graft and corruption around the Grant administration, for example, as gargantuan, including a kickback scandal that led to the resignation of Grant's secretary of war under the shadow of impeachment. Yet the scandals produced no indictments of Cabinet secretaries and only one of a White House aide, who was acquitted. By contrast, the most scandal-ridden administration in the modern era, apart from Nixon's, was Ronald Reagan's, now widely remembered through a haze of nostalgia as a paragon of virtue. A total of twenty-nine Reagan officials, including White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane and deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, were convicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair, illegal lobbying and a looting scandal inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three Cabinet officers -- HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, Attorney General Edwin Meese and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- left their posts under clouds of scandal. In contrast, not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties, despite repeated high-profile investigations and a successful, highly partisan impeachment drive." (Rolling Stone Magazine's article "The Worst President in History?" <>, by Sean Wilenz) Not as an excuse, but a point about the "scandals" in Ronald Reagan's administration- he was a newcomer who knew few people. Prior to being governor of California and then President, he was a democrat, of whom he mistrusted all of them, so he did not have much to choose from. So, he relied on recommendations from people he knew little of. To me, that was disaster ready to strike.

Rape allegation?

On the 1991 page, section 1.4 (April) it says that three US newspapers 'verified' a rape claim against Reagan by Selene Walters. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article? I don't know the history of it at all. Or was it an April fool? — SteveRwanda 10:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

April fool's joke. I just checked NY Times or Washington Post or LA Times and no such story. Rjensen 11:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not an April's joke - it's from Kitty Kelly's book about the Reagan's. Kitty Kelley's method is to meet with people who have a story to tell, and then write the passage about what they say. She then reads the passage back to them in the presence of the publishing company's attorneys. The person is informed that if there is a lawsuit, they'll likely be the target; not the publishing company and with that knowledge, they must affirm in the presence of the attorneys that the story they told Kelley is true and that her proposed version for the book is an accurate retelling. That is why Kelley doesn't get sued.

Yes, the story is out there. There are other presidents who have been accused of rape as well - namely, Bush Jr. and Clinton. Perhaps Wiki needs to come up with a standard policy on charges that are never told in the court of law.

Smokingmaenad 17:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious; you're the guy who keeps trying to remove any reference to Juanita Broaderick's allegations entirely from Bill Clinton. -Syberghost 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Broderick, of course, REFUSED to tell her story under oath, and contemporaneous public documents make clear it could not have happened as she said. Please - how is saying that wiki should come up with a standard policy on unsubstantiated allegations of rape "hilarious"? If you want Broderick charges in the Clinton bio, should not the equally substantial charges be in the Bush and the Reagan bios? Or if you don't them there, should not Broderick's charges be removed from Clinton's bio?
I look forward to you fleshing out your feelings about this.
Smokingmaenad 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the scoop on Kitty Kelly's methods: she makes it up. She's just plain flat a liar. She lies about her political affiliations and contributions (she gave a couple hundred bucks to one Republican so she could say she gives to both parties, then gives thousands to Democrats), she lies about her resume (says she was McCarthy's press secretary, when she was his receptionist), and the reason she can't produce her sources for her accusations are that they're bald-faced lies and if she documented the sources she'd get sued, by the supposed sources. -Syberghost 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My oh my, you're avoiding the topic at hand. If the Clinton story goes in, so does the Reagan one. You have yet to explain what is "hilarious" about unsubstantiated charges of rape.
Second, that news paper account validates my post; not yours. Kelley doesn't get sued because the account that she writes is read to the subject in the presence of the publishing companies attorneys (as this article says), and the subject must agree that it is an accurate retelling of the story they told Kelley. That's in the article. Now, if Kelley made Sharon's account up, why isn't Sharon suing? If she did sue, why hasn't she won? I'll tell you why - because it won't go anywhere. She was read the story in the presence of the attorneys and agreed to it.
Now, are you lying when you say she can't produce sources? Because you have been caught lying so your validity is questionable. How many times has a court required her to produce a source, and she failed? Even once?
I'll be putting the Bush Jr. rape allegation in sometime this week as well. If you've taken the Reagan one out, I'll be putting that back in. There's no getting around it - if you want Broaderick in, Selene Walters must be in as well. I'll thank you to cease editing it out while this is being discussed.
Smokingmaenad 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The policy isn't "do whatever you please and then seek consensus". It's "seek consensus and then do what the consensus agrees". So, the proper thing to do, and what you would do if you had any interest in being a part of this community, would be to seek consensus FIRST, and not make any edit until there is consensus. You are demonstrating once again your unwillingness to cooperate with the community here. I am referring this to the Mediation Cabal to see if they can help; perhaps you can be more civil with a neutral third party. As for what's in Bill Clinton, you'll please note how many edits I've done on that article. Hint; it's an integer, smaller than "1". See how it works? You seek consensus FIRST; then you edit. -Syberghost 18:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It says be bold. I told Wiki at face value.
08:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I just wast to say that every main wikiarticle stands alone. Wikiarticles each will have a different group of contributors. The Bill Clinton page has been edited by consensus, like any other. If the current consensus says the 'Juanita Broaderick allegations' stay in the BC page, they stay, if not, they go.
I have made an effort to keep the bulk of the new scandal statements on this page. My latest edit moved the scandal refererence to the first paragraph FCOL. The number of rv's that have removed the new scandal section, in toto, since it was added, is precisely zero. Granted, it has been moved to a lower posistion, and the bulk of the data is now on it's own sub-page, but that was done for balance and page size. Most contributors on this page have shown restraint and tried for NPOV, during the past two weeks, or so. We all need to assume good faith and respect consensus.
Mytwocents 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate. And for my part, when I found a text that validated that Reagan went to Bel Air Presbyterian fairly regularly, I called them and asked. They backed that text up and so I put that back in under religion. I don't have a beef with truthful statements.
I genuinely believe that if this is going to be a truthful article (and it isn't now), then the corruption must be dealt with forthrightly and not subordinated to merely a reason he got one more nickname. Why reduce record level corruption to cuteness? As for the explanation paragraph, his administration's corruption was intrinsically tied to the policies they pursued. Right now, the position on the page, gives more significance to his nicknames than to the convictions - that's what a fan does, not a citizen (much less a patriot).
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 08:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad, I've slightly tweaked some of your additions to make them less biased. The sentence in the lead covering the scandals already adequately covers the situation and has been agreed upon already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's more biased now. You're taking out dispassion and adding biased. Record breaking corruption should not be an excuse for a nickname. That's how it reads now. You're trivializing what he allowed to fester. And by the way, ONLY conservative historians think he had a hand in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Outside of the American, you do not find texts lauding him with the downfall of the Soviet Union. What you find are ruminations on Gorbachev's complaint that Reagan was making his job of opening up the Soviet Union more difficult. The rest of the world takes Gorbachev at face value on that, and no one, outside of Thatcher, ever took Reagan seriously. Why are you guys so afraid of the truth? Why are you using this page to lie? Go ahead - find mainstream historians who aren't part of the American right who say that. It simply isn't out there.
Your obedient servant,
17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd check the archives re: the rape charges - Amazon's IMDB also mentioned then 41 year old Reagan's rape of a 19 year old. This lives in the Kitty Kelly talk pages:

Christine Larson -- an onscreen femme fatale, Larson was one in real life as well when she dallied with the married Ronald Reagan-- was with Reagan in bed when Nancy was giving birth to Patti. Kitty Kelley's first insight into Reagan's character comes off bad: After the breakup of his marriage to Wyman and before he met Nancy, Reagan had an affair with starlet Jacqueline Park, later the mistress of Warner Bros. studio boss Jack L. Warner. According to Park, when she became pregnant; Reagan denied that the child was his and ended the affair. When questioned later Jacqueline Park admitted Kelley quoted her fairly accurately: “ … When I told him I was pregnant, he said he didn't want to have anything to do with me anymore. He just ran out on me. …”
Using their advanced review copies of the book on April 1, 1991, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times investigated the rape claim on what was called The Battle of the Couch by Kelley, which described a date rape-like situation involving then 19 year old Selene Walters and 42 year old Reagan. Further, in the April 29, 1991, issue of People Magazine, Selene Walters said that Ronald Reagan raped her in 1952, confirming the basic version of the episode in Kelly's unauthorized biography of Nancy Reagan:
" … Kelley's account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he never forced his way into her apartment. I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's Kelley's phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him. … "
No one asks why the Media gave Reagan a pass on a charge of rape
In their editor at large Jack Shafer's March 5, 1999 Slate article, Gipper the Ripper: - “… Ronald Reagan successfully stonewalled the Walters' story when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times picked it up briefly in April 1991. And remember, this was three and a half years before his Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. The weekend the book was released, a reporter asked Reagan for a comment about it as he entered church.
"I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that," he said.
Not exactly a denial.”

We can talk about how he helped the Mafia infiltrate Hollywood another day. - Sparky 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jenson - why are you removing substantive information?

I know you don't like Haynes Johnson, but it remains that he is a Pulitizer Prize winning jouralist, who teaches at Princeton and is a significant figure in contemporary America. You have yet to find a SINGLE CITATION proving his assessment of 138 investigations, indictments and convictions inaccurate. You have no business removing information that makes it easier for people to understand what's being said. You have been inserting blatantly false information, and now this - you need to get a grip. It's completely inappropriate on your part to remove truthful information just because it doesn't suit your world view.

