Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

"Reagan won the cold war"
I noticed some discussion on the issue of Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union. I grouped it together here.

1
Claiming that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe just doesn't hold up on close inspection. The better explanation is that Gorbachev and friends lost control of their efforts to reform Soviet and East Bloc economic and political institutions. That Gorbachev might want to give Reaganthe credit/blame for that is understandable; poor old fellow lost an entire Global Superpower. Remember, Gorbachev didn't just lose political power, he lost the entire state. (That he doesn't seem to have intended that as a consequence should tell anyone not suffering ideoogical delusion that it was a rather fragile entity.)

What Ronald Reagan does deserve credit for is the withdrawl of Soviet forces from Afghanistan; but then that means he is stuck with responsibility for bringing the Mujahidein and then the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.

2
He is credited with:


 * defeating the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries
 * rebuilding the military - this caused the Soviet Union to go bankrupt trying to keep up its military


 * This was done based on CIA numbers for Soviet nuclear weapons that turned out to be drastically overestimated, and many believe that they would have fallen apart anyway.

3
He should be credited with defeating the Soviet Union.

I don't think that's an uncontroversial opinion. The USSR fell apart during his term, but because it (foolishly) tried to keep up with his arms spending, not because he did anything to it. Probably the best way to put it would be that he "radically increased military spending (and violated a few treaties) to the point where the Soviet Union was unable to keep up, and collapsed soon thereafter."


 * Actually it is a controversial opinion. Perhaps not in the public arena but if you are to ask any historian, they will probably answer that the USSR collapse had very little to do with Reagan's policies.  I'm a student of Soviet history and I can tell you that the economic system of the Soviet Union was so bankrupt and inneficient that a colapse was inevitable.  To credit Reagan with the defeat of the USSR is to completely ignore a number of things:


 * 1) Dissent within the Eastern Bloc gained its most important momentum during the time Reagan was in office. Oddly enough the US government did little to directly support such movements (like Solidarity or independence movements inside of Latvia or Lithiuania) because they were afraid of antagonizing the Soviets.  These dissidents inside the USSR are the real victors in the struggle against Communism.  They were the ones who risked their careers, their lives and most importantly the well being of their children.


 * 2) Reagan's defense spending was spent on crazy hairbrained ideas like SDI or Star Wars (an outer space missile defense system) which many American scientists knew was not only impossible but idiotic as well. Guess what?  The Soviets knew this too, they knew that SDI and Star Wars was at best the idiotic fantasies of a man who confused reality with the movies he starred in and at worst a weapon that would not be ready for at least thirty years.
 * 3) Lastly thanks to the neo-Stalinist resurgance of the Brezhnev regime the USSR had been falling apart economically long before Reagan came into power. Thanks to wheat shortages and a disastrous 10 year war in Aghanistan that sucked an already failing Soviet economy dry.


 * 3)Lastly Reagan's increased military spending was anything, if not stupid. Besides nuclear missiles the Soviet Union really posed no military threat to the United States.  There's a reason why the movie Red Dawn is just a movie.  There is no way the USSR could have carried out a succesful ground invasion of the US as Reagan and his cold warrior hawks feared.


 * That being said. Perhaps individuals should learn some history first and consult experts on the subject of the Cold War rather than getting their information from people like Fox News or the New York Times.  If you want history ask a historian if you want bullshit ask anyone who's on telly.StoptheBus18 18:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4: How exactly?
I'm open to the hypothesis that Reagan won the cold war, and hurray if he did. However, I've never seen a comprehensive explaination of how exactly this is true. Thus far the explainations I've seen have lacked depth. For example, if the military buildup was the cause, why wasn't the jet-age and the space race? Did NASA win the cold war? It seems to me the USSR was never in fantastic shape, and was in ever declining shape since the 1950's. During Stalin scientists died in labor camps, next to exploding rockets, etcetera. It seems to me the USSR deserves the lion's share of the credit - even before gorbechev. Wasn't the USSR economically backward, and on the brink of collapse already?

"that's like the rooster taking credit for the dawn"
Al Gore said this during a debate in the 1992 election. I don't want to give him too much credit, but the quote rings true. Politically, it makes sense to take credit for something you know is going to happen - like if it's inevitable of its own accord. Reagan also said "tear down this wall". Again, I would suggest that the forces which brought it down were already in place. I'm reminded of an old cliche about the winning touchdown. The winning touchdown is great for sentiment and marketing, but it is also a significant departure from sober reality.

A Historic Moment
Now would be a good time in history to draw attention to the playing out of a law of politics: if you're going to sell yourself as a protector, it is better to overstate than understate the threat. During the cold war it was dogma for both parties to portray the Soviet Union as an equal but evil opposite. Evil, yes, but equal? You got to be kidding! Russians had to wait in line for hours to buy shoes that didn't fit. I would suggest that a more accurate view is of Russia producing card board cutouts to mimick our own achievements. They had a lot of technology with similar specs - "looked good on paper" -, but which were cheep immitations. In practice, poorly designed, poorly manufactured and poorly utilized by poorly trained personel. The mujahadin were not facing a formadable opponent. In an other incident, in a dog fight between U.S. F-14 Tomcats and Libyan-flown Mig 25's - the Soviet's best - the migs were easily shot down. They were, in practice, an insignificant threat to the U.S. planes. I would hate to have been a talented scientist or engineer in Stalinist Russia. I would have risked dying in a labor camp. I doubt that sort of management style is apt to produce results equal to our own. Stalin's successors were less extreme, but continued the same sort of high-pressure, draconian style.

