Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 16

NPOV dispute
Talking about tax cuts in the lead while burying all the times Reagan raised taxes in the article is right-wing mythmaking.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reagan campaigned on cutting marginal income tax rates, which he did in 1981 and again in 1986. There were no further changes to the income tax rates during his presidency and to state otherwise would be misinformation. A 5 cent increase in a fuel tax or an extension of a telephone or cigarette tax is hardly earth shattering and certainly not worth adding to the lede section. Otherwise we would need to modify all of the president articles, as raising excise taxes has always been standard policy for maintaining revenue during recessions. You could make a case for the notability of the 1983 Social Security amendments, but beyond that would be petty political posturing, which has no place here.--FrankieG123 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tax policy is more complicated than just looking at the marginal tax rate. The marginal tax rate doesn't mean much unless you take into account the changes in deductions and bracket structure. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top marginal tax rate but increased the rate on the lower bracket.  The 1986 reforms also eliminated many deductions, including deductions for consumer loans and credit card interest payments.  I think the most straight forward way of evaluating the tax changes is to look at the effective tax rate, which taxes all of these factors into account. From 1980 to 1988 the effective rate for all households went from 22.2 to 21.8.  Not too earth shattering. The rate for the bottom quintile actually increased from 7.7 to 8.5 while the top went from 27.3 to 25.6. Reagan's tax policies led to a net, small cut in the rate, and increased taxes for some. I think it's fair to to criticize any characterization of Reagan as a completely committed tax cutter. Especially considering he unambiguously raised the payroll tax rate.  I don't want to get into the discussion of how we should characterize Reagan's tax policies, but I think simply saying that Reagan was a tax cutter is naive, wrong, and POV.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably should have taken a closer look at the lede before commenting. It's not too bad, but I think it could be improved. He did advocate tax cuts, which is true.  I think the bigger problem with the lede is it doesn't say anything more about his tax policies.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All probably true, but irrelevant. The topic is not tax cuts or tax increases, it is the lede section, specifically this line: "His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," advocated reducing tax rates to spur economic growth, controlling the money supply to reduce inflation, deregulation of the economy, and reducing government spending." This is the so called POV text. It does not even mention that Reagan cut taxes, nor does it mention any tax act by name. All it does is say he advocated reducing tax rates (which he did). We need to keep it generic, otherwise we will have to flood the lede with citations, which is improper format.--FrankieG123 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute. The edit warrior who started this thread is simply confusing his unsupported commentary with reality.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This argument fails under WP:undue weight. This is overemphasizing a mythical/ideological part of his presidency while ignoring the reality.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you tell us which specific line in the lede is causing your problem? Because I have read it several times, and there is no mention at all of tax cuts, only one line which states Reagan advocated reducing tax rates.--FrankieG123 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

AIDs issue deserves a mention
I'm not trying to open up a hornet's nest here, but regardless of one's political leaning (being bound to assume you are all here in good faith), I think the AIDs issue deserves a mention. Even if you feel the criticism is uncalled for, there IS criticism. There's a difference between disagreeing with it, and pretending it does not exist. This is one of the fundamental issues associated with Reagan's presidency. I don't want to open up the floodgates to emotional villifying of Reagan, but I think it's a notable enough issue (not in terms of death tolls, as that tends to be the somewhat questionable comparison made between him and Clinton, as a way of diverting from the topic), but in terms of a balanced look on how he handled the issue, how it affected his legacy, etc. I don't think this needs to be belabored, but it certainly is as notable as a lot of the other minor details here. It seems that a lot of previous references have been deleted. We do no honor to the man by pretending his choices, for better or worse, didn't happen. I thought I'd seek consensus here before adding anything myself, given that it seems to be a touchy issue with partisans.Jbower47 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, since there is already a decent section about it here: Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration, why not start by condensing that section into one or two sentences? As I recall, that section was originally in this main Reagan article before it was detached to reduce article load times. To save space, we should summarize here and link to the AIDS page on the DP page.--FrankieG123 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I will try to get to this by this weekend. If anyone wants to tackle it in the mean time, please feel free.Jbower47 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

a map of Reagan's travels.
Unlike Carter, Ford and Nixon, there is no map of countries as to where Reagan traveled to, while he was president. I do not know how to do this. Please, will a person do this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danreo1952 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Conservatism
Check out the proposed wikiproject Conservatism here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What's 50,000 dead, when they're non-people?
Checking out the entry today, I note that all mention of AIDS under his administration has been removed from the entry. Excellent work. Allows room for more hagiography. Censorship by omission: it's the American way! Engleham (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I concur. Let's not talk about the hideousness of AIDS and that it all happened on his watch! From the first reporting, to the first deaths to it reaching epidemic proportions as funding was slashed! Bill Clinton's entry has a separate page for Lewinsky but not even a single mention on Ronnie's page about AIDS. Hideous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.241.74 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are tripping: Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. Although if makes you guys feel any better, Reagan never slashed funding for AIDS and far more people died under Clinton from AIDS than under Reagan.
 * -- FrankieG123 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Engleham and 80.177.241.74 make it sound as if Reagan was singlehandedly responsible for AIDS crossing over to humans, but the fact is that no amount of funding would've found a cure during his administration.


 * 80.177.241.74, the incubation period for HIV is usually two to four weeks, so you're probably thinking of the time it takes for the disease to go thru all four stages and not just incubation.