Smokingmaenad 05:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, talk about getting a grip... Anyway, you're both a little on the POV side. It should look something like this:
"Haynes Johnson stated...".
Let the reader go read up on the guy and decide for themselves.
This, however, has got to go:
"However the journalist did not specify who was on the list, and did not provide the count for any previous administration, nor for later administrations." --Chodorkovskiy 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
no need for Wiki to cover up Johnson's faults. He claims to compare Reagan to other presidents but does NOT do so. He never makes an attempt to say that FDR had X cases, Nixon had Y cases, Clinton had Z cases. Without the data no one can make the statement that Reagan was numerically worst. Thus Johnson s not a verifiable source in comparing presidents. The suggestion is that Haynes Johnson's book be listed in the bibliog so readers can go see for themselves what he claims. That seems like a reasonable compromise--and NOT putting into Wiki his unverified claims. Rjensen 12:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are attacking Johnson because you don't like what he says. Prove he's wrong - go right ahead. Find another administration that comes even close to Reagan in having staffers investigated, indicted and/or convicted. That's the only way you take the power out of this quote. He doesn't claim to compare them - he states forthrightly and accurately, that Reagan set the record for the twentieth century. The only other person who comes close is Nixon. Harding is a distant, distant third. FDR and Clinton aren't even worth discussing as they have so many fewer convictions. I think there was only one corruption conviction in the FDR administration, and definitely only one in the Clinton administration. Nixon had 8 or 15 depending upon whether you listen to Colton or Dean. So - go ahead. Do some work. Prove Johnson wrong. Just like I proved you wrong time and time again with just a little work. Have you been right about anything yet? Do you actually know anything about Reagan that isn't myth?
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's define the problem:
Is it POV? Is it the fact that Johnson's POV isn't held by a significant minority? Is it the fact that Johnson's POV is wrong?
I could start citing all manner of policies (original research, for instance), but this isn't really about Reagan, is it? --Chodorkovskiy 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The number of people investigated, indicted and/or convicted is not POV. When you're in the administration, you either are investigated or you aren't. The number itself comes from a book called Elite Deviance which is a scholarly work exploring high level corruption and it's ties to exterior criminality. Haynes Johnson is an esteemed research journalist who teaches at Princeton - he isn't a partisan (his writing on Clinton is devastating). There were three administration in the 20th century who had numerous staffers convicted - Harding - who had a maximum of four convictions, Nixon - who had 14 and then there's Reagan with 19 convictions. All of the investigations of Nixon had to do with Watergate - they didn't extend to other agencies or departments (outside of the normal hiccups). The investigations he suffered were all about Watergate, in one way or the other. Reagan, otoh, had a huge amount of corruption rooted out in lots of different agencies, and had many, many more people forced from office for ethics violations on top of all of the convictions. That situation is unique to Reagan.
My contributions are about Reagan. This is a deeply biased article, and the bias needs to be rectified. I'm providing substantiated work that is holding up to examination. The people who are objecting to my work, are angry because they cannot, in point of fact, authenticate their POV with authorative, mainstream research and journalistic texts. I'm also suggesting that there must be a larger standard for inclusion than consensus. If I find a text that claims Reagan slaughtered schoolgirls, and drank their blood, and pull together a cabal of Reagan haters who want that included, would that be a legitimate addition to the article here? I say no. Several of the statements in this text are equally ludicrous.
There is a such a thing as empirical reality, and that is what I am trying to inject this article.
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
On the book Elite Deviance. Yes I have seen it and Johnson did plagiarize from it without a citation. So let's just drop Johnson or expose him as a plagiarist (a firing offense in Journalism as Jason Blair of the NY times discovered). Rjensen 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
How do you know it's plagarism then? I took you at face value last night when you said that's what where it's from. I guess I'll never do that again. I've read SWTH, Johnson did a huge amount of research and covers dozens of people who are investigated, forced from office, indicted and convicted. You're now in the position of having two credible, mainstream, authoratative sources stating that number. The fact that Johnson comes up with it as well makes it even more credible.
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Plagiarism: Johnson took the number 138 from the book Elite Deviance without citing his source. Check google--several people have noticed that. It's called plagiarism and New York Times rreporters get fired for that. Rjensen 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, RJenson, you've been caught lying. Sleepwalking Through History was published in 1991. Elite Deviance in 1993.
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Gimme a break on bibliography--the 1st edition of Elite Deviance was 1982, 2nd ed 1986, 3rd ed 1990 and 4th ed 1991. An apology is called for. Rjensen 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Prove what edition the number comes from. it certainly isn't from 82, 86 or even probably 90. Find out what edition it's in, and prove that Haynes Johnson didn't do his own research.
Smokingmaenad 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I see. So there's a (hot) dispute around what he says. But Wikipedia isn't for resolving disputes, it's for reporting them. So why not just present the dispute? Generally, something like this:
"According to Haynes Johnson, 138 staff members were investigated, stepped down, were indicted or convicted on criminal misconduct or corruption charges. Some, however, accuse Johnson of plagiarism and challenge this number."
Better?--Chodorkovskiy 20:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
He needs to find a mainstream, authorative source that thinks it's plagarism. He doesn't have that. The edition that I know of that contains the Reagan assessment is from 1993. He needs to prove that it's from the 1990 edition, and that credible, non-partisan journalists and critics believe Johnson plagarized it. RJenson has been wrong about everything he has said so far, so his opinion does not carry the same weight as someone who has actually won Pulitzer Prizes and teaches at Princeton.
As I said before, who is being investigated is a black and white thing. Johnson was covering many of the scandals as a journalist. He certainly had his own work, and his own resources to draw on. There is zero reason to think it's plagarism. Jenson is just scared to death of the implications - specifically, that Reagan ran the most corrupt administration of the 20th century. There is no debating that. No one else, not even Nixon, come close.
Smokingmaenad 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Plagiarism is plagiarism--even if Johnson "could" have discovered the facts by himself. He did not actually do The number 138 1) it does not say anything about how many were proven innocent--leaving the strong false impression that these folks were all guilty. 2) it does not mention how many were in trouble for what they did AFTER they left the government; 3) it does not have any comparisons with other presidential administrations. 4) The term "staff members" is false--Some of the folks involved were cabinent members and others were lowly secretaries. For a Reagan bio we need to know how many were personally chosen by Reagan--5? 10? 50? who knows? Are military court martials counted? who knows. 5) And the source is a problem: Elite Deviance is where Johnson got the number but this book does not say where IT got the number. [it's on page 8 of a heavily footnoted book--but no footnote for that factoid.] Nobody seems to have found the master list that someone used to come up with the number. So do we have "verifiable information" about Reagan? not much. Instead we get wild statements like the last one "Reagan ran the most corrupt administration of the 20th century. There is no debating that. No one else, not even Nixon, come close." Numbers please--that factoid was invented out of thin air. Rjensen 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What proof do you have that an investigative journalist that covered Iran/Contra did not do the research himself? You haven't presented a shred of evidence to substantiate that. Just because someone else used the same figure, doesn't mean it was plagarism. You can't even establish which edition that phrase is from. You are just making stuff up. Prove someone non-partisan believes it's plagarism.
Anybody is selected by the elected president and his staff is an administration staffer - as opposed to a civil service worker who are there before the new administration comes in and may stay after they leave without re-appointment. That's what the word means - whether they are cabinet members, or chiefs of staff, or assistant administrators or administrative assistants. If they are part of the administration, they are an administration staffer. The only two people not covered by that phrase are the president and the vice-president. The phrase "administrative official" can be used interchangeably with the phrase "senior staffer". No, military court martials are not included. Just because you don't know the standard, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
You have no evidence the number was pulled out of thin air - you just don't. You still have two scholars, one who covered the scandals as a journalist, using those numbers. Because you havent' read either of the books, you don't know how they assembled they number, but you have no reason to think it's inaccurate.
I suggest rather than continuing to come on Wiki, you should begin to do your own investigation. Read a few books about the administration. See what you add up.

Smokingmaenad 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers: Truman scandals were worse

Was Reagan's record the worst? oh no: the number of federal appointees investigated and fired was far higher under Harry Truman, (I went to college with the son of Truman's attorney general, who was forced to resign--lots of stories there.) Eisenhower in 1952 campaigned against the corruption in Washington. We have some numbers. In 1947 Harry Truman set up loyalty boards to investigate espionage among federal employees. (Alger Hiss was the most famous one to go to prison). In 1947-1952, "about 20,000 government employees were investigated, some 2500 resigned “voluntarily,” and 400 were fired." p 103 of By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age by Paul Boyer (1985) online at [14] Rjensen 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not "employees" - it's administration staffers that's being discussed. We're talking about a very specific thing - employees who come in with the president, and will leave with the president, unless they are re-appointed.

Smokingmaenad 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry that won't wash: no one knows the names or positions of the mystery 138. Rjensen 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
How do you know no one knows? You're just making accusations. You haven't read SWTH, so you have no idea how many of them are detailed in there. Now, if you have some evidence that Johnson or the authors are wrong - spell it out.
Smokingmaenad 22:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I HAVE read Johnson- (It's at Questia so I can search every page quick). He does not have the list of the mystery 138. I also have the "Elite Deviance" book and it does not have the list either. Neither has a footnote to where the lists might exist (though both books footnote everything else). So the sources are not verifiable. Anyway the Truman count is much higher--did I mention the 166 Truman IRS employees who got caught? that alone is higher than 138 and it is well documented. "In the year 1950, 166 IRS employees either resigned or were fired, and a number were facing indictments from the Department of Justice on a variety of tax-fixing and bribery charges, including the Asst. Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division" see [15] Rjensen 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The info is from Walter Lafeber's Inevitable Revolutions: The United States and Central America. That's what Ibid means - it's the same source as the source listed in the entry above. So, no, he didn't plagarize anything. Why don't you give up? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you're defending someone about whom you know nothing.
Smokingmaenad 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The infamous Haynes Johnson quote is on p 184, which page has no endnotes. The Lafeber cite is from page 257 another chapter and deals with Latin American policy. Rjensen 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Then it's his and he has the right to publish it. The quote has been used extensively and if you don't like it, you're free to pursue proving him wrong. In the meantime, you have no evidence it's inaccurate.
When one is an administration staffer, being investigated is a formal event and you are notified that you are being investigated. Hence the game Libby's attorney's played several months announcing that he wasn't a "target". Being a target is an official status.
04:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The question is whether or not a vague unverifiable allegation from a Reagan-hater meets Wiki standards for an encyclopedia. Have you seen his book on Bill Clinton entitled: The Best of Times: America in the Clinton Years by Haynes Johnson (2001) -- note the POV in his titles. Rjensen 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Reagan didn't see it that way. He bagan sitting for interviews with Haynes Johnson in 1979, and continued through out his presidency.