Too Positive
The main page is very nice, but it tends to focus only on the positive things about Reagan. I think that there is a need on the page for a _non-partisan_ (of course!) presentation of some criticisms. I just added a line about Iran-Contra, which I unfortunately know too little about to say much of value.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Reversion: section on presidency
I know the section entitled "Presidency" was a center of dispute, but I doubt the correct approach is just to remove the section entirely, as 204.60.182.43 did earlier today. I reverted it. (How can an encyclopedia article on Reagan not cover his presidency?) This smacks of vandalism to me. M. E. Smith

Considering he just died, it is probably unnecessary to have so much embarrassing detail about his "sit and stare" phase.


 * His whole life was an embarrassing detail. It's kind of Orwellian to protect his image just because he's dead. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

Shouldn't most of the Iran-Contra stuff be one the Iran-Contra page, not this one? A brief explanation would fit here but in-depth should be on its own page.

The talk page is the place to hash out controversial issues.

For example, many people believe that Reagan did not care for low income people. That is not true. He believed that the individual can take care of himself better than a Washington bureacrat. Evidence for:
 * earned income credit - government subsidy to low income working people (and definitely anti-right wing)
 * derregulation of air fares - opened air travel to many more low income people
 * 1986 tax reduction - greatly lowered the tax desirability of owning real estate - this reduced the value of real estate and led to increased liquidity in the real estate market - this led to a greatly increased availability of lower priced homes and a much higher home ownership rate - no one credits Reagan with this because it has taken 15 years
 * 1986 tax reduction - second major effect - freed up the allocation of money invested in real estate to fund new businesses which created many new jobs and many new middle class people - increased liquidity of capital/business translates into innovation and more jobs - translates into increases in productivity - translates into improvments in the standard of living

Many new media stories portrayed Reagan as one who only helped the rich.

Fundamentaly, it comes to a question of:
 * Did Reagan's actions trigger events that caused an increase in the standard of living?

In another forum, I wrote that Ronald Reagan would be the best president to have a beer with. Bill Clinton would be the best president to go to a strip club with.

Reading from Europe, I miss the importance (not otherwise specified) of recalling his father's vertues; whatever might you think about the person (Ronald), I cannot consider it generous to include this, unless this private fact affected by any mean Usa's events. Is it really a substantial information to leave it in the article?

-
 * Reagan was:


 * tough on crime

I don't think that's a particularly useful statement. I don't think there are too many people that are in favour of crime, as a rule. What distinguinghes people like Reagan is that he thought of crime as primarily a personal responsibility, b) believed that people can be deterred from committing crime by harsh penalties, and c) believe that regardless of its deterrent potential, people deserve to suffer for their crimes on, when it comes down to it, the old "eye-for-an-eye" principle. He also believed that d) victimless crimes like taking drugs deserve punishment too.

OK, so I'm a bleeding-heart Australian leftie whose understanding of Reagan's time in office is mainly retrospective, so my take might be skewed. Would somebody else like to clarify it--Robert Merkel

- Well, maybe it could be said that he was unmerciful torwards criminals, which was a reverse of the trends torwards rehabilitation of criminals, etc. We now have a "hardcore" zero-tolerance society, with laws derived from the national sport. (Here in the states, anyway, YMMV.) Speaking of criminals, it sounds a little POV to call someone, "deranged", I think. I would remove it but the User:Isis got me in the habit of running my changes by others first. What do y'all think? --Two halves 05:09 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no mention of his stance (or lack thereof) on AIDS. How big of a deal was that? Does it deserve a brief mention, a full subsection, or what? (I was just a kid at the time so I'm at a slight disadvantage here.) -- General Wesc 15:39 28 May 2003 (UTC)

missing from this article is mention of the Beirut Deployment. Please add when you can. Kingturtle 21:58, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Change: Added more information regarding the genesis of Reagan's political career, most specifically pertaining to his well-documented cooperation with the House Un-American Activities Committee during the 1950's; minor changes to wording elsewhere. Spider Jerusalem 15:51 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

141.153.234.92, some of your information was very good, but a lot of it just wasn't wikified. I'm unsure if I should just revert the page, or try to patch it up. Punkche 16:08 20 January 2004

I moved the quote section here as it is patently POV anti-Reagan.

Quotes
In June 1989, Ronald Reagan said, "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders. ... The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip." 


 * OK, this is not POV. But is this really among the most famous things he said? He was out of office.

"What does an actor know about politics?", criticising Screen Actors Guild president Ed Asner for his views on foreign policy.