 * But again it's irrelevant because there is no proof that he is responsible for the spread of the disease in the US. --Dekker451 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat silly to talk in terms of how many people died under a given president. What is pertinent is what actions/stances that president took, and what credible sources have to say about them. Death tolls have nothing to do with that, on either side. Jbower47 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point. As I said, what happened when is irrelevant without proof of some wrongdoing. You directed your reply to the wrong user. --Dekker451 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reagan was indeed criticized for failing to fully respond to the emerging AIDS epidemic, and some blamed that on a lack of concern for gays, minorities, etc. That much can be sourced, although it's a matter of editorial discretion whether the sources that exist establish enough WP:WEIGHT to mention that in this main biographical article.  Article content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS among editors presumed to be acting in good faith.  It's usually unhelpful to pose positions on article content as objections to censorship or hagiographies.  That kind of language tends to alienate editors here, not draw them to agreement.  - Wikidemon (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New image
Just wondering if there is room in the article for this image. It is of high quality, and shows his personality very well.  Jujutacular  talk 00:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this image may be able to replace the image at the top of the "Legacy" section.  Jujutacular  talk 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and have made the change, as the suggestion has been given plenty of time to be opposed.  Mae din\ talk 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

edits to propose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan#1976_presidential_campaign

the last sentence in this section says he was given an honorary membership in a fraternity. this is not relevant or interesting, i propose this sentence be deleted, but i don't have access to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesch2k (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Done. --Paul (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a filmography section
The man was in the movies for almost 30 years! Pretty much all the major actors have a filmography section in their wikipedia article, why not Reagan? Schwartzeneggar doesn't have one either. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.104.227 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seperate articles, see Ronald Reagan filmography and Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are presidential heights not in the infobox?
Although there is an article Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates, presidential height is not included as an infobox fact. Why not? It seems a fundamental physical statistic, one of the few that does not vary (much) over time, and is useful when attempting to visualize each president's physical presence. --kop (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to the office.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe they have done studies that suggest the taller the presidential candidate is, the more likely he is to win the Presidency. Seems it should be at least open to discussion, as opposed to simply dismissed as irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.72.72 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the subject: see Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates. As the article shows, there is some evidence of the taller candidates being more likely to win on average, though this doesn't of course indicate a causal relationship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.168.205.201, 13 April 2011
Under Ronald Reagan, the Wikipedia statement about his surgery:

Strike: "This caused the first-ever invocation of the acting president clause of the 25th Amendment.[220]"

The statement is contrary to my reading of the reference sited which states:

"Bush will transfer power to Vice President Cheney for about an hour while he is sedated for the screening test for colon cancer." "The disability clause of the amendment has never been formally invoked until now."

And in reporting on Reagan's letter to congressional leaders

"This is the procedure outlined in the 25th Amendment, but President Reagan expressly indicated that he was not invoking the amendment."

66.168.205.201 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation 12
First of all, it is ambiguous where the source comes from. It only cites Kregor, 15, as in a shorthand for another previously cited book, but the book is not found anywhere in the notes. As such it seems to be improperly formatted. Moreover, the sentence before the cited one states that Regan was known for his opposition to discrimination; however, the next sentence states that his mother invited the black basketball players into her house. This seems misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.72.72 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference is undoubtedly to be found on page 15 of Paul Kengor's "God and Ronald Reagan", mentioned both in the article and in the references. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

navboxes
Something's wrong with the navboxes, is anyone able to repair it?--Narayan (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself.--Narayan (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, seems to be allright when i edited just that part and previewed it, but when seen in the whole article this still isn't ok.. Can anyone help?--Narayan (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a Union Leader went to town....
Take a look at the section on his dealings with the Air Traffic controllers union. Clearly, a disgruntled ATC or Labor Leader has put their two cents in. They call it "busting the union", which is completely untrue. Of course, this is naturally the problem with protected pages; if someone sneaks something in like that, we cannot fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbhockeyplayer (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When you fire every single employee rather than deal with the union they belong to, that is called union busting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.146.213 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Biased/misleading statements about air traffic controller strike fail to distinguish between Reagan's views on government workers and his views on other workers
In discussing the Air Traffic Controllers strike, the article fails to adequately distinguish between Reagan's views on government workers and his views on other workers. For example, it:

1. says that his "position was in stark contrast to Reagan's past as a labor union president of the Screen Actor's Guild".

Reagan's position was that private sector employees of for-profit corporations, such as screen actors, should be allowed to strike, but government employees whose work was vital to safety, such as air traffic controllers, should not be allowed to strike. This was not in conflict with his past. (The Screen Actor's Guild had represented employees of movie studios, not the government.)

2. quotes Charles Craver saying Reagan "sent a message to the private employer community that it would be all right to go up against the unions".

Although this is the position that the private employer community heard, it is not the message that Reagan articulated. He stated, on camera, that employees of private employees had the right to strike and that the air traffic controllers were a special case, because their strike was a strike against the public safety. 71.109.148.194 (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC) I like the quote, and think it should stay, because it describes what happened because of Reagan's decison. But it is about the economic consequences of Reagan's decision, not about the position that Reagan actually took, and this needs to be put into the proper context.