Have you read the Clinton book? Johnson is incredibly tough on Clinton considering how squeaky clean his administration was ultimated proved by the Starr Report to be.

Smokingmaenad 06:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Squeaky clean?!?
Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14. Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5. Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4 [16]
--Kbh3rdtalk 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Uh huh, squeaky clean. How many Clinton staffers were convicted on corruption charges? One. Compared to the nineteen in the Reagan administration.
How many Clinton staffers were forced to step down because of corruption? Go ahead, take a guess.....
There were a huge number of people investigated by an aggressive prosecutor (as was the case with the Reagan admin.) but the prosecutor uncovered no evidence of genuine, and systemic corruption - again, unlike the prosecutors in the Reagan years. So, yes, with an aggressive prosecutor with hundreds of FBI agents at his behest, a conservative court willing to tolerate his abuses, and a media panting for more - Ken Starr got nothing on Clinton. Nothing.

Smokingmaenad 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'll be mediating the latest dispute on this article. Please chime in at [[17]]. Hope we can all come to a civilized consensus. Danny Pi 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

I added Ronald Reagan to [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]] because of this reference, which talks about organizations and people who predicted the Soviet Union would collapse:

Western statesmen from Adenauer to Reagan predicted the downfall of the Soviet empire.

Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827.  p. 187

Signed:Travb 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Reagan from the list.Travb 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
In the mid-seventies, the CIA predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union. Everyone predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union. It wasn't a surprise, nor did Reagan's actions have anything to do with it. Smokingmaenad 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Really what CIA study are you refering to?Travb 01:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
naw--iin the early 1980s Reagan was ther only important person in the world who prediced the end of USSR and he did it in the most dramatic possible fashion, gaining headlines and stunned disbelief across the globe. Some anonymous staffer wrote a paper in 1977 saying it someday might happen??? Get a sense of history and see how earth-shaking statements can really shake the earth. The people who were most rattled were the Soviets themselves--they felt it coming and when Reagan declared it they saw doom in front of their eyes. (Yes, I was in Moscow and saw it myself). Rjensen 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Quit trolling. You've revealed you know nothing about history or Reagan. You're wrong about that, just like you're wrong about everything else you've claimed.
And since you've brought it up, give us a quote from the early eighties of Reagan predicting their downfall. LOL
19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokingmaenad (talkcontribs)
In March 3, 1983 Reagan was blunt: "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last — last pages even now are being written." His most detailed analysis was June 8, 1982 to the British parliament: don't miss the full text at [18]

It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of what it was then. The dimensions of this failure are astounding: A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine.... Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resource into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones....In the Communist world as well, man's instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule -- 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland. And we know that there are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the confines of the Soviet Union itself.....What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our Zero-Option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.

Rjensen 20:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - taken directly from the CIA's mid-seventies estimates of Soviet health. You've pulled the rug out from underneath your own argument. LOL
Smokingmaenad 20:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please quote your source, unless you are simply making fun of Rjensen, which is no argument at all. You said the CIA predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, quote Wikipedia:verifable sources or step off bud. Travb 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Is 1981 early enough for you? -Syberghost 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That assessment was several years old by then. Reagan's beef when he took office was that the CIA was going soft on the Soviet Union by predicting it's likely demise. He assembled a team of people (I think Wolfowitz was one of 'em, maybe Perle or Pipes) who greatly upped the assessment of Soviet military might and health. He used that assessment to base his policies on - which, largely, were simply an extension of what Brzezinksy (sp) had started under the Carter administration. It was Brzezinsky's idea to fund the majahadeen and pull the Soviet's into Afghanistan. In reality, Soviet military spending only increased a couple years while Reagan was in office. There demise had been coming for a long, long time and Reagan, if anything, by validating the Soviet hardliner's rhetoric, only extended it's life. The assessments of Soviet strength provided by the new Reagan admin were thoroughly debunked in the downfall of the Soviets. They had reduced themselves to coutning every ship in the Soviet Union, including fishing boats and ships in museums, as part of the arsenal. They were never what Reagan claimed they were - that power was fiction.
Smokingmaenad 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad true or false: did Reagan predict the fall of the soviet union, simple yes or no answer. All of the rest of your info in your long paragraph, about Reagan is immaterial.Travb 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You asked for a quote from the early '80s of Reagan saying this. I give you one from 1981. You say that's too late. 1981, Smokingmaenad; that's not early enough for you. What, it's gotta be something from BEFORE he took office now? All that's being suggested is he be added to a category of people who predicted this. You've now switched to insisting that this category only include people who predicted it through psychic powers, not through being informed. -Syberghost 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying any of those things. I'm simply pointing that it was frequently predicted. Reagan's statements were taken from seventies CIA assessments - which is what the CIA is there for.
Smokingmaenad 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
No it was NOT "frequently predicted"--better come up with a source for that very strong claim that scholars reject. Rjensen 06:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if it was "frequently predicted", then you should be adding the category to other articles, not removing it, because it clearly has value. -Syberghost 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Oddly Smokingmaenad wants to use the CIA estimate prepared by George W. H. Bush. But the fact remains that Reagan was the only important person in the world who publicly predicted the USSR's downfall in the early 1980s. His prediction had a momentious impact of the Soviets more than anyone, as they realized their system was unable to continue into the future. Only radical change could save Communism, Gorbachev argued. (His operation killed the patient, as it happened.) Rjensen 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Great, prove it. Find scholarship that states that directly. LOL
Smokingmaenad 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
it is proved--read the books in the reading list on foreign policy. Read the Gorby article. Read something! Rjensen 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, you want other people to prove your point. go ahead - you made a claim. Post some links with some quotes with established non-partisan scholars addressing the idea.
Smokingmaenad 02:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
OK: "Reagan stands out in part because he believed the Soviet Union could be defeated. For most of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations alike had assumed the Soviet Union would prove durable for the foreseeable future. The bipartisan policy of containment aimed to keep the Soviet Union in check while trying to avoid nuclear war; it did not seek to force the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Ronald Reagan, in contrast, believed that the Soviet economy was so weak that increased pressure could bring the Soviet Union to the brink of failure. He therefore periodically expressed confidence that the forces of democracy "will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history."[3] Since one is more likely to strive to defeat an adversary if one believes that defeating it is feasible, Reagan's belief that communism was ready to crumble contributed to making his approach different from that of other presidents. This is one area in which his personal role stands out. " in "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?" Strategic Insights, Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004) by Jeffrey W. KnopfRjensen 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Jeffrey missed the seventies. I wonder how that happened. Go read up on Brzezinsky. He's the guy who actually what you think Reagan did. And yes, he predicted it's downfall in the seventies. I'm pretty sure Carter alluded to it at the very least. It simply wasn't anything new that Reagan was saying - that's all. The CIA had predicted and common sense predicted it.
Smokingmaenad 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad's problem is that he remembers so well, but has yet to provide one single quotation from any scholar that supports his views. Give it up and join the consensus! Rjensen 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been asked to now, have I?
Smokingmaenad 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Smokingmaenad can't you admit that you were wrong? You know what is worse than conservative ideologues? Liberal ideologues. Because I am a liberal, and people like yourself, who never, ever, admit they are wrong, make "liberals", who I identify with, look bad. Rjensen quotes something, and you ignore it. I see a lot of verifiable sources from Rjesen, I see only hot air and avoidance techniques from you. WHERE IS THE CIA QUOTE STATING THEY PREDICTED THE FALL OF THE USSR I await your source. Thus far the score is Reagan predicted:2 Regan didn't predict: 0 Travb 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Really. And what do you think I'm wrong about? I await your enlightenment. Am I just wrong about this? Or am I wrong about lots of stuff? In point of fact, Reagan simply adapted Brzezinski's strategy for dealing with the Soviets. Brzezinsky believed the Soviet's would fall - that was the reason for the Afghanistan strategy that Reagan continued. The quote provided predates that strategy. Now, please prove I'm wrong. 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokingmaenad (talkcontribs)
Do these silly debate tactics of yours work anywhere? I asked you a question, don't avoid the question by asking me a question. Your deafing silence shows that you do not have a quote from the CIA. You can obfuscate (confuse) the debate. Simply answer the question, which I will continue to ask, until you answer it, or admit you have no quote. WHERE IS THE CIA QUOTE STATING THEY PREDICTED THE FALL OF THE USSR.Travb 15:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL - go ahead, tell me what I'm wrong about. That's like a zillion times more interesting to me. You haven't added anything to this debate, I don't know why you're criticizing anyone.
Smokingmaenad 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Predictably, you are not going to provide the source. It is obvious you don't have one, and I am wasting my time talking with you. Travb 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Trav - I have documented almost everything I've ever said here over and over again. I'm waiting for you to tell me what I'm wrong about. You come in late to the conversation, you don't know what's been discussed or provided before. You accuse me of being wrong, but you can't specify anything I'm wrong about. Why is that? We all know why. You know I've documented stuff up the whazoo and you're just here playing partisan games. Go ahead. If you want me to document something, go on record as to what it is I'm wrong about.
Smokingmaenad 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Brzezinski believed the Soviets would fall??? not. see below. He said just the opposite. Rjensen 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's why he lured them into Afghanistan. Here's an article.
And here's a quote from another article:
The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
Smokingmaenad 06:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a quote from another article:
"Reagan predicted the fall of the Soviet Union publicly. No major political figure had done so outside of closed-doors at this point." -Syberghost 20:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that he was drawing on CIA analysis that had been around for a long time. This wasn't news that the Soviets were going to fall - that's my point. I'm not sure that whoever said this is right. I do know that Patrick Moynihan claimed to have predicted it in the seventies as well. No one that I know of was shocked when Reagan said it - it was accepted as obvious and conventional wisdom. And I think Brzezinski did publicly as well, but finding Brzezinski's quotes online is a much tougher prospect. I do know the CIA analysis were published. Americans were aware that the empire was tottering and likely to fall. That's why Reagan's CIA staff had to beef up the estimates so high - Americans wouldn't have supported the military build up otherwise.
BTW, who is the quote from?
Smokingmaenad 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Me. I was attempting to make a point about not quoting sources, but then I had a death in the family and wasn't around to continue the discussion until now, which kind of blunts the impact since we all seem to be getting along now.  :) -Syberghost 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Need a vote on Article for deletion

I would like your comments: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR On every page I post this on, many people start passionate conversations about this. Travb 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reagan was the most important world leader predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union. His prediction had a major impact on the Soviets. Better keep the page. Rjensen 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


You stated: In the mid-seventies, the CIA predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union...My point is that he was drawing on CIA analysis that had been around for a long time. This wasn't news that the Soviets were going to fall - that's my point.