 * Needs source, or more explanation.

"I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform for four years myself," defending his visit to the Bitburg Military Cemetery. He spent the duration of World War II making military training videos in Hollywood.


 * Accuracy issue first: Reagan produced films while in the military. Video(tape) was in its embryonic stages. More to the point, this quote would be appropriate in a discussion of the Bitburg cemetery controversy.

"Facts are stupid things"


 * This was a blunder in his 1988 convention speech. The correct quote, used by Reagan as an iteration in the speech, was "Facts are stubborn things". He got it right except that once.

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes," during a radio microphone test in 1984


 * This was a joke, made when he assumed he was off-mike.

209.149.235.254 00:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because you do not question the validity of these quotes, you admit they are all accurate, I don't think it would be appropriate to take them out. I think you should find some quotes that are "pro-Reagan." Punkche 13:30 6 Feb 2004 (MST)


 * That would begin the process of transforming the article into a debate forum, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles. Instead, I put an NPOV dispute message on the article. 209.149.235.254 21:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The quotes should be removed because any hand-selected list here is inherently POV. The compromise is to give an external link to Wikiquote (here) where an extensive listing of quotes is possible. This has been done on other articles. --Minesweeper 07:12, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

On the Bitburg visit:

"First, he announced he would not visit a concentration camp in West Germany because there were "very few alive that remember even the war, and certainly none of them who were adults and participating in any way." "


 * Reagan did, in fact, visit the Bergen-Belsen camp on the same visit. This would appear to be at odds with the quote. Need a source on that.

"Reagan, in an attempt to defend the incident, claimed that he had done so in response to a letter he received from a teenage girl in Chicago; she promptly surfaced with her letter which had urged him not to do so."


 * Have not been able to find any substantiation for this.

The rewritten paragraph is consistent with the public record.

209.149.235.254 22:54, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the public record? Where can I find it? http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2001-05-04-protest.shtml here is one of many tales of the Reagan press conference in which he discussed the Bitburg letter.
 * The quote about the concentration camp shows that he had to change his mind on a visit to a concentration camp before he visited Germany. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/hist133p/133p-99/vign1985the.993.htm that is my source on that quote.
 * Punkche 19:32 14 Feb 2004 (MST)

Re: the letter from the girl about the cemetery - the David Corn column cited was written 16 years after the fact. And it was a retrospective on the death of Joey Ramone. There's gotta be something more contemporary than that.

I agree that the Bergen-Belsen camp visit was a late addition to the tour. Nevertheless Reagan did go. 209.149.235.254 16:28, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A couple of items/corrections:

First, the recession began in 1981 (summer) and lasted through the spring of 1982. To label it as a "1982" recession implies that it was (at least) partially caused by Reagan's economic policies when in fact it began even before his first budget was approved by Congress. Remember that the first tax cuts were not received by taxpayers until the 1982 calendar year.

Second, the actual income figures show improvements in all eight budget years for Ronald Reagan's presidency. The "average hourly wage" is not comparable to annual income (it even says so in the published study) and can decline in "average" the same way that the population of a country grows "younger" on average.

Reagan's military service:

It actually began before the war, when he cheated on an eye exam to get into the Army reserve as a Cavalry officer in 1935. After Pearl Harbor he became "regular army" and was assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in the Army Air Corps, which of course made training and education films. Not only was this logical given Reagan's profession, but with his poor eyesight and sub-par hearing he never would have been assigned to a combat unit. In addition, he turned 31 in February of 1942, making him older than the average combat soldier (26) by a few years.

Now, his mention of the holocaust is valid because one of the tasks of the First Motion Picture Unit was to screen incoming film of the concentration camps. He indeed was one of the first people "stateside" to see the film of the camps, and also had access to the unedited (graphic) versions.

I agree that the quotes portion is woefully inadequate. Perhaps linking to the various Ronald Reagan quote pages is a better solution.

The crime issue deserves a separate page. There are a number of related issues (the rise of crack cocaine, public outcry over lenient sentancing, AIDS and IV drug use, the war on drugs, etc.) that make it impossible to encapsulate in one or two sentances. In addition, it was congressional Democrats who tried to use "tough on crime" as an issue against Ronald Reagan in the 1986 election cycle. It was their proposals for long jail terms for drug law violations that eventually became law.

Disclosure: I run the President Reagan Information Page at http://www.presidentreagan.info/

Also the bombing quote is off on this page

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to announce that I've just signed legistlation that will outlaw russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes"

That is exactly what he said. I have the audio clip. I dont know if that helps anyone or anything :S

~JessPKC 1:58AM Feb17th 2004

Doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion of the recent changes, so, I added the info about Reagan's military service to the bio section, and dropped it from the explanation about the quote. I also removed the NPOV dispute, as I put it there and the issues I had have been dealt with. 209.149.235.254 00:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's body
Ronald Reagan is 93 years old. No previous President has lived so long. What is currently going on with his body??