P.S. Disregard the reference to Alan Greenspan that I had here earlier. I was thinking of a different quote. 71.109.148.194 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the message that everyone heard --right, left and center--was that it was ok to break an illegal strike and hire strikebreakers, That was very new and was contrary to Reagan's AFL days. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reagan does not "rank[] highly in public opinion polls of U.S. Presidents"
The last line of the introductory section of the Reagan article claims that Reagan "ranks highly in public opinion polls of U.S. Presidents." This is a patently false statement. First, the article linked to by the quoted material does not talk about "public opinion polls," but polls of historians and other academics. Second, in such polls, on average, Reagan ranks 15th or 16th. That is not "highly." 68.82.32.145 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The article linked does in fact list public opinion polls, all of which list Reagan near the top. Please see the popular opinion section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 15th or 16th out of 44 is not "highly"? --Dekker451 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what? No; no it isn't. He's not even upper quartile, he's not even quite in the top third. That's not really highly. It needs to be rewritten.Rememberway (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from the subjective, unsupported and arbitrary declaration that he's not ranked highly and the fact that according to Wikipedia's own article "Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States (which shows that he does in fact rank in the first quartile on several polls), why should it be written just because you disagree with the consensus? --Dekker451 (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ABC Poll: #5 Ronald Reagan; Washington College: #2 Ronald Reagan; Gallup: #2 Ronald Reagan; Rasmussen: #9 Ronald Reagan. How is being consistently in the top 10 not ranking highly? --FrankieG123 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that he is ranked highly. You should've directed your reply to 68.82.32.145. --Dekker451 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the cited article does not show him ranked in something that is unambiguously "high", then why not simply change the text to discuss the actual ranking? Or, conversely, make sure there are citations to other polls.Jbower47 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * At minimum, if the article's going to continue to say in the introductory section that public opinion ranks him highly, it should say right afterward that the experts--historians and other academics--do not even place him in the top third, on average. Fair's fair. 68.82.33.132 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

He is highly ranked. In the most recently done polls Ronald Reagan ranked at #2 behind John F. Kennedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.50 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come now, people, he's going to rank higher and higher as time goes on. In fifty years he'll be bigger than George Washington, and the wikipedia page will show that he was immaculately conceived and spoke in complete sentences at birth. Just lie back and think of England, OK? You can't fight the truthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Because that happens to ALL US Presidents, doesn't it, I mean, I can hardly go to the US these days without someone extolling the virtues of Ulysses S Grant or Benjamin Harrison. Face facts, whatever lefties want to believe, Reagan will deservedly go down in history as a popular and successful president, simply because he was. Just as, whatever right-wingers want to believe, FDR and JFK will as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.97 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

President Ronald Reagan
President Reagan Was Not A Radio Actor, He Was A Radio Sports Announcer And A Film And Television Actor Please Go Back And Fix That.69.174.143.170 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Factual Error in Describing Reagan and the Cold War
The article claims that Reagan's "second term was primarily marked by foreign matters, such as the ending of the Cold War".

Reagan left office on Jan. 20, 1989. The Wikipedia article on the Cold War says it ended in 1991, but, "On December 3, 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, declared the Cold War over". Reagan's supporters claim that by outspending the Soviets in "defense", he forced the ultimate collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989. That confuses coincidence with causality. I think there is more evidence to support the opposite claim, that the Soviet Bloc was sustained by fear of the West and likely would have collapsed earlier without the threat of an invasion from the US. This sounds ludicrous to most US citizens, but it was very real for most of the people living behind the Iron Curtain, because the US and its allies had invaded the brand new Soviet Union in 1918, trying to restore the Czar. The Wikipedia article on the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War noted that, "During the Allied intervention, the presence of foreign troops was effectively used for propaganda by the Bolsheviks who eventually established the Soviet Union." This propaganda did not end when the last foreign troops were withdrawn in 1925. In 1989, a Salvadoran with a degree from the University of Leningrad told me that the US had helped Hitler to power so he would destroy the USSR. My acquaintance may have been wrong about the US helping Hitler, but there is little doubt that his comment reflected a common perception in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) when he had been a student there in the late 1970s or early 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMCEddy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In actuality, the Soviet Union collapsed due to several contributing forces: The USSR's refusal to expand it's exports, which the main export was oil, and the aspect that the Saudi Arabia oil glut, the oil prices in the mid 80s contributed to the fact that the USSR could not maintain it's economy. The fear of 'US invading the USSR' was merely a threat and a feign of ignorance and a bluff, and the fear of invasion was mutual. Remember all those spies in New York city that everyone was so worried about? I would think it would be stretching it quite a bit to say the Reagan single-handedly defeated the USSR. Also, that's the first I've ever heard that the U.S. was working with Adolf Hitler against the USSR. Satellite J.D. (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mental Hospitals?
I've noticed that Reagan's closing of mental hospitals in California and the United States as a whole goes largely unnoticed in this page. Would it not be untruthful to pretend that such things did not happen? I think that it should at least be mentioned. If anyone would doubt such a thing, there's population charts and political lists that point out that the closing of said hospitals flooded the streets with mentally disabled vagrants. Satellite J.D. (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Dreier's economic criticisms
William S. Saturn has reverted 3 times (1, 2, 3) by removing a paragraph of content in the Legacy section containing economic criticisms of Reagan's policies by Professor Peter Dreier. The referenced paragraph read as follows: "Professor Peter Dreier, director of Occidental College's Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, has been very critical of Reagan's economic policies; accusing him of creating a range of fiscal calamities such as widening the wealth inequality to the point where the richest 1% of Americans held 39% of the nation's wealth, a rise in the poverty population from 26.1 million in 1979 to 32.7 million in 1988, and an increase in homelessness to 600,000 Americans on any given night.(1) According to Dreier, these outcomes were a deliberate result of Reagan's economic policies, which included freezing the minumum wage at $3.35 an hour, slashing federal assistance to local governments by 60 percent, cutting the budget for public housing and Section 8 rent subsidies in half, and eliminating the antipoverty Community Development Block Grant program.(1)"