I have continued to ask you this question, and you have continued to ignore it: WHERE IS THE CIA QUOTE STATING THEY PREDICTED THE FALL OF THE USSR.

You look like a fool, everyone seems to see it but you: stating things and then being proven wrong, and then never admiting you are wrong. You remind me of a yappy doggy. You keep yapping with no content. If someone beats you up side the head to shut you up, you just keep on yapping.Travb 09:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets prove you wrong once again, (Not that it is going to shut you up) I have only been here for a couple of days, and you have already been proven wrong once.

Claim: In the mid-seventies, the CIA predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union.


A book edited by Zbigniew Brzezinski that appeared in 1969 contains fourteen articles dealing with the future of the Soviet Union. Six of them, by Brzezinski, Robert Conquest, Merle Fainsod, Eugene Lyons, Giorgio Galli, and Isaac Don Levine, considered "collapse as a serious possibility although not immediately." 13 One, Robert Conquest, saw "the USSR as a country where the political system is radically and dangerously inappropriate to its social and economic dynamics. This is a formula for change - change which may be sudden and catastrophic"14 Brzezinski himself, as we shall note in more detail below, repeatedly emphasized that collapse was a realistic possibility.
Most Sovietologists, however, did not agree with these judgments, in part because they thought that the system was improving, that conditions of life were better for the masses. Relying to a large extent on Soviet data, they concluded that the Soviet economy was doing so well to the point where "by the 1970s, the conventional wisdom (shared also by the CIA) came to be that the Soviet GNP was some 60 percent of the American." 15 These estimates, as we now know, were misguided and untenable as revealed by the Soviet authorities and scholars after Gorbachev took office. But that information had been available much earlier...
...In four major speeches delivered in 1982, 1983, 1987, and 1988, Ronald Reagan said the system was going down. At Westminster in 1982, he noted as simple fact that "of all the millions of refugees we've seen in the modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward, the Communist world," and he consigned Marxism-Leninism to the "trash heap of history." In 1983, he said Communism is a "sad, bizarre chapter in history, whose last pages even now are being written." In 1987, at the Brandenburg Gate, he stressed: "In the Communist world we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind - too little food." And he proclaimed that his cold war policies were based on the assumption that the Soviet Union was a "basket case." Economics, Reagan believed, was the Soviet Union's primary failing. As a good pupil of the market economists, he explained that weakness as derivative from the fact that it is impossible for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for the judgment of "millions of individuals," for the "incentives inherent in the capitalist system." 83 These conclusions were out of line with the advice he had been receiving from experts in the C.I.A., the Defense and State Departments. Seemingly, the President had his own sources, some of whom were in the Defense Intelligence Agency and the RAND Corporation.

15. Martin Malia, "From under the rubble, what?" Problems of Communism 41 (January-April 1992): 96.
From: Anticipations of the Failure of Communism, Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No.2, Special Issue on the Theoretical Implications of the Demise of State Socialism. (Apr., 1994), pp. 169-210. Seymour Martin Lipset; Gyorgy Bence

Please read: Top Ten Dodge List Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion.[19] (bottom of the page).

Signed:Travb 09:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Brzezinski 1976: predicts

Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted downfall of Soviets???? in 1976 he was predicting the Soviet Union would be practically unchanged for several more generations to come: "A central question, however, is whether such social change [modernization] is capable of altering, or has in fact already altered in a significant fashion, the underlying character of Soviet politics. That character, as I have argued, has been shaped largely by political traditions derived from the specifics of Russian / Soviet history, and it is deeply embedded in the operational style and institutions of the existing Soviet system. The ability of that system to resist de-Stalinization seems to indicate a considerable degree of resilience on the part of the dominant mode of politics in the Soviet context. It suggests, at the very least, that political changes are produced very slowly through social change, and that one must wait for at least several generations before social change begins to be significantly reflected in the political sphere." from his essay in The Dynamics of Soviet Politics, ed. Paul Cocks, (1976) pp 337-51

A few weeks after Reagan's presidction of the fall of Communism Brzinski responded (June 9, 1983): "The Soviet Union may be beset by massive domestic crises by the late 1980s, but these problems will probably still be contained by the highly regimented and bureaucratically assertive Soviet political system. " In Quest of National Security p 14. On the other hand he did praise Reagan in Oct 1986: "Only a carping partisan critic would begrudge the president's claims that he has restored American self-confidence; increased markedly our defense spending; called the Soviet bluff in the INF talks; put the Soviets on the defensive with his bold Strategic Defense Initiative; increased thereby the chances of inducing genuine Soviet concessions in the arms-control negotiations; demonstrated, despite unfair Democratic criticism, the capacity to use force decisively, as in Grenada, with positive regional results; improved personal relations with our top allied leaders; maintained the new U.S.-Chinese connection (despite some initial fumbling); and projected once again an image of America as the future's innovative social laboratory. That is an impressive list. Whether much of it is the product of luck--

as critics would allege--or of personal leadership--as devoted Reaganauts would claim--is irrelevant. A true leader is a lucky leader. He generates his own "fortuna," to use Machiavelli's formula for the secret of the Prince's success. Reagan did benefit from the drop in the price of oil and from Brezhnev's senility. But he also inspired a sense of confidence and projected personal strength, and true leadership requires both." [ibid p 21]

Another criticism is more germane. A closer scrutiny of Reagan's Rjensen 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

UFO Speech

He had, in a speech trying to foster world peace, stated that what it would be like if something from out there were threatening this planet. This is now found mainly on pro-UFO websites and data sites. Martial Law 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

My apologies.

Sorry for the many edits. I couldnt get my reference tags to work.

Yes, yes I know - the show preview button is my friend.

CanadianPhaedrus 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Intro paragraph.

My contribution was removed under the guise of "sloppy sources".

Micheal C.C. Adams is Chair of History and Geography at Northern Kentucky University. He is also a winner of the Jefferson Davis Award.

Garry Wills is a biographer of Ronald Reagan. Wills is an adjunct professor of history, both American and cultural, at Northwestern University. He received his PhD in classics from Yale in 1961. In 1995 Wills received a L.H.D. from Bates College. He is also a Pulitzer Prize winner, as well as a winner of the National Medal for the Humanities.

Michael Paul Rogin was a Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley before his death in 2001.

These sources are far more credible than the vast majority of sources cited in Wikipedia articles.

My contribution gives some balance to an otherwise pro-Reagan biased article.... and specifically the contribution is important because it is a common perception of Reagan among academia. American media has ignored this side of Reagan in the coverage following his death.... not that I am implying any malice... perhaps they are doing it just out of respect. But luckily Wikipedia isnt Fox News or CNN... and we can include meaningful facts into our information.

The information deserves its prominent place in the introduction: a summary of a president that focuses on the optimism and persuasion of his speeches and its effect on the population should be supplemented with the fact that prominent historians state his popularity was based on his imagination.. the rest are specific examples of it.

The information itself is pretty self explanatory.

Lets try to keep this article balanced... and so long as were going to tout him as the "Great Communicator"... we should include some mention of less than glamourous aspects as well.

CanadianPhaedrus 01:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

The criticism has been moved the he "Criticism" section where it belongs. Some points: "instances during his radio career when he made up play-by-play for games he could not see or hear"--that is already mentioned; claims that he was a veteran who had been present at the U.S. opening of a Nazi concentration camp --that is a garbled misreading of what he said--the kind of mistake careful scholars do not make; his insistence that World War Two armed forces were racially integrated a pretty trivial example; his relating of a heroic story involving a wounded tail gunner that he insisted was true - but was actually a plot from a patriotic movie -- another trivial example. Rjensen 02:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the lead, would you mind not removing this sentence from the lead paragraphs: The inability of the numerous scandals and setbacks during his tenure - including the Iran-Contra Affair, the bombing in Beirut, and convictions of officials in his administration - to negatively impact his approval ratings earned him the nickname "Teflon President."? We've discussed this sentence in detail thoroughly (see above), and agreed that this sentence is necessary and appropriate in the lead to cover the scandals and the "Teflon" nickname. Without that sentence, Iran-Contra, one of the major events of Reagan's presidency, is not even mentioned. Also, changing scandals and setbacks to difficulties and partisan attacks and other changes is inappropriate; the Iran-Contral Affair is widely regarded as a scandal, not as a difficulty, and "partisan attacks" are words with heavy connotations. Please discuss any changes in that sentence here first. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
which were the "convictions" before 1989 that the paragraph refers to? Please list and date them? Rjensen 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see Iran-Contra Affair for more information on this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 13:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph definitely should remain in the introduction. Removing it and regulating it to another heading is preposterous - the opening summary states he was "the Great Communicator" and "one of the most important leaders". At the very least the paragraph should remain in the introduction, with further criticisms and additional information under that section.

Regarding "the kind of mistake careful scholars do not make": This mistake is not mine - then information is referenced from its source. I do hope that you are not actually contending that your opinion edits are in some way of more value than those of a Chair of two departments at a major university, a Yale educated professor and Pulitzer Prize winner, and a Robson Professor at Berkeley - an institution noted for being in the top 5 ranked universities and colleges in the world.

The "trivial" examples indicate exactly what the cited historians contend: that his views were based on an alternate reality and perspective - rather than a factual and actual one.

The paragraph establishes balance to the opening summary.

CanadianPhaedrus 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

I have also removed the weasel words concerning Reagan's role in the demise of the Soviet Union. "Most" historians definitely do not believe that Reagan was directly responsible.

Nor do "a distinct minority" of historians believe it had to do with the Soviet economy.