"Near the end of his term, Reagan was also instrumental in supporting the transition of Latin American democracy, giving generous foreign aid packages to states who held free elections. "

This seems to be biased and factually inaccurate. Reagan was certainly not very pleased with the elections in Nicaragua in 1984. The Reagan Administration also supported numerous dictatorships around the world, including in Latin America (Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Uruguay, among others). Yes, El Salvador did get money to hold "elections," although they could hardly be considered in any sense free, considering, for one thing, the prominence of death squads.

Quotes
The "quotes" section seems like it will be a pov magnet. NPOV is not about simply presenting both positive and negative. The quotes don't really enhance the understanding of Reagan. I think we ought to take it out, and will commence. Meelar 02:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See also Wikiquote. --mav 02:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which is why I tried to take the quotes off the article earlier. 209.149.235.254 00:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * but now it seems that most of the quotes which make him look bad have been taken out of the article, even those which were well publicized at the time and do indeed tell something about his thinking (like the 5 minutes bombing joke), while those which make him appear witty and likeable have remained (like the 'hope you are republicans' anecdote which has a prominent place in the first paragrph on his presidency - actually i love that one ;) ). hardly npov either. High on a tree 02:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason that those are in here is that they're presented within the context of the article, and aren't isolated in a "Quotes" section. Feel free to incorporate other quotes, as long as they're germane and an organic part of the article. Yours, Meelar 02:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Date incongruity

 * In 1921, at the age of 11, Reagan was baptized...

If Reagan was born in 1911, he couldn't have been eleven in 1921. Was he baptized in '21, or at age 11 (in '22 or early '23)? Garrett Albright 03:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

While I'm at it...


 * Child of an alcoholic father, Reagan developed an early gift for storytelling and acting.

What does one have to do with the other? :P Garrett Albright 22:24, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Why revert my edit revealing Nancy Reagan's full maiden name? And again, why delete the presidents table which is in other presidential bios?

Profession
'Gov. of California' is not a profession, it is a job. If you mean that his profession was 'politician' as well as actor, well, kind of, but every President is a politician. Let's just stick with actor. Mark Richards 20:49, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

ABC news reports Reagan's Death
ABC news is reporting that Reagan died today. I have added pertinent info.Brian Schlosser42 20:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly...
This is the first time in more than 30 years when there was a time when an earlier President (Jimmy Carter) survived a later President (Ronald Reagan). The previous time was from 1969 to 1972 when Harry Truman survived Dwight Eisenhower. What does this sound like to you?? 66.32.138.16 22:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * An occasional circumstance of no further significance. - Nunh-huh 09:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Sections
I felt compelled to add sections on Personality and Presidential "Style" as I believe they are important attributes of a president. I was surprised to find no such text. As a (regrettably) "Reagan Democrat" I feel that these are important and relevant additions to this page. Leonard G. 23:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Photographs
Okay, this page is now offically overloaded with photographs. Please no more. --Rookkey 00:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I do wish that users would read the talk page before just haphazardly adding MORE photographs. The current count is 14!! in the article.  I'm not sure an encyclopedia article needs that many.  Especially as not quite all of them seem needed to support the text. --Abqwildcat 04:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly... (part 2)
I've always felt that he had some sort of mysterious connection to my grandmother, although to the best of my knowledge she had never met him. He was born just over 1/2 year before she was (Sep. 1911). I know that doesn't mean too much, but we have two other things. One of her daughters, and one grandson were both born on Feb 6th. And Ronald Reagan passed away 11 months to the day after she had (July 5, 2003).

You may not agree with his politics, or what he had done while President. But still, today the United States of America, and indeed the world has lost a great man.


 * JesseG 00:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ducking joke
" to his wife Nancy he jokingly commented, "Honey, I forgot to duck.""

What does this joke mean ? It's possible Americans may understand this joke not others. If someone explains it here that would be helpful. Jay 09:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This comment made in jest refers to the time of his attempted assassination in 1981. In that context, the comment should become obvious - Reagan had no intention of being shot that day. ("duck" having the connotation of laying one's body down to prevent harm to oneself) 209.221.222.206 06:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative


 * It also seems clear that even most Americans don't recognize that this remark was not something Reagan "thought up" on the spur of the moment: he was quoting a remark made by boxer Jack Dempsey in 1926 explaining his loss of his heavyweight championship. After Dempsey lost to Gene Tunney, his wife Estelle Taylor asked him "What happened?". His reply was "Honey, I forgot to duck."  Reagan often is credited with witticisms, like this, that he creatively quoted rather than originated. - Nunh-huh 06:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reagan was 93 ??!?
Reagan was 93 ??? I would have guessed he was in his 70's looking at his photographs. Does anyone his pics as recent as 1 or 2 years back ? Jay 09:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He was born in 1911, according to whatever news channel is on TV behind me. 2004-1911=93. Yeah, he does look young, esp. considering his advanced Alzheimer's(sp). DryGrain 09:14, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jay, Reagan was completely incapacitated 1 or 2 years ago, so there are no photos. He made no public appearances after Nov. 1994. The photos in the article are from his presidency and a couple years after, when he was in his 70s. -- MW

Response to AIDS, "contempt"
There's a remark in this section that says some viewed Reagan's inaction as an expression of contempt, which people keep removing and other people keep restoring. While there is ample evidence that he didn't have such contempt, it is a widely held view among homosexuals. For example, see the recent TV movie, written by homosexuals, that falsely quotes Reagan, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." I think the article should make clear the low regard with which homosexuals view Reagan, and why, even though that view is distorted. Gazpacho


 * He and his pals chortled about AIDS when it was known as GRID. Then Rock Hudson's death rocked their tiny worldview if I remember an interview with Ron Reagan and Nancy Davis Reagan.