The sole rationale W. Saturn provided in his first edit summary was "WP:WEIGHT issues, criticisms from a non-notable professor are too insignificant to include here". Thus, I figured I would open up this thread to avoid further WP:Editwarring (as I have also reverted 3 times) and hopefully reach some sort of WP:Consensus on the validity of the content. W. Saturn, is your sole reasoning behind removal that Professor Peter Dreier writing in The Nation is not WP:Notable enough to be included as a reference on Wikipedia? Do you for instance take issue with the factual accuracy of his data? Because I would contend that these figures could be sourced multiple times as the figures are pretty straight forward (although yes one could take issue to what degree Reagan as President would be to blame for them). Would you like me to prove notability of Drier? Or source the data to further references? Or do you just WP:DONTLIKEIT with regards to the paragraph - or disagree with it on partisan grounds? If the issue is the wording, then perhaps we can adjust it - if the issue is the veracity of the statistics then you are also free to provide any sources you wish that would call them into question. Thanks,  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of the United States. The criticism of the non-notable figure named Mr. Dreier is not a significant aspect of the biography of Mr. Reagan.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any problem with including the paragraph. It is sourced, and the legacy section as it is now, fails to acknowledge that some thinkers do not believe him to have been the best president ever. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So the non-notable Mr. Dreier is the representative of "some thinkers [that] do not believe him to have been the best president ever"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a straw-man; I did not claim Dreier is the representative; merely a representative, who is already in the article, with sources. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you'll settle for the views of a representative of the detractors' viewpoint in a featured article covering the 40th president of the United States?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * William S. Saturn, I have to say I am fairly disappointed in your flippant answer - which also did not answer most of the questions I asked you. As for your answer, the article currently relies on the opinions of hundreds of individuals, columnists, writers etc - who all would not be "a significant aspect of the biography of Ronald Reagan" (which is not the threshold for inclusion). For instance, the Legacy and Political Image section of the article names and quotes the opinions of Edwin Feulner, Mark Weisbrot, Howard Kurtz, M. J. Heale, Chuck Raasch et al. Are you saying that unlike Drier these men's praise and criticism is a "significant aspect of Reagan's biography"? Would you feel better about the removed paragraph if it simply mentioned "critics" instead of Drier specifically - in the same way that the article already does in dozens of instances where the specific authors of opinions are not noted, but called "supporters" etc? If the data that Dreier states is factual (which you haven’t challenged), then of course it is relevant to the article and one’s appraisal of the economy under Reagan’s presidency.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Would you feel better about the removed paragraph if it simply mentioned "critics" instead of Drier specifically?" Yes, but with more sources and with a neutral counter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now we are getting somewhere then. What/who do you believe would be a "neutral counter"? And you mean you would be happier if it just said "critics" instead of specifically identifying the author of the claim - because I am ok with that I guess (although it seems vague and imprecise).  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The two claims made at the beginning of the second paragraph of the Legacy section are countered by two claims from detractors. Therefore, the claim in the new third paragraph should be countered with a response from supporters on the wealth inequality charge.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fine with a point/counter-point approach. Moreover, I have moved the second part of the original passage into the Reaganomics section per your edit diff. So to me, the only real issue remains the first half and what to call the professor - "a detractor" makes it seem like he is the sole guy ever to make those charges - which he is not. Perhaps, "detractors" in plural and then add a second ref? Would that work for you?  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems we've come to an agreement on the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I'm not sure when you wrote the above line, view the current state and see if you are content with the wording. If you are, then I am as well.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just reviewed the edits and agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Onorem's "challenge"
Sensing some serious ownership issues in this article, I'm going to back out of trying to edit this article for now. In my experience, anyone who would (on more than one occasion) choose to wholesale revert a group of needed, decent edits is more interested in making a point and being right, all the while taking a "I don't hear that" and an attitude of "I just don't like it, isn't interested in an article's integrity. Editing in Wikipedia is supposed to be collegial and cooperative, not a battleground.  I'm finding the air amongst the usual editor(s) here to be anything but.  Enjoy. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I'd made a "challenge" to anyone. In any case, I've restored the changes you made that didn't involve changing Alzheimer's to dementia. I don't think I've ever edited this article before yesterday, so I can't quite agree with your ownership claims. --Onorem♠Dil 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reagan the movie actor best known for 'Knute Rockne, All American' and 'Bedtime for Bonzo'
In the opening paragraph, it had stated that Reagan the movie actor was known for Knute Rockne, All American and King's Row. I've never heard of King's Row, although I've definitely heard of Bedtime for Bonzo. I dare say that people who are familiar with Reagan the actor would list Bedtime for Bonzo as one of two movies he starred in when pressed. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can not say, but I will add the Bedtime for Bonzo poster in the Radio and Film section to give some sort of account of its popularity. --Pierre et Condat (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reagan and Unions
A prior version of this article summarized Regan's stance on unions as simply "hard line." While that does summarize his stance toward the airline strike, the statement is clearly misleading when squared with his total record. In point of fact, his stance on unions was mixed.