In my personal experience, only 1 of 7 profs even mentioned Reagan's specific involvement in the collapse of the Soviet Union - and only then when speaking of improving relations and Reagan's own statement that his Evil Empire talk was "from another era".

How in the world would it be possible to determine what "most" historians or "a distinct minority" think about Reagan's time. Weasel words.

I have also initiated a request to get some outside review of this article, rather than having two Republican editors constantly reverting factual information that portrays the late president in anything other than a favourable light.

CanadianPhaedrus 07:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

I'm going to trim down the lead by removing the following text:
He left office more popular than we when he arrived, ending the long string of failed presidencies. At his death he was hailed by American media as one of the most important leaders of the 20th century.
However, some critics such as historian Micheal C.C. Adams and biographer Garry Wills allege that his "immense popularity as president rested partly on his remarkable talent to create a partial reality based on wishful thinking." Specific examples of this include instances during his radio career when he made up play-by-play for games he could not see or hear, claims that he was a veteran who had been present at the U.S. opening of a Nazi concentration camp, his insistence that World War Two armed forces were racially integrated, and his relating of a heroic story involving a wounded tail gunner that he insisted was true - but was actually a plot from a patriotic movie.
The problem with the first sentence is that it is neither sourced nor accurate; what defines a "successful" presidency versus a "failed" one? That is a matter of opinion, and saying that he left office more popular then when he came in is redundant to what is already stated. The lead, remember, should only provide a summary and introduction of the article; any more details are more pertinent in the appropriate section in the article.
The second paragraph is also inappropriate, because this article isn't the place to put quotes and/or criticism from every author. A notable subject receives a plethora of books and media coverage; there's no way that a specific one should be included in the lead. Remember, the lead provides only a brief introduction and overview of the article. In any case, the criticism in the paragraph is not considered a major part of Reagan's presidency and should not be included there.
Finally, I've changed "legal troubles" to "indictments". "Legal troubles" is extremely vague, and indictments is much more specific and accurate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I've removed the added sentence: After a series of frustrated presidencies, Reagan was the first president since 1928 to leave office alive and with his party reelected. First, what defines a "frustrated presidency"? Such a definition is subjective. In addition, all presidents - excluded those who died in office - left alive. Finally, the sentence is still misleading - according to our article List of Presidents of the United States, there have been several presidents from the same party as the previous president re-elected, such as Harry Truman and LBJ. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hundreds of commentators of all points of view made the point in 1989, so its belongs. Look at the facts they pointed out at the time: here are ALL the transitions
  • 1988 successful transition, party not defeated
  • 1980 Carter was defeated
  • 1976 Ford was defeated
  • 1974 Nixon forced resignation
  • 1968 LBJ forced to quit, party defeated
  • 1963 JFK assassinated
  • 1960 Ike party defeated
  • 1952 Truman, forced to quit & party defeated
  • 1945 FDR died
  • 1932 Hoover defeated
  • 1928 -- last previous example.

Rjensen 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Both Truman and LBJ won elections in their own right. Can you cite a source on the "hundreds of commentators"? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Truman left office repudiated in 1953; FDR died in office. Rjensen 22:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • They both won elections for president, though. Saying that the party wasn't elected is misleading, because they both did win elections for president. Also, can you provide a source for the hundreds of commentators? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Historians & pol scientists say Reagan ended string of failed presidencies: Quotes: "By the time the American people granted Reagan the ultimate democratic gift of national power, the country had weathered a period of instability and failure. President after president had come and gone in swift succession, leaving in their wakes the wreckage of four straight failed presidencies and an underlying current of doubt about America's purpose and future. John Kennedy was murdered. Lyndon Johnson was driven from office by the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment after the Watergate scandal had destroyed his presidency and sent many of his aides to jail. Gerald Ford became the only person to succeed to a broken presidency without even having been elected vice president, an opportunity presented when he was appointed to succeed Spiro T. Agnew after Agnew's plea bargain on criminal income tax evasion charges had forced him to resign the vice presidency. Then Ford became the first president since Herbert Hoover to be turned out of office by the voters." Quote from who else-- Haynes Johnson Sleepwalking through History page 28.
  • Quote 2: "But his greatest service was in restoring the respect of Americans for themselves and their own government after the traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, the frustration of the Iran hostage crisis and a succession of seemingly failed presidencies." Cannon, President Reagan p 746. Rjensen 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Quote 3: "the Reagan administration brought about a revival of effective presidential leadership after a sequence of "failed" presidencies. According to this view, Reagan refuted the political science theories of the "imperiled" presidency and he restored workable, active leadership to the executive branch." in "Executive Privilege in the Reagan Administration" by Mark J. Rozell - Presidential Studies Quarterly. v 27 #4 1997 p 760
  • quote 4: "Speaker O'Neill himself seemed ready to accommodate the Reagan Revolution--in part because, as his biographer has written, he had been an eyewitness to three failed presidencies and wanted no part of precipitating another" in "Roosevelt Redux" by Thomas N. Bethell, American Scholar, Vol. 74, Summer 2005
  • quote 5:"Beginning in the 1960s the country saw a similar series of failed presidents in Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter." Joan Hoff, Nixon Reconsidered (1994) p 7 Rjensen 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your reply. I've modified the paragraph to make it more neutral now, saying that Reagan's handing over to Bush end[ed] a string of presidencies in which the incumbent president's terms were often viewed as unsuccessful. Saying that the presidencies were "failures" is an opinion; saying that they were widely viewed as unsuccessful is not. In addition, there's no need for a direct quote from a book about Reagan; there's no way to justify placing in one quote over another in the lead section. The lead should provide background and the introduction and overview to the article, and unless the quote is especially significant (which the one you added is not), it should not be included. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Conservative, not orthodox.....

MyTwoCents - there is nothing particularly orthodox with crediting Reagan with downfall of the Soviet. Conservatives in the US do that - virtually no one else.

Where does this word come from? A conservative? LOL

Smokingmaenad 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Lech Welesa of Poland said "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989" (2004 at [20] Helmut Kohl, chancellor of West Germany in the 1980s, said, "He was a stroke of luck for the world. Two years after Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear down the wall, he noted, it fell and 11 months later Germany was reunified. We Germans have much to thank Ronald Reagan for." Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said, "President Reagan was a determined opponent of Communism and he played an important role in bringing an end to Communism and to the artificial division of Europe imposed after the Second World War." Vaclav Havel, who became the Czech president in 1989, said, "He was a man of firm principles who was indisputably instrumental in the fall of Communism." [21] Rjensen 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Jenson, With the exception of lech Walesa, those are all quotes from funeral. They have nothing to do with reality. No one, except conservatives in US and tiny handful outside the US credit Reagan with having anything to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev says Reagan made his job harder. Now really, try and be sober.
Smokingmaenad 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are three links that deal specifically with Reagan's unwavering push of SDI (star wars) and how this weakened the Soviet Union's economy and bargaining position
Although the feasibility of the programme, both in technological and economic terms, was questionable, Ronald Reagan pursued it with great determination - sometimes with, sometimes without the support of his cabinet. It became his “nurtured child”, and his dedication to the programme persisted even ten years after it was divulged:
“The wisdom of the programme ... will prevail.”
Reagan and Gorbachev : How the Cold War Ended (Hardcover) Random House (July 20, 2004)
With the passing of Ronald Reagan, a rash of "insider" books can be expected, many of them fluff. But Matlock, who was Reagan's advisor on Soviet and European affairs and later ambassador to the Soviet Union, writes an important and serious account of the evolving relationship between the American and Soviet leaders.
Mytwocents 05:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You people are spinning your wheels arguing against an obvious agenda ("if Clinton gets saddled with does Reagan") and incivility ("try and be sober").


"Ronald Wilson Reagan also called "shishcabob joe" and hated dudeman but thaught crazyman was cool!!!" ^^^^^^^ What is this supposed to mean?Shouldnt this be somewhere inside the article,not the first sentence in the article?

Tax the poor?

I dropped this portion of a sentence from the paragraph about the social security tax increase:

a tax increase that left the poorest 40% of income earners with higher federal taxes than before Reagan's income tax cuts. [22]

This ignores the effect of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which effectively refunds a portion of FICA taxes to the very lowest income earners. Ellsworth 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Proper place for the quip on youth and inexperience which turned the tide of the second debate