Casablanca info
Removed text previously stating 'Reagan was considered before Humphrey Bogart for the part of Rick in Casablanca; a career move that surely would have changed history.'

Reviewing the current Snopes.com what's new, http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/reagan.asp, the issue is discussed and determined to be a myth (or urban legend, if you prefer). Based upon facts and interviews, they establish the Casablanca link to be purely mythological.

-Abqwildcat 20:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism, Libya
There should be something regarding his policies toward terrorists in general; the end of the Iran hostage crisis as his presidency started (just before the assassination attempt is recounted, perhaps); and also about the air strike on Libya and the dispute about the boundaries of Libya's territorial waters. The Libya strike in particular seems at least as important as the Grenada invasion. Wesley 16:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism
66.192.161.220 added a comment about Reagan "being tough on terrorism" that was removed. However, as I've reread Reagan speeches the last few days and seen video clips, I've been amazed at the number of times Reagan did mention terrorism. Though obviously not as big an issue as today, it was a pressing reality from the beginning of Reagan's term to the end. Reagan did indeed take a hardline stance against terrorism. That could be mentioned in the article somewhere, though I'm not sure it rightly goes in a section of "Ronald Reagan is credited with" items, since many probably don't remember that specific issue in association with his policies. Jdavidb 21:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I removed it, because, amongst other reasons, being "tough on terrorism" is a pretty vague accomplishment. I don't know enough about Reagan to argue with you if you have more specific/detailed factual stuff, so go ahead. Meelar 13:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Eek. The Contras were terrorists, if we're going to be serious and not throw history down the memory hole. He also showed a lot of support for Arab terrorist groups. Wasn't it under Reagan that the CIA trained and armed Osama bin Laden? They were also pretty tight with Saddam Hussein, this during his most brutal era. Giving Reagan credit for proliferating terrorism is fair; the opposite is not. I won't remove it immediately, because I don't want to start an edit war, but I just think it's an utter falsehood. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suspicious changes
I think that the following changes meaning and can be a kind of vandalism: History comparison Changes by user 66.192.161.220. I did not rever them, as I am not a Reagan specialist enough to know if they arent actually improvments. Your thougts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other Opinions
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)

Wikipedia popularity
For the record, Wikipedia's article on Ronald Reagan is 21th in the Google search at this time...

-Jasper Chua 09:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did the Reagans have an open marriage?
Many knew of Reagan’s extramarital affairs, including how he was reportedly having sex with mistress Christine Larson as his wife Nancy gave birth to daughter Patti? Or that he was regularly known to engage in extramarital sex with various Hollywood wannabe actresses? Was Frank Sinatra and the other men payback for bad behavior?
 * I am sick of you repeating stories that people make up. None of this is verifiable but you have this sick glee in repeating it. Dominick 14:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I give sources. You? Keep protecting a phony? You're the only one who thinks it is objectionable. Well, you and your sock puppet. - Sparky
 * Ad Hominem. I am sure anyone can repeat gossip, but that doesn't make it true or authoritative. Dominick 11:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In 1952 42 year old Ronald Reagan raped 19 year old Selene Walters and got away with it
What's your problem with MSN's Slate or Amazon.com's IMDB? They both clearly state the same facts — in 1952 42 year old Ronald Reagan raped 19 year old Selene Walters and got away with it. It's not something people should ignore. I don't mind you not trusting me but it's more than gossip. I guess you have no respect for AOL Time-Warner's People magazine's confirmation of the same fact: Ronald Reagan raped Selene Walters and got away with it. So you've read the victim's statement on the basics of the event as written by Kitty Kelley. That's not gossip at this point. So what's your problem with the facts as reported. I've gathered you lack respect of women by this point. Might as well face the facts before we start an edit war as I'm not backing down. Nor am I intimidated by your sock puppet calling me names. - Sparky 21:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * His mob connections will be shown, and we'll examine tales of his going out whoring with Mafia fixer and lawyer Sidney Korshak.
 * And that Reagan deserted Jacqueline Park when informed he had made her pregnant.

Sex Maniac Ronnie
pulled because Dominick doesn't want people to read the truth. And now resurrected ...