'''As governor of California, he signed "Meyers Milias Brown Act" SB 1228 into Law during his second year. The Myer Milias Brown Act gives Collective Bargaining Rights to public employees in California.'''

http://www­.perb.ca.g­ov/laws/st­atutes.asp http://www­.presidenc­y.ucsb.edu­/ws/index.­php?pid=25­838 http://www­.presidenc­y.ucsb.edu­/ws/index.­php?pid=44­193#ixzz1G­pFHoiPb http://www­.americanr­hetoric.co­m/speeches­/ronaldrea­ganliberty­park.htm http://www­.perb.ca.g­ov/about/d­ocs/Annual­_Report_20­02.pdf

During his first term, during Poland's uprising during the Cold War he stated in a speech that Poles standing up for workers rights... "remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction­. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn28oayX31Y&feature=player_embedded#!

During his first term, his remarks in Chicago, Illinois, at the Annual Convention and Centennial Observance of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, September 3, 1981  "Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutio­ns in this land. There are few finer examples of participat­ory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrat­es on disputes, corruption­, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch. Now, today I want to express again my belief in our American system of collective bargaining and pledge that there will always be an open door to you in this administra­tion." http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/90381a.htm

I have according removed the misleading line in light of the actual evidence of Reagan's record.

71.13.142.199 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all fine and well, however, you didn't allow for discussion on this before reverting back your changes, and you provided no references into the article. Your changes have been changed back.  If you'd like to discuss civilly (rather than with personal and talk page attacks) and put some references in the article to back up your position on the wording change, that would be preferable. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AIDS additions
As per previous conversation on the talk page (see last archive) I would like to see a brief discussion of criticism regarding Reagan's handling of the early years of the AIDS crisis, since this seems to be a fairly widely known aspect of his presidency, and was a notable event during his presidency. I added brief sourced sentence to the legacy section, but was unsure whether discussion of his response to AIDS was best handled under the First Term section, or Second term. While a lot of the criticism seems aimed at the initial years, it seemed to come to a head during the latter term. Any suggestions?204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You have factual errors under Reaganomics and you refuse to make corrections
YOU FALSE HAVE hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.[116]

FACTS ARE: Bureau of Labor Statics show: annual rate high of 10.8% (Nov &Dec 1982) and 10.4% (Jan &Feb 1983)

FACT IS: the number you gave are AVERAGES NOT HIGHS. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Do you always re-invent history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepemhonest2 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you know what an annual rate is?--Paul (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Paul I do know the definition of "annual rate" and I also know the definition of "annual AVERAGE rate." Now, I don't want to get into an argument with you so I will use the US Bureau of Labor & Statistics wording & perhaps then you will understand the difference. 1) The only link you let stand is titled: "Annual Average unemployment rate" KEYWORD in your Title: "average"

2) The Link I used is titled: "Series title: Unemployment Rate" KEYWORD in Title I use: Unemployment Rate

3) If you want to use the annual AVERAGE - great - just call it that.

4) Otherwise, if you want to use "annual rate" then use the actual annual rate as opposed to the "annual AVERAGE rate"

5) If you continue to mis-lead your readers and continue to falsely claim that the "annual rate" equals the "annual average rate" then not only are you wrong, you are a re-inventor of factual history.

Ya know, the reason people can not use wiki as an educational tool is because people have FALSE, MISLEADING information - like the false misleading information under Reaganomics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepemhonest2 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaganomics: Mis-leading Thus Unfactual Data on wiki page
TO: Happyme22 &Arcayne

For the record, I am a new "contributor" to wiki. Therefore, I have no idea if this is the best way for me to send you a message, but it's the only way I could find.

Also, for the record, I am not new to reading wiki pages. As an aside, I have found many errors in many wiki pages and as a result do not put much 'veracity' in any information coming from wiki as most pages I've read leave out or add mis-leading information due to bias.

The other day, I got on Ronald Reagan's wiki page and saw an error under "Reaganomics" so, I joined wiki so I could make the correction.

After I made the correction, and included proper citation, someone took out my "edit" and then, falsely, accused my factual "edit" as vandalism. Next, I re-posted the factual information via "edit" - and because I'm new here - I posted facts and in addition I posted a "talk" comment. (I didn't know how to reply to the accuser any other way, my apologies for that).

The bottom line is, I think it is very important to maintain facts. I think it's especially important to maintain facts on past US Presidents.

I will put here what wiki has that is not factually true and then prove to you what is factually true.

A) WIKI: "the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%, hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.[116]

That sentence if factually wrong because the link, or citation [116], is NOT a link for "annual rate highs" rather it is a link whose Title is: "Annual average unemployment rate"
 * '''KEYWORD in link's Title: "Average"
 * NOTICE: the words "annual high" nor "annual rate high" are NO WHERE in the title of that link.