While the quip is in the current revision, it is not as well emphasized as it should be in it's absolutely pivotal effect it had on the election. Reagan had stumbled terribly in the first debate, and the entire election might well have hinged on the second. When Reagan handled the first question with that legendary quip, the election was over. The current article does not emphasize the importance of this sufficiently - it was literally the first question of the second debate, nor is it properly placed to emphasize the effect it had in disarming any fears the American public had that their President might be too old and infirm to continue. This certainly can be sourced, if you wish, such as old windy bear 10:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Errr.. the quip occurred in the 2nd debate of 1984. Reagan steamrolled Mondale with 60% of the popular vote. Biggest landslide ever. You're suggesting this was due entirely, or even in some substantial part, to 2 humorous sentences in the debate? Your CNN source does not back up your claims (read the 3rd para of the lead). Simishag 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Simishag No, no, I am not suggesting that the landside was due to the single question of the second debate, BUT, a number of political historians do believe it was a pivotal political moment for the President because his first debate performance had been so bad. I agree most people - including me, I voted for him twice! - wanted to reelect him. The vast majority wanted and liked him, flaws and all. But I remember very well, I was teaching school that year, the real shock among students - and older people - over how badly he had done in the first debate. I can get you more sources, I am not suggesting he won because of one quip - BUT, his political instincts (which were very much underrated) seized immediately on the first question to disspell what he himself knew was the only bar to his reelection, fear about his age and possible infirmity. This is well documented in a number of works analyzing the election. I agree with you absolutely that most people, including yours truly, wanted to reelect him, but he needed to disspell our fears, and that one question did it. He was grinning as he answered, I will never forget it, and the audience literally roared with laughter, and you sensed right then it was all over. old windy bear 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of dating myself, I will admit that I was only 7 in 1984, and thus I am not really old enough to remember the debate, although I do remember even at that age the scale of Reagan's victory. However, I think what you are suggesting is that Reagan won the debate with that quip, which is different than saying he won the election. From everything I've read, the election was all but a foregone conclusion by the time of the second debate; it was Mondale's last hope, rather than anything Reagan really needed to win. A contemporary source on this certainly wouldn't hurt.
I agree that the anecdote should be moved within the article, probably into the section on the presidential campaigns. It's currently under "Great Communicator", which does not seem like the appropriate place for it. It was funny, but not really in the same class as "shining city on a hill", "evil empire" or "tear down this wall". Simishag 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Simishag At the risk of appearing hopelessly semtimental, I favor "shining city on a hill"as one of this country's greatest speeches, expressing a wonderful hope for tomorrow that really moved me, and many others. Yes, I think you caught the essence of what I was trying to say - I am certainly not saying that quip won the election - trust me, the mood of the country was that the President was beloved by most, hated by a much smaller minority. Most people related to his simple "I am an ordinary man blessed by God and opportunity" approach, and wanted badly to reelect him. The debates were Mondales only chance - and I do believe the first one, (and I will find you a good modern source, I am due to go to the library again next week to pick up a book on the Carolingian Empire, and will get one of the better bios of the President) -- opened the ONLY door that Mondale had, which was to imply that the President was too old, and feeble. And honestly, the first debate performance did frighten the President's supporters. At the risk of dating myself, I was 34, and remember the next day polls, which showed that 70+% of the voters hoped for a better performance from the President in the second debate to clear up ANY doubts that he was fit for four more years. And the first question asked, (and if memory serves me, the reporter apologized for asking it, with something like, I am sorry to ask this Mr. President, but is age a factor in this race, or something similar) I remember sitting on the edge of my chair, and the President answering, with the legendary quip on not taking advantage of his opponent's relative youth and inexperience, and you literally could hear the audience explode with laughter, and I remember the impish smile on Mr. Reagan's face, and I knew, which the polls showed the next day, that all the doubts were pretty much erased, Mondale's only chance was gone, and the rest was history. I will get you a very good modern source on the polls before and after, and the impact on that debate.

I do agree with you absolutely that it needs to be moved in the article, so that it somehow emphasizes also the great instinct he had for the right quip at the right time. "I hope all you doctors are Republicans" was another one, reassuring a nation that was badly frightened by the assassination attempt, especially for those of us who had lived through JFK's. "Nancy, I forgot to duck" was another. He just had an instinct, which you admire him or not, (and I happen to, despite the scandals, et al), for saying the right thing at the right time, always, and it was NOT speech writers who did it 99% of the time, it was just him, knowing what to say to reassure the public, or convey his hopes and dreams for a better America. Whether or not anyone agrees with his politics or his legacy, surely no one can deny his gifts. (by the way, I honestly believe he saw himself as a very ordinary man blessed greatly - which I think explains part of why he was impatient with the welfare system - he felt if he, ordinary Ron Reagan from humble beginnings, could rise so high, why couldn't all the other ordinary people? Thing is, he really was a very gifted man, with fabulous political instincts, again, especially for the right word at the right time)

"Tear down this wall," was a powerful speech too, but for me, "shining city" is the greatest speech I ever heard, and I remember John F. Kennedy's "ask not what you can do for your country" speach which was also a great one, but "shining city" was special...old windy bear 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What was Regans Religion?

I can not find Regans religion anywhere... what is it? I need to find out, was he a christian or what? -- 17:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Josey

Questions like this should go to the reference desk. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a book called "God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life" by Paul Kengor that covers this topic pretty extensively. [23]

He was Protestant

Discrepancy in first Inauguration Address transcripts

The transcript of the first Inauguration address that can be found through the external link [24] at the end of this article, as well as several other transcripts that can be found online say, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem." But, in the video of the speech, you can see that Reagan says, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." [25] Several of the transcripts online leave out the latter part of the statement --that "government is the problem." [26] [27] How convenient for the pro-statism crowd to excise that out. Thank God for video. RJII 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Administration pages

Why is it that some presidents have two pages about them, one for the person in general and one for just the administration. See Ronald Reagan and Reagan Administration. The administration pages seem redundant as the information is mostly the same on both pages. I have also posted this on the Reagan Administration page.

Maybe the "record-setting" arrests/convictions info should be moved to the Administration page?Dubc0724 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to advertise FAC on the talk pages of articles; though those who worked on the article may be interested, simply because another article is tangetially related doesn't mean that you should place a request here. The article should be judged on its quality, not topic. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

wrote some of his own speeches?

Didn't Reagan write some of his own speeches? And, in those that were written by speechwriters didn't he engaging in a lot of his own editing? RJII 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


An AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents seems to be converging on a merge decision. That would involve moving the information into this article. 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in Governor section

Removed this:

Reagan made it a point to be a family man and sincerely afforded all who worked for him to be a family man or family woman.[citation needed] At the same time, Reagan commanded respect and inspired fellow conservatives to produce at their highest vision and capability.

The first point is controversial given the material published by his daughter. The second sounds nice and everything, but is an opinion statement.

Something is Missing.

Nice puff piece on the ex-president but like others have said something is missing. Among the criticisms I remember about Reagan were his violent homophobia and interference with research into AIDS, it was even commonly suggested that he was behind the creation of the disease himself. Another thing that isn’t mentioned is the vast damage Reagan did to the American economy and the fact that he really started the huge division between rich and poor that still exists today. He was also one of the principle 80's 'new luddites' and one of the people who did great damage to NASA and American science in general. He was one of the main people behind ‘freedom of capital’ which lead to globalisation and is why today your computer is made in China, your car in Japan, and your trainers in South Korea. Reagan was the president who messed up the FBI, he did a great deal of damage to the organisation, reduced its budget, and deliberately reduced its ability to fight corruption (although this is even more connected to the first George Bush, Reagan was known as a bitter enemy of the FBI). Finally although indirectly he is connected to the christian right and their policy of ‘revisionism’ (essentially rewriting history to make themselves look better).

  • Go back to russia, comrade stalin, guess you want to degrade the man because he shattered your stupid commie fantasy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Worst President?

Who keeps trying to say that he is being seen as the worst president in history? Im sorry but its just not true, I mean, discovery named him greatest American in general for God's sake.

Perhaps it's a Stalinist deeply saddened by losing the Cold War and watching capitalism triumph. Rjensen 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Please read the Wikipedia policies regarding Neutral Point of View as well as "Weasel words". "Seen by many"? That's a prime example of what we call a weaseling. "Defeated the Soviet Union"? There was no war. The US did not "defeat" the Soviet Union, nor did they surrender. The collapse of the Soviet Union is a very complicated subject. As Jack Webb used to say on the old Dragnet show, "Just the facts." Try to leave opinions out of it. Fan-1967 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a gross oversimplification to say that Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. One would have to have his head in the sand for a good 50 70 years to ignore the fact that their managed economy never worked. How important Reagan's actions are in that eventual collapse is a matter of opinion and debate. It is not a simple fact. It is essential to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. Fan-1967 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, opinion aside, their inability to manage their economy was the major force behind the collapse of the Soviets.
See? You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Neither one is a fact. Fan-1967 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

Above were quotes I left on User:Sexington7's talk page, and I stand by them. Many people have different opinions about Reagan, and the effect of his actions. Especially with a controversial figure it is absolutely essential to stick to the facts. Leave the opinions to the bloggers. (By the way, Sexington, please sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). It adds your name and date/time to the line, making it clearer in a discussion who said what.) Fan-1967 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this article? It is so biased that it appears to be written by his administration's Whitehouse press secretary. I voted for him but the only thing this Wikipedia entry is missing are the violins in the back. This is clearly in violation of a NPOV and needs to have some balancing facts and information. Stevenmitchell 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reagan's remarks about Auschwitz to Yitzhak Shamir

In 1983, Reagan told Israeli prime minster Shamir that he had been present at the liberation of Auschwitz. An account of the episode is described in "Dutch", by Edmund Morris. Morris is a Pulitzer-prize-winning historian who was hired by Reagan's aides to write the president's official biography:

  • (p. 465) "Reagan was derided for tellng Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had personally witnessed the opening of the first German concentrtion camps in April 1945. The White House went to elaborate lengths to imply that Shamir had a language problem - that the President was referring only to the live color footage that he had seen screened for the benefit of First Motion Picture Unit personnel days after the libration of Ohrdruf...But as both Lou Cannon and Michael Korda have demonstrated, Reagan revived the 'I was there' fantaxy on at least two other occasions, to auditors who understood English as well as he did.'" And later, (p. 467): "Who is telling the truth? Everybody, I would say, including Dutch, who never tried to conceal the fact that to him, seeing is believing, that raw film is the same as raw experience."