Sorry you don't care for Ms. Kelly. Hate Salon as well? Think MSN doesn't fact check stories? And Character Assassination is more part of the Washington scene. However, I have no high horse. Nancy is still alive. She knows what she did. She knows what her husband did. And with whom. So you want a pretend good absent-minded grandpa image of the dead pervert or the truth. And it not funny that articles are disappearing thanks to the FCC protecting a dead man's self-tarnished image. - Sparky 03:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) We have Peter Lawford's famous quote about Nancy's mouthwork. Remember the man had Marilyn Monroe to compare it to.
 * 2) Uncle Milty made similar claims. I suspect most of the Rat Pack had their way with her as well.
 * 3) People Magazine got
 * 4) Selene Walters to verify the basics of what —
 * 5) Kitty Kelley asserted.
 * 6) Salon Magazine's —
 * 7) Jack Shafer also reported on the fact the rape story got silenced.
 * 8) Kevin Jeyes also reported about the Reagan's sexual shenanigans.
 * 9) Patti Davis and —
 * 10) Ron Reagan also admitted their parents were notorious players.
 * 11) Robin Leach only made sly  wink wink remarks so there's no real reason to dump on him.


 * So you want a pretend good absent-minded grandpa image of the dead pervert or the truth. Since when did any sexual procivities make one a pervert? This is exactly what I am talking about. You have the he said she said. Hollywood and DC share in character assasination, Wikipedia should not. I am sure that both of them had Sexual experiences, however, as a matter of scholorship, all you have is shaggy dog stories. Articles disappearing? It is convienent that you can't offer proof, because the FCC, who can't even regulate radio emissions, somehow can participate in a conspiricy. Bedroom tales are not the defining moment in Reagans life. Rape is also a criminal act. If it was true it would have a lot mroe traction. Dominick 19:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Republicans Involved in Sex Scandals as Much as Democrats quotes the Chico Examiner, Oct. 29, 1998, Kevin Jeys Chico Examiner story which tells us about both Christine Larson and Nancy's oral favors: [Reagan] reportedly was screwing mistress Christine Larson as Nancy Reagan gave birth to daughter Patti. And Christine was known as Reagan's mistress.

And fix your typos — you're coming off as whiny kid whose just been told Santa doesn't exist. - Sparky 04:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Too many negative items?
I must say, being new to Wikipedia, that I was flabbergasted - a word I don't use often - to find that if you put one hint, a mere soupcon, just the suggestion of something absolutely true, e.g. Reagan's people classified ketchup as a vegetable to save money on school lunches for poverty-line children... whoosh! Not only is it removed, but is called "vandalism." Not only is this well-documented, but I was an adult at the time, just as I am now. I remember Senator Heinz (Teresa's husband) said at the time, "I know a little about ketchup and it is not a vegetable; it is a condiment." Every time I see ketchup, which is daily (okay, I'm not a gourmet), it reminds me of how callous and niggardly Reagan was, how he told his daughter Patti that the homeless choose to be homeless (this tidbit comes from Patti's own writing), how his antipathy toward the poor verged on the pathological, and his cavalier approach to those with AIDS WAS pathological, particularly considering the sexual orientation of his son. These were parts of the man, but you'd never know it because obviously, as some glassy-eyed keepers of the flame must be watching this site every second, the entry for Ronald Reagan may as well be straight from Fox News, chock full of itty-bitty positive sound bites and little else. This, my friends, is one reason the US, the only country I've ever lived in, and the country I love, is in the mess it's currently in: a dismal lack of curiousity, and a total disrespect and disregard for the truth.

Giving him credit for the fall of the soviet union is overly positive, the soviet union was critically flawed, and started to die out after the Cuban Missile Crisis. In communist government you can't afford guns and butter. It was primary propped up to get Star Wars going they needed a reason, also the Missile Gap which was at best a lie. But, it'll be a while before things cool off and you can talk about the mass graves in Central America. Saying that there are too many negative items is wrong, it's actually pretty kind... it's just lately people have been piling on praise. It'll die down and most reasonable people will recall his actions, and then it'll switch back. No real reason to change it much to the right when it'll shift back after this love fest is over.


 * It's my understanding that Soviet military spending remained relatively constant during the reagan administration, so it's not clear that Reagan had any effect one way or another on the demise of Soviet communism. I do think his friendship with Gorbachev, and the relationship they established, helped a LOT.  It was that, rather than the high military spending during his administration, that helped speed up the end of the cold war, IMHO.  Also it should be remembered that every single one of the weapon systems deployed during the Reagan administration was started under the Carter Administration -- so the idea of the so-called "decade of neglect" and of Reagan solving it with a massive military buildup is completely overblown.  --Commodore Sloat