B) Factually, according to the US Bureau Labor &Statistics, the factual, actual "annual rate high" is 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983)

1) Here is my proof that the "annual rate highs" are 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983)
 * i) Go to: US Bureau Labor & Statistics, Link: http://www.bls.gov/data/
 * a) Click on "Database & Tools" where you'll see "Data Retrieval Tools - Top Picks"
 * b) Under "Top Picks" Check the box "Unemployment Rate (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS14000000"
 * c) Click "Retrieve Data"
 * d) Go To "Change Output Options"
 * e) Put in 1981 - 1983
 * f) Click "go"
 * g) You now see Title for Table:
 * Series ID:           LNS14000000
 * Series Title:        Unemployment Rate
 * Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
 * Type of data:        Percent or rate
 * Age:                 16 years and over


 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:

2) You can clearly see, the factual "annual rate high" is, in fact, 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).

With all due respect, if you two want to keep Reagan's "annual AVERAGE" unemployment data, so as to make it appear as though Reagan's actual unemployment rate high of: 10.8% (1982), didn't exist, that's up to you all ... but ... just call it what it is, "annual average." Do not incorrectly call the annual average 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) the "annual rate high" because that would be completely false and very mis-leading to readers.

The next step is up to you two - you two will either correctly label the data (annual average 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983)), or you might put in the actual ("annual rate high 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983)), or you will let the mis-leading data stay put ... it's up to you since you two are in charge of that page.

Respectfully Submitted, --Keepemhonest2 (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keepemhonest. I am the one that marked your edit as vandalism.  I did so because it violated several established Wikipedia policies, as well as the directive at the top of this talk page that any substantial changes be discussed here first.  First things first, this is the exact text of your edit:
 * "The sentence you just read is 100% FALSE. Not only that, the title of the citation used to give the false data is also wrong. Fact is the data you just read is the annual AVERAGE ... not annual highs. Furthermore, the title to the page to the mis-information just given is "Annual AVERAGE unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent). Here are the facts on annual unemployment rate HIGHS under Reagan: According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Data : the unemployment rate hit annual rate highs of: 10.8% (Nov &Dec 1982) and 10.4% (Jan &Feb 1983)."
 * If you have an issue with the facts presented then discuss them here first. Second, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia.  You stated an argument against a fact presented in an article with different data.  I don't like to bite the newcomers, but if you are familiar with Wikipedia then you have to understand that we are not a forum for discussion.  Finally, the citation you are giving is a deadlink, so we are not able to view your source material.
 * Now that you have brought the issue to the article's talkpage I will address it here, as opposed to the same text that you pasted on to my Userpage. Since this is addressed to two other specific editors I will allow them to further address the issue. SeanNovack (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

SeanNovack, your comment to me is intellectually dishonest.

1) Putting in the correct "annual high" data under Reaganomics is not a "substantial" change, rather it is a factual correction to false, misleading information that for some reason you want to stay out in the public domain to hide the fact that Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate. In other words, the change is "minor" and is also historically correct. (Why do you object to facts being provided?)

Wiki Help:Editing describes:

Thus, correcting false "unemployment annual high" does not change, nor affect, the "meaning of the article." Hence, as I said, my edit was not a substantial edit.
 * Major Edit as:
 * "any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word."


 * Minor edits
 * "... signifies that only superficial differences exist between the version with your edit and the previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The "minor edit" option is one of several options available only to registered users."

Presenting facts on Reagan's "unemployment annual high" is not something that anyone, including you, should dispute. In fact, keeping misleading, false information on Reagan's "unemployment annual high" is disputable, as I am disputing it right now.

2) You are also wrong - the link I gave above here, is not a dead link. I notice from your talk page and your edit comments that you have a habit of: falsely accusing people of vandalism and maliciously calling disparaging people names.  Thus, I find it despicable that you now falsely accuse me of supplying a "dead link."

Not only did I provide a working link for you (above), I even supplied step-by-step instructions in the event someone, who is not familiar with the cite (Bureau of Labor and Statistics), could easily go to the cite and find the correct, factual, information.

3) You are also wrong as wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia, not even close. An encyclopedia is a reference tool where people go to find information they can trust as being truthful and factual. An encyclopedia is not reference place where people refuse to let facts be presented.  Unfortunately, wiki seems to be a place where facts are not always welcome.

Also unfortunate, is when people like you, here on wiki, refuse to let facts replace false information, then wiki becomes a "propaganda" cite as opposed to a reference cite for historical, factual information as an "encyclopedia."

a) Definition:


 * i) PROPAGANDA: misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread
 * Encarta ® World English Dictionary All rights reserved.
 * ii) FACT: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
 * Encarta ® World English Dictionary All rights reserved.
 * Encarta ® World English Dictionary All rights reserved.

4) You wrote (above):
 * "If you have an issue with the facts presented then discuss them here first"

Look, I made a minor change to correct false information - which has no affect on the meaning of the article and as such, I did not, and do not have to "discuss them here first." In other words, I don't need your "permission" to let facts replace false data. I suggest you re-read the rules on editing in wiki.

Sean, I proved to you (above), and anyone reading this, that the data, which you refuse to accept, found under "Ronald Reagan" (prior to my edit) and subheading "Reaganomics" is 100% FALSE - as in NOT TRUE.

I also proved to you that the factual "annual high" unemployment rate for Reagan was 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).