This unusual episode belongs in the Reagan article. I have placed it in the "Alzheimer's" section for want of a better place. It is perhaps an early indication of the disease. If anyone can think of a better place to put it, please suggest that place. Griot 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reagan has been quoted on thousands of topics--but not actually on this one. It's all third or fourth hand: there is no reliable source as required by Wiki. (Note how Morris hedges and isn't clear at all on what happened.) --what did he say? who knows? Did he say "I saw the horrors of Auschwitz"--probably. That's like saying "I saw the superbowl yesterday." (I saw it on TV that is; Reagan told many people he saw the unedited raw newsreel footage from the camps -- he was working in spring 1945 at the Air Force movie studio in Hollywood.) Did he say to anyone "I was in Europe at the time" ???? No one actully claims that. Rjensen 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Morris by the way is infamous for inserting page after page of invented dialog in his book--and even including imaginary characters. Historians do NOT consider it a reliable source. Rjensen 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Morris was Reagan's official biographer. When this event occurred, it was much discussed in the press. Shamir reported it to his cabinet when he returned to Israel. As Morris notes, the White House was embarassed by it and tried to pass it off as something different from what it was. Why do you insist on white-washing this unusual event and trying to say it didn't happen? Morris is a Pulitzer-prize-winning historian. If you don't like the message, that gives you no right to kill the messenger. This belongs in this article. Griot 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Better read Morris again pp 213-14 claims that MORRIS HISMELF was with Reagan in 1945. He got the "official" designation before he began writing the book--and then turned it into fiction. (Morris by the way was 4 years old in 1945.) Rjensen 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
More information. I hope this satisfies you. This comes from President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 428-430. Cannon recounts how Reagan made the Auschwitz claim not once, but twice: "Reagan had told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, during his November 29, 1983, visit to the White House, that the roots of his concern for Israel could be traced to World War II when he photographed the Nazi death camps. Afterward, Reagan said, he had saved a copy of the death camp films for himself because he believed the day would come when people would no longer believe that six million Jews had been exterminated...." Then, on page 430, Cannon recounts how Reagan made the claim a second time to Simon Wiesenthal and Rabbi Hier: "In the version he told Hier and Wiesenthal, Reagan had shown the films soon after the war to a person who claimed that reports of extermination of the Jews had been exaggerated. 'He {Reagan) said he was shocked that there would be a need to do that only a year after the war,' Hier said." Cannon then writes: "How could Shamir and Wiesenthal, fluent in English and known for their grasp of detail, have misunderstood so completely what Reagan said to them in two different meetings more than two months apart? What Jew would doubt the existence of the Holocaust?"
Well we can now see the evidence for Alzheimers. We have a Hebrew language account that translated into English paraphrases into "when he photographed the Nazi death camps." Whatever Reagan said was relayed to several people then translated into Hebrew and back. No one provides the original Reagan quote. Reagan was in the film unit that in fact edited the raw footage from Europe. Did he perhaps say "when I made the film about the camps"--that was true. He NEVER said anything like "I was there" or "I was in Europe." As evidence of Alzheimer disease this is pretty bad for an encyclopedia. As for Morris, he claimed to have loing conversations with Reagan in 1945, when Morris was 4 years old. That gets cited too!!! Rjensen 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What is with you? I give you evidence from two well-respected historians. Simon Wiesenthal and Yatzik Shamir also report that he said it. Israeli newspapers say he said it. The fact is, he said it twice. It's not a pleasant fact, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you object to it being included in the Alzheimer's part of this article. As I explained at the start of this thread, maybe it belongs in another section. Please suggest what that section is, but don't keep blanking this because the indient is unpleasant to you. This wiki article is an historical article. If you want to present the white-washed, boy scout history version, please do so elsewhere. Griot 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Good luck - this page is mostly sheer hagiography. Where is the information about how clueless the President was about the nuclear arsenal? Even his "we begin bombibng in 5 minutes" comment is treated as unimportant, while the article raves about how he won the cold war. This is a president who didn't know until a couple years into his presidency that there were nuclear bombs on bombers and submarines. He once accused the Soviet Union of "switching the names" of the SS-19 and SS-20 missiles to confuse us (it had to be explained to him that those names were given to the missiles by American intelligence, not by Russian propagandists). Even relatively respectful biographers and journalists like Strobe Talbott give this evidence in their books, but we don't see such information making it to wikipedia.--csloat 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
NO one has given us what Reagan said. Did he say "I made the newsreel showing the death camps"? That was true. Did he say "I photographed the death camps in person" --that is unlikely since he was never a photographer. Rjensen 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yatzik Shamir heard him say it. His command of English might be faulty, but Rabbi Hier, a native English speaker? And surely you're not going to doubt the word of Simon Wiesenthal? And then there's the research of three very well-respected historians: Edmund Morris, Lou Cannon, and Michael Korda. Are you suggesting that there has to be a recording of Reagan saying this for you to accept it? That's preposterous. With the president saying it twice, with this many people hearing it, and with what he said being corroborated by this many historians, how can you doubt it? Please try to have an open mind in this matter. Griot 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Shamir heard Reagan say WHAT??? Shamir does not say. Hier does not say. Wiesenthal does not say. So Wiki should not say.

Morris claims to have worked with Reagan in 1945 when Morris was 4 years old. That's credible? Cannon reports that all the White House aides said Reagan did not say he was in Europe. And what MD wants to link this diagnosis to Alzheimers??? Reagan many times publicly said "I made the newsreel about the death camps" and fourth hand it comes out "he said he was at the camps". That is not encyclopedic standards. Rjensen 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving this out of the alzheimer's section is a good idea; that section sucks anyway - it could use some more information. But simply removing it because a Wikipedia editor has a different theory about its meaning than reagan's biographer is what is not encyclopedic. If you want to cite various sources for the claim in the article that is great but do not remove accurate information. Perhaps there should be a section on Reagan gaffes? There are literally hundreds of them.--csloat 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah Reagan made gaffes but so did reporters, believe it or not, especially when writing in Hebrew about a quote that was in English. The ONLY evidence comes from a Hebrew language newspaper story. Putting it in a Wiki medical diagnosis is a gaffe even worse than Reagan made. Rjensen 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If this doesn't belong in the Alzheimer's section, where does it go. The even occurred -- that is beyond dispute. Should it go in the Trivia section? But it's not trivial. Please suggest where to record this event in the article. Griot 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction length.

The introduction to this article is eight paragraphs long, over 600 words (exactly 666, in fact), and larger than some full articles on wikipedia. In my opinion, we should take a long look at the introduction and try to cut it down to either 2 long paragraphs or 4 short ones, maximum. As it is, the summary is a long and cumbersome recap of Reagans life, instead of a succinct . Some key things I think we should axe:

  • Putting trivia in the summary seems a bit odd, given the wealth of information we need to put there. These things would be very useful in a normal summary, but this summary really needs (in my opinion) some cutting down. Examples of what I mean:
    • The statement about him being the oldest president.
    • The paragraph about how he's considered the Teflon President.
    • The paragraph about how he's the only presiden ever to survive an assassination attempt.
  • The second paragraph, where it summarizes his policy, is cumbersome. They may be facts and useful to know if you're doing a report, but this is a summary, we don't need to explicitly explain Reagan's position and what he did about it on every little thing. If someone wants to do a report on Reagan, they can read the article. The same applies for the third paragraph, the sixth, and the seventh.
  • The paragraphs that deal with his legacy are useful for a summary, but they should be cut down a bit.

Again, just a thought. If you disagree, please state disagreements. I enjoy debates, and I'd rather not tamper with this article until I get a consensus of how the active participants would enjoy seeing it. Haven't edited this article before, so I'd rather not barge in here and do major edits without a sense of consensus.

Cheers. Captain Scotch 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Maybe one suggestion is to draft up an alternative lead, post it hear and then see what people think. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Public Law: wishing Reagan happy birthday

I kid you not, see Public Law 107-1. Worthwhile a mention in this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


The section commenting that "Many different conspirators claim to believe that Reagan was an incarnation of the Devil. A large reason for this was that in each of his names was six letters- Ronald Wilson Reagan- 6,6,6." has been removed due to the superfluous and pretentious nature of the remarks, in that the claim is excessive and unjustifiable, until a user is able to supply substantial evidence.Allstargeneral 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

-- I believe this should be re-instated, although I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing it just yet. The main reference I can find which substantiates the claimis from the Wu Tang Clan song 'Impossible', in which the RZA casts allusions to such conspiracies in his verse:

"...My occupation to stop the innauguration of Satan/Some claim that it was Reagan, so I come to slay men..."

Would a link to a site containing the entire lyrics of this song be enough evidence to verify it's re-instation? --RobHardwick 01:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The trivia item concerning Reagan's birth order among Presidents, "Reagan was the 40th president to serve, but in birth order was the 36th...", contains an absurdity. Counting Reagan as the 40th President depends on counting Grover Cleveland twice because of his non-consecutive terms, which is well established convention. But Grover Cleveland was not born twice, nor did he die twice. (One could argue that Carter was born twice, as a born-again Christian. But that was after Reagan.) Therefore this item should count presidents by individuals rather than by administrations by which Reagan was the 39th *individual* to serve and the 35th born. I leave it however to the editors to clarify it one way or the other. 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC) PaCkMaN

"We Begin Bombing in Five Minutes"

While contrary to as indicated in the text, this did happen in 1984, but was in no way part of the 1984 campaign. While worthy of inclusion, it does not belong in either of the presidential campaign sections.

Indeed. I believe he said it while joking around with a staff member prior to a public address, and was unaware that they had already gone live. - Ecksem Diem 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

this article seems at times to be from a very biased perspective.

ive taken the liberty of editing out every instance of "incumbant" as it was placed before almost every political name except Reagan's himself

EDIT:: whoops, i had mistaken the word incumbant for cumbersome. my apologies.

Cold War Section

I broke the Cold War section down into subsections, deleted entirely one sentence that I couldn't find any decent context for, and reorganized the order of the subsections. Also, the expansion request is that the end of the Cold War didn't happen on Reagan's watch, for one thing, and another thing is that it skips all of the events that lead up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

I'm not sure that the events of 1991 belong, but I do think that the gratitude of the various leaders is appropriate. Hires an editor 17:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

This article should mention how Reagan cooperated with the late Pope against the communism ([28], [29]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First Photo caption

As of OCt. 18, 11:35 a.m. EST, the caption for the first photo, which shows Reagan with his cabinet, has been tampered. It reads "As part of a decoy tactic Reagan was never photographed alone. To this day nobody knows what he looked like." I haven't changed anything, but it should be correc

was Reagan assulted in 92 or 93?

I seem to remeber vaugly that Reagan was assulted by an enviromental activist in 92 or 93. Does anyone have any info on this? If so should it be mentioned in this article?--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 05:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My first memory of President Reagan was him being hit with a trophy or something like that. This would have been around that time period.--WinOne4TheGipper 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


This article is so damn biast. Where is the any mentions to the deficets, the lengthened healthcare waiting lists, the lower income for employees and the higher poverty rates? And in the UK people objected in Reagan because he had a goofy haircut and couldn't remember Princess Dianas name but how come theres no mention of the that? And why has all those things been deleted since I've been here last?