 * It's a supportable position. E.g.--
 * "... in 1991, Vladimir Lukhin -- once a top diplomat for the USSR, then the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Duma -- told me how Reagan's SDI speech was received on the other side. ... in 1985, the reports came back to the Kremlin, both bearing the same basic message: "We don't know if the USA can succeed with this missile-defense plan, but we know that the USSR cannot." This forced the Politburo into an agonizing reassessment: something, Lukhin recalled, had to change. And that change, the Russian gerontocrats hoped, would come in the form of a young new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who took power in 1985. ... As Lukhin told me, "Reagan accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union by five to ten years" -- which was fine with Lukhin." http://www.techcentralstation.com/060804C.html
 * --wwoods 20:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Purpose of this page
It seems to me that several people are forgetting the purpose of the talk page. The talk page is for discussing controversial changes to the article with other wikipedians. It is not for jokes, tributes, or grave-dancing. It also is not for settling questions of broad economic/historical cause and effect, which is impossible. Gazpacho 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you not [delete comments]. It is considered bad form to delete other people's comments from Talk pages. RickK 23:17, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Many of those comments should not have been posted in the first place. Sir Paul 23:36, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would not remove comments about the article and what should or should not be in it. At the same time I would prefer not to see this page used for "Reagan was good/evil" editorials that don't refer to editing. Gazpacho

Whether the comments are appropriate or not, they are now sacrosanct and can be archived, but not deleted. RickK 00:18, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

SDI post-Cold War
in the context of SDI as a Cold War policy, it doesn't make too much sense to discuss Clinton and George W. Bush's views since the Cold War is already over by then... the reasons stated by the current administration for continuing this policy are different
 * At the time, Reagan suggested it would take decades for the program to be carried out. The program was supported by his successor, George H. W. Bush, though not eagerly pursued. Bill Clinton also supported it, though not actively. President George W. Bush actively supports the program.

--Confuzion 07:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clarify implication
This sentence:


 * The child of an alcoholic father, Reagan developed an early gift for storytelling and acting.

seems to imply that Reagan was forced to be a Scheherazade to protect himself from mistreatment by his alcoholic father. If this implication is true, the implication should be make explicit. If this implication is false, these concepts should not be grouped together.

EmRick 19:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are still alive!
To me, the 40th presidents of the U.S. are still alive. They are Nancy and her astrologer.

Numerological hoax ?
I once read somewhere that all US presidents who took office in a year ending with '0' were assassinated and Reagan was the first president who survived the assassination attempt and finished his term safe. But now after a look at the list of presidents chart I see that only 1 president took office in a year that ended with '0'. So was that a complete hoax or did I get the figures wrong ? Jay 09:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * it's elected: Tecumseh's curse--Jiang 09:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jiang, I've added this bit of trivia in the Presidency section. Jay 18:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Double check
I just took out this new addition: "This view is supported by Gorbachev's blatant begging of Reagan not to follow through with the program, offering him obscene arms deductions at Reykjavik." - It seems POV but I'm having trouble understand the viewpoint and what the skew is. What are the facts of this? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  00:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is that far off; Gorbachev himself credits Reagan's SDI for his concessions at Reykjavik and in fact credits SDI with helping end the cold war. The offered reductions at Reykjavid were indeed significant and it is generally accepted that SDI was the deal-breaker.  (And I'm saying this as someone who believes that SDI was one of the most insane pie-in-the-sky ventures dreamed up in Washington, absolutely destructive of world peace). csloat 05:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reagan's responsibility for the fall of comunism
Reagan was a lucky man in power at the right time. He may have contributed to the bankrupting of the Eastern bloc countries, but it was a case of fortunate timing. Man throughout the ages has pursued self-determination and personal economic control. Whether Reagan pursued the policies that he did, or not, communism would have fallen.

It will happen in China eventually. Cuba will fall. These too will be the products of internal developments influenced by external forces; not driven by external developments or policies.

Article too long
It's 51kB. Quotations belong in wikiquote. I'll be deleting the section. --Jiang 01:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Drop the links section while you're at it. They should be moved to footnotes in the article (like the documentation of Reagan's discussion of AIDS) or just dropped as POV pushing. Ellsworth 18:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden
I have problems with this statement:


 * It has also been alleged that Osama bin Laden, the future Al-Qaida leader, received training by the CIA or an allied intelligence agency.

I'm not sure that anyone knowledgeable about this region or history has made this claim. There is no chance, given his ideology, that bin Laden would have accepted training from the CIA. While he and the other Afghan Arabs certainly benefited immensely from the weapons and money that the CIA funnelled into Afghanistan during the 1980s, this support was carefully channelled through the Pakistani ISI and through the Saudis rather than directly. CIA involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s was significant, but there seems to be no evidence whatsoever that bin Laden ever worked directly with CIA. (Now, certainly the ISI is an "allied intelligence agency," at least at times, but I'm not sure this validates the rest of the statement -- it might be more accurate to claim that bin Laden and other elements of what would become al Qaeda benefited from CIA money and weapons through the ISI). csloat 03:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have heard this allegation repeated enough that stating it as such isn't inappropriate. JMO - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;


 * Repeated where? By whom?  I think it makes sense to stick to claims that can be easily validated.  If you can point to a credible source for this particular claim I will quit whining about it :)   But the claim has been explicitly refuted in such authoritative texts as Through Our Enemies' Eyes and in Simon and Benjamin's The Age of Sacred Terror, and you won't find the claim that bin Laden had any actual CIA contacts in leftist histories of the region such as Dilip Hiro's, Tariq Ali's, Ahmed Rashid's, or Larry Goodson's.  csloat 05:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to do a lot of research on it, but doing a quick and simple Google search I found this BBC article. It claims Bin Laden "received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian."--GD 06:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Teimourian is a known journalist and reasonable source.  But I can't find anything other than the BBC article mentioning it; perhaps it should be cited, or Teimourian listed as the source of the claim.  He may be referring to 1986 when bin Laden helped build a tunnel complex in Khost that the CIA funded in part as a training camp, among other things.  That is not direct training however (and I think there's an important difference), but there's no question that CIA helped build the infrastructure of bases and training camps that al Qaeda used for years (hell, that's how the US knew where to bomb in 2002 -- we built those targets!)  Anyway thanks for the cite.  csloat 09:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The Teimourian claim seems to be from this book. Much of the information is still classified and CIA support for bin Laden was mostly channeled through ISI. Some information about the CIA shipping weapons to bin Laden came out in a trial that followed the US embassy bombing in 1998: U.S. Sent Guns to bin Laden in 1980s (AP). Here is a more general article which is quite useful because it quotes its sources.pir 09:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Editorial Cowardice
Some people are cowards and afraid of the truth here. Protecting the image of a lie is not the job of an encyclopedia... And pretending we're ALL giving him a pass is simply wrong.  The Selene Walters Rape charge was an orphan paragraph on earlier versions of the main article as you can see here. If you remove the below again with the rationale of it being mere gossip after I reinsert it in the main article this Sunday we'll merely have an edit war. - Sparky 16:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) Oh - I feel Nancy's fluffer past belongs in her article. Look for it there soon, Is Gazpacho your sock puppet? A life of fear must be a toll on your nerves.

Reagan's darker side: Reagan's Mob connections hid
A long time friend of Reagan, the powerful and connected Lew Wasserman —  Chairman and CEO of MCA (Music Corporation of America), the parent of Universal Studios, until 1990 when it was sold to Matsushita for $6.6 billion — protected Reagan from any taint of dirty money. Wasserman was "connected," but that it was not known precisely how and few wanted to know. Julius Stein and Wasserman had had little choice — in order to succeed in show business in their day, they had to deal with the Mob — especially Stein, who started out in Al Capone's Chicago, and formed a liaison with James Petrillo, the head of the American Federation of Musicians local in Chicago and, eventually, its national president. They did what they had to do — in the world of the Great Depression. When MCA bought Universal Studios, federal regulators forced Wasserman to dissolve MCA's agency wing because MCA was representing performers as their agent while its production company was hiring them; as this violated anti-trust laws in 1962. Wasserman made an estimated $350 million from the sale, and was retained as a manager. When Seagram bought MCA in 1995, he retired from management, but remained on the board of directors until 1998. Paradoxically, he was a committed Democratic and one of Bill Clinton's earliest backers.

In an recent article Death Valley Days John Waters reminds that: Connie Bruck stated in her book on Lew Wasserman When Hollywood Had a King: The Reign of Lew Wasserman, Who Leveraged Talent into Power and Influence, that Reagan used to go out whoring with the Hollywood mob fixer and lawyer Sidney Korshak.

Also Deadline Hollywood: Bye Bye, Bonzo talks of many examples of Reagan's double-dealing long before Iran-contra, Nikki Finke reports: Henry Denker, a well-known theater, TV and radio writer, penned a thinly disguised roman à clef about the “TCA” talent agency, its ties with the mob and a has-been actor turned Western state governor. The Kingmaker disappeared soon after publication, reportedly because Wasserman had it deep-sixed. It remains one of the hardest books about Hollywood to find. More easier to find is mystery and screenplay author Roger L. Simon's 2nd Moses Wine novel Wild Turkey which features mobster Meyer Greenglass who is clearly based on Sidney Korshak and deals with a mystery that focuses on that era in Hollywood.

Crusading muckraker Dan E. Moldea shows the three were connected as the rise of MCA and its move to Hollywood paralleled the rise of the Chicago Mafia and its infiltration of the motion picture industry. While MCA was representing some of the top motion picture stars, Chicago mobsters took control of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the major Hollywood labor union — through Willie Bioff, a small-time hood, who was supervised by Chicago mob lieutenant Johnny Rosselli. Though soon Hollywood was told Sidney Korshak was their representative.

No One Asks Why The Media Gave Reagan A Pass On A Charge of Rape
On what was called “The Battle of the Couch” by Kitty Kelley, she describe a date rape-like situation involving then 19 year old Selene Walters and Reagan. Further, in the April 29, 1991, issue of People Magazine, Selene Walters said that 42 year old 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. … ”

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.”

Kelley other insight into Reagan's character comes off even worse: 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. Park told Kelley that when the two began dating, Reagan couldn't perform sexually. I think he was still suffering withdrawal pains from [former wife] Jane Wyman." Throughout their liaison, Park said, "He never took me out in public, never gave me a present and never ever paid for a cab for me." 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. …”