Therefore, I am left to believe that you are not a spreader of fact. Rather you are a person who enjoys keeping false information in the public domain. As a result of your taking down facts and then accusing those (me and others on wiki) who supply the facts of being a "coward" or "vandalizing" and then falsely saying "you supplied a dead link" - people like you - give wiki a bad reputation.

I was trying to make wiki a better place, where accurate information can be found - but you refuse to allow that.

I am going to "edit" Ronald Reagan's page, subheading "Reaganomics" one more time, with factual information. If you insist on taking down facts, so as to leave propaganda up - I shall follow the step-by-step instructions found here> WP:TPG on editing/removing others' comments. If you persist, and continue to call me names, I will follow formal steps of dispute resolution.

To re-iterate FACTS I posted earlier:
 * A) WIKI: "the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%, hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.[116]
 * That sentence if factually wrong because the link, or citation [116], is NOT a link for "annual rate highs" rather it is a link whose Title is: "Annual average unemployment rate"
 * '''KEYWORD in link's Title: "Average"
 * NOTICE: the words "annual high" nor "annual rate high" are NO WHERE in the title of that link.
 * NOTICE: the words "annual high" nor "annual rate high" are NO WHERE in the title of that link.

Sean, I intentionally made the below, (and above), step-by-step instructions very, very simple. I urge you to try again:


 * 1) Here is my proof that the "annual rate highs" are 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983)
 * i) Go to: US Bureau Labor & Statistics, Link: http://www.bls.gov/data/
 * a) Click on "Database & Tools" where you'll see "Data Retrieval Tools - Top Picks"
 * b) Under "Top Picks" Check the box "Unemployment Rate (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS14000000"
 * c) Click "Retrieve Data"
 * d) Go To "Change Output Options"
 * e) Put in 1981 - 1983
 * f) Click "go"
 * g) You now see Title for Table:
 * Series ID:           LNS14000000
 * Series Title:        Unemployment Rate
 * Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
 * Type of data:        Percent or rate
 * Age:                 16 years and over
 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:
 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:
 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:


 * 2) You can clearly see, the factual "annual rate high" is, in fact, 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).
 * 2) You can clearly see, the factual "annual rate high" is, in fact, 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).

If you are still unable to follow those step-by-step instructions then feel free to go to this cite:


 * U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics via The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis"
 * Link to cite>: ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
 * Title of Page: Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population, 1940 to date, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
 * Title of Page: Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population, 1940 to date, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
 * Title of Page: Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population, 1940 to date, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Finally, I refuse to let false information stay on wiki page under Ronald Reagan subheading: Reaganomics. Please stop taking down my factual, historical data - or as I stated above, if you persist, and continue to call me names, I will follow formal steps of dispute resolution. WP:TPG on editing/removing others' comments.

--Keepemhonest2 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Step one: Calm down. I did not attack you, I was stating that your edit did not meet Wikipedia standards and stated why.  Step two: You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and editing standards.  If you post something factual (though the source you used went to a link that was dead and gave no information) then be sure not to post in forum style.  The best thing to do is to discuss the change on the talkpage before editing, but if you don't simply chage the figures you believe to be inforrect and source your change.  Extra commentary is not needed.  Finally, if you feel I have mistreated you in some way, by all means feel free to report my misconduct, but I'll thank you not to fill up my talkpage with research that belongs on an article talk page.  Thanks SeanNovack (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This same message was posted to my user talk page, where I responded with the following:


 * Hi, thank you for joining Wikipedia! And thank you for helping to "keep us honest!" I must admit, after substantial time spent working on the Reagan article -- several years in fact -- I have not been able to dedicate myself much to the upkeep, only checking in now and again and making small edits here and there. In regard to this issue, then, I will defer to some of the more active editors of the page. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to simply be a wording/description error, and unfortunately one which I do not have much time to research and delve into.


 * Also, I know you are new but this is one of the many things you will learn as you continue to edit, namely that no one user operates an article; that is strictly prohibited per WP:OWN. Articles are more like community property, wherein anyone can edit, but some articles attract more regular users, usually out of personal interest.


 * Thanks for bringing up the issue -- hopefully someone with more time than I can see to it that it is taken care of. Thanks! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Happyme22 - thank you for your reply. You are correct, it is a very simple issue of "wording/description" error. I will try to edit the page again so as to supply the correct wording and correct data. --Keepemhonest2 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

President Ronald Reagan's Children
President Ronald Reagan's Children Should Be Listed As Follows, Maureen Reagan (1941 - 2001),Michael Reagan (1945-),Christine Reagan (1947 - 1947),Patricia Ann Reagan (1952-),And Ronald Prescott Reagan (1958-),Because Everyone Seems To Forget That He Had Three Children By His First Wife Actreess Jane Wyman (1914 - 2007).Keri Nowling, Seymour,Indiana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.132.172 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sachs paragraph
In the legacy section I removed a paragraph on the opinion of Jeffery Sachs for several reasons:

1. Per WP:WEIGHT and it's repetitive. The main criticisms of Reagan are listed in the first paragraph of the legacy section in one sentence, while this criticism takes up an entire paragraph. Moreover, its main point -- that the gap between rich and poor increased -- is already in the article, two paragraphs above this one at that. Expanding on the one point is in violation of WP:WEIGHT.

2. Its superfluous sentences leading up to the main point in the last sentence are not core to understanding the overall legacy of Ronald Reagan. There is plenty of praise and criticism to go around, but leaving America unprepared is a rather obscure argument that is not frequently made. As the "mother article" of all Reagan articles, this one should be the most general and highlight the only the most important and necessary aspects of its subject.

For those reasons I removed the paragraph. It was almost immediately reinserted by an IP with the ES: "you can't put one sentence of criticism and two paragraphs of glow and call it WEIGHT." Of course if time was taken to actually read the section, one would find it neatly balanced, presenting both sides and adhering to WP:WEIGHT. That is until the repetitive Sachs piece tilts the weight. As far as I am concerned the reasons are clear. Happyme22 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reagan persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production,[221]
"Reagan persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production,[221]" Unless there is another reference for this, the mention of Reagan should be removed. As near as I can tell the linked article does not say that Reagan influenced Saudi. Indeed, it states clearly "Oil prices collapse in mid 1980-s had to do with fundamental market factors that made it impossible to maintain the prices formed in the early 1980-s. But the scope and timeframe of the collapse can be comprehended in the political context only." (Interestingly, the citation number in the Cold War article is the same as this: 221) Mcdruid (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Governor of California section
As part of this section, the following statement appears: "Shortly after the beginning of his term, Reagan tested the presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement, hoping to cut into Nixon's Southern support[70]" However, this is misleading. According the Reagan's biography, "An American Life", pages 176-178, Reagan did not want to be a Presidential candidate. In fact, he was only a 'favorite-son' candidate. And it was not until after he stated the delegates should go to Nixon at the convention that he was informed by Rockefeller, "You didn't get as many votes as we counted on; we thought you'd stop Nixon for us." (Same source, page 178). So stating Reagan was a part of the "Stop Nixon" movement is misleading. Rather, he was urged to run as a favorite-son candidate, and the Rockefeller campaign felt this could help their candidate to win the nomination as a by product. Thoughts? --Scuba31 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012
I request the following be added to information regarding President Ronald Reagan's Presidency 1984-1989: President Ronald Reagan's Inaugural Parade was cancelled due to extreme cold weather. Therefore, an Inaugural Band Concert was held at the Capital Centre in Landover, Maryland on January 21, 1985. Background: I was a member of the U.S. Navy Presidential Honor Guard 1983-1985 and participated in this particular event. During rehearsals in the weeks prior to the Presidential Inauguration, it became very clear that inaugural events (i.e. swearing in, parade, etc.) could not be held outdoors due to the extreme cold weather. The venue was changed to the Capital Centre in Maryland, where I performed the duties of usher. Here is a link to a video of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDanjcWjkg I wish only to ensure accuracy in reporting. Thank you.

DaddyO64 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, covered already in Second inauguration of Ronald Reagan-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

end of first marriage
I hesitate to make a change to a FA without knowing all the details, but I cannot find a previous discussion on this issue, so I'll bring it up. In the infobox, Reagan's first marriage shows as ended in 1948, but in the text, it clearly says the divorce was not finalised until 1949. The infobox for his first wife's article shows 1949 as the end date. Is there some consensus on this issue or simply an error? Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 16:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is 1949, that's an error. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Two terms as president
That Reagan served two terms is a significant fact, the more so after defeating Jimmy Carter who served only one. It should be mentioned in the lede IMO.

Bill Clinton mentions his two terms in the lede, as does George W. Bush. George H. W. Bush mentions in the lede that he was a one term president, as does the lede for Jimmy Carter. What is the difference for Reagan? MathewTownsend (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO it doesn't need to be outright stated; any reader who reads the lead will see that Reagan served two terms. It says in the third paragraph, "His second term was primarily marked..." IMO, it's redundant. Happyme22 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many, many readers are like me. We skim. That's why most important facts should "jump out". I've read the article pretty closely, but I didn't see that in the lede. It's "buried". The reader shouldn't have to "infer", IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked out the Clinton article, and it doesn't explicitly say anywhere in the lead that he was a two term president. Nor does it for Richard Nixon. I think that for skimmers the first sentence of this article which gives the dates of Reagan's presidency (1981-1989) is a clue that he was a two-term president. Happyme22 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton lede: "Two years later, the re-elected Clinton became the first member of the Democratic Party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second full term as president."
 * Richard Nixon lede: "He was reelected by a landslide in 1972." (This starts new paragraph for emphasis): "Nixon's second term saw an Arab oil embargo, the resignation of his vice president, Spiro Agnew, and a continuing series of revelations ..."
 * I think number of terms is one of the important facts that should be mentioned about every president in the lede. Also, what is accomplished in each term.
 * Non Americans and others (kids) may not automatically know that the standard American presidential term is four years, (may not get the "clue") and therefore know to calculate the number of terms of a given president by dividing the years in office by four to get the answer. Especially since other articles on presidents explicitly state the number of terms clearly.   MathewTownsend (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "His second term was primarily marked by foreign matters, such as the ending of the Cold War, the 1986 bombing of Libya, and the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair. ..." explicitly states the number of terms clearly. The fact that a careless reader skimming the article might not see every possibly important fact doesn't mean we need to print it in bold red with flashing arrows pointing to it. And if a reader doesn't know the length of a term, highlighting the number of terms served is fairly pointless