Your paragraph is full of words spelled incorrectly and poor grammar. A haircut has historical significance? 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Perhaps a haircut is not, even in this case, historically significant; nonetheless, you may benefit from working on your own grammar. What I would like to say is that the sarcastic paragraph at the end of the “criticism” section is inappropriate and should be deleted. The article could indeed use some constructively critical revamping. I nearly expected to hear a subtle fanfare begin in the background as I read the introduction alone. 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see links added to James G. Watt (Reagan's Secretary of the Interior), and also Michael Deaver, Ed Meese. In other words, whole Rogue's gallery of characters in Ronald Reagan's administration that made certain that whatever came out of Reagan's mouth, his administration did exactly the opposite. This is principly why being a "Great Communicator" means very little if you give lip service to saving the environment, while James G. Watt was literally raping it. I'd also like to see more discussion of the failure of the Savings and Loans under Reagan, and exactly what that legacy meant for the success of "trickle down" economics


I think it's appropriate to put the Wikiquote icon up top, because the first paragraph discusses the fact that Reagan was the "great Communicator" and was very "quotable." See These guidelines say that "a link to Wikiquote might be placed next to any discussion of quotations." So, I'm going to reinstall the Wikiquote icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talkcontribs)

I removed it before I saw your post here. It is already at the bottom of the page along with appropriate links to other wikis, which is where one would ususally look to find these links. It seems less confusing than interspersing them throughout an article. Also, links are usually shown only once. I'll leave it reverted for now, let's see how some other editors feel about it. Accurizer 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Accurizer, the wikiquote icon was at the top of the page, above Reagan's picture (because his "quotability" and "great communication" skills were mentioned in the first paragraph). So, it seems to me that there's no way anyone would have any difficulty looking to find the wikiquote link. Putting the wikiquote link at the top is not the same thing as interspersing such links throughout the article. I have reinserted the wikiquote link at the top, and also removed it from the bottom of the page. Ferrylodge 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the wikiquote template belongs there. It doesn't look good and is only barely relevant to the leading paragraph. shotwell 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If others agree that the wikiquote thing should be removed then we'll remove it. However, I think it looks fine at the top. Even if it were ugly as sin, it still seems very useful as a way to quickly access the words that made Reagan very quotable and a great communicator.Ferrylodge 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can definitely understand your reasoning. I'm not going to remove it -- I'll just wait to see what other people think. shotwell 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikiquote should be listed in the infobox towards the bottom of the page, along with Wikibooks, Wikisource etc. Putting a Wikiquote box somewhere else seems a little precious to me. It could come across as POV pushing. Mytwocents 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What POV would that be?Ferrylodge 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be time to let this go. Several editors have removed the box and some have expressed their distaste here. I can appreciate that you'd like to draw attention to our sister projects. None of us, however, are really used to seeing those boxes near the leading paragraph of such a lengthy article. I think you're fighting an uphill battle. shotwell 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I won't replace it at the top in the future. However, if others would like to do so, then I won't remove it either. The wikiquote link is valuable, and it's unfortunate that it will be buried where few will see it.
I went ahead and removed it. It'd be neat if the mediawiki software handled linking to sister projects. shotwell 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
But now there's no link to wikiquote anywhere on the page. In contrast, there is a link to Wikiversity, which yields nothing about Reagan.Ferrylodge 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I think it should be there now. shotwell 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

hitler, eh?

under the cold war section, it says, "Some of European leaders of the time like Adolf Hitler, give credit to Reagan for the application of these ideals"

I don't think hitler said too much on reagan's behalf...

Oldest living elected president

I dont think the article mentions that Reagan is the oldest living elected president. Gerald Ford lived longer but was not elected. Simillar to how JFK is known as the youngest elected president. --Duhon December 27th 2006


I think that this page should be reverted the its previous version as of Blobglob's edit. It moves information from the top of the page to the Presidency and removes information from the Presidency section that has already been placed on other, more specific, pages (such as Foreign policy of the Reagan administration and Reagan administration scandals)

Rougher07 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

category: deaths from alzheimer's?

should he be part of this category? he technically died of pneumonia, but I suppose Alzheimer's likely played a part in his death. I'm reluctant to remove it because his suffering with the disease is so well known. Hazydan 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: presidential height

The last time I checked, being 6ft 1 inch tall equated to around 185.4cm, not 182.xcm as stated.-- 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


What is his major achievements? What is his talents?


Should there be a definition or mention of this term somewhere in the article? Non-English speakers might not have the necessary context and having your name become a byword for something is, while not all that unusual with US presidents, quite impressive. --Kizor 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

I believe that the section of this article titled, "Religious Beliefs," isn't neutral. I'm disputing the neutrality of this part of the article. I object to the following statement: "His mother, an active Protestant, taught Reagan lasting values, such as a strong sense of personal responsibility and Christian tolerance for people of other faiths, cultures and colors." I believe that it is a subjective observation about President Reagan's personal beliefs. There are very few citations in this section of the article, which has led me to believe that most of this sectoin's information is subjective information that isn't corroborated by any facts. This next exercpt further demonstrates the bias in this section: "Reagan believed that his presidency had a higher meaning to be treated as a temporary gift of responsibility." I believe that it is wrong for personal opinions about a person to be placed inside an encyclopedia, and I feel that this section needs to be edited.

Punctuation - avoiding an edit war

I had changed the puntuation of this article to the Wikipedia Manual of Style standard. Someone else changed it back, and then a third person changed it again. I regret having started this.

WP:MOS#Quotation_marks says:

"With quotation marks, we borrow one practice from U.S. usage and one from the rest of the world. The guideline is to use the double-quotes (“”) for most quotations — they are easier to read on the screen — and use single-quotes (‘) for quotations nested within quotations. Starting with double-quotes is the U.S. custom. When punctuating quoted passages, Wikipedia strongly prefers to put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (“logical” quotations). This is commonplace outside the US."

So that supports my original edit. however, I had missed the following section of the Manual:

"However, insisting on changing to this usage, especially in articles written in American English, is deprecated; there are better and less divisive uses of time."

So I was mistaken in changing the punctuation in the first place. Let's not carry on with this. Ground Zero | t 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not have an edit war about this. But there is what appears to me to be clear precedent for how to proceed. WP:ENGVAR states, in relevant part, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." Clearly, a former President of the United States is specific to a particular Engligh-speaking country, namely, the United States. As such, the article should conform to U.S. usage and spelling. Cheers, JCO312 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific, I read the relationsip between the general rule of WP:MOS and the specific guidelines in WP:ENGVAR to mean that for articles without any particular tie to one nation or another, punctuation should be placed outside of quotation marks (unless it's part of the quote, of course), but for articles with a specific tie to a particular nation, the punctuation should follow that nations norms.JCO312 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a national varieties of English issue. Wikipedia practice is to use what is sometimes called the "logical style" in all articles. Punctuation goes inside the quotes if and only if it was in the original. This way the original is more accurately preserved, which is something Wikipedia places high value on. Jonathunder 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First, you appear to be ignoring the language cited above: "However, insisting on changing to this usage, especially in articles written in American English, is deprecated; there are better and less divisive uses of time."
Second, no one has yet explained why the WP:ENGVAR guidelines are inapplicable. You say that this is not a national varieties of English issue. It appears to me to be a question of proper grammar, and WP:ENGVAR proports to deal with issues of spelling or grammar. As an article dealing with an issue specific to America, I don't see how you can dismiss WP:ENGVAR. If Wikipedia practice mandates the placement of punctuation in all cases, as you seem to suggest, why is there a guideline saying that differing styles of grammar can be used for nation-specific articles? Cheers, JCO312 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with "American English". Wikipedia's Style Manual does not exactly conform to any national style. As it says, the double quotes are used, which is not the British style but it is done in articles in that style, and punctuation is as in the original. Changing from one national style to another is a no-no, but so is deliberately changing away from the MOS. Later today I will clean up the whole article to meet the MOS and I do not expect to be reverted on that. This is well-established practice. Jonathunder 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, both because your insistence on this issue is disapproved of in the same guideline you seek to enforce, and because I read the relationship between the policies differently, but your opinion is well thought out and you've been around here longer, so I'll accept your assertion that this is the proper approach. Cheers, JCO312 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My reading of WP:MOS#Quotation_marks is that on punctuation, preference is clearly for the American usage of double quotation marks and international placement of punctuation in relation to quotation marks, and that WP:ENGVAR does not supercede that. If WP:ENGVAR did take precedence over WP:MOS#Quotation_marks, then the latter would have no meaning -- there would be no Wikipedia policy on quotation marks, and the national style would take precedence, which is not supported by WP:MOS.

So when writing an article, the Wikipedia standard on quotation marks should be followed, i.e., British usage of single quotation marks and American placement of punctuation is not consistent with WP:MOS#Quotation_marks. Similarly, changing the usage of quotation marks or punctuation of an article on the basis of WP:ENGVAR would be incorrect.

However, as I've noted before, changing an article to be consistent with WP:MOS is not a good use of time, so we simply should not do it. On that basis, my initial change to the WP:MOS#Quotation_marks standard was incorrect, and I should not have done it. JCO312's reversion of my incorrect change was appropriate. Let's leave that way. Ground Zero | t 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The various edits left some parts of the article consistent with our style manual and some parts not. I just went through the entire article and made a number of spacing and punctuation corrections, so now the article should be consistent. Jonathunder 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment left on article

The following comment was added by (talk · contribs) in the middle of the lead in hidden comments; I've moved them here.

Please move these lesser tidbits, such as the gold standard, to other sections and not in the introduction; the gold standard is an obscure topic, and my thinking is that Reagan never seriously attempted it and the topic is not at all newsworthy - just political posturing. Also, the Berlin Wall and Cold War are already expanded upon in the foreign policy section. Move your comments there. You make an important point about taxes that will retained here - actually the tax reform introduced taxes too. Feel free to compromise back

Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Issues

I would like to see a new section on Ronald Reagan and the environment. A simple google search resulted in few if any credible sources. I can remember quotes from Reagan about Giant Sequoias. Something like you've seen one you've seen them all. I found a few sources claiming he was good for the environment while governor, but I've heard in various environmental discussions that his administration was one of the worst in history, scaling back many renewable energy projects in favor of economic gains. This could perhaps be under criticisms, but something needs to be included somewhere in the article. Right now the words environment, environmental, and conservation appear nowhere in the entire article, while the word energy appears only in a box describing the various secretaries Reagan had. This isn't a small issue and needs to be adressed somwhere in the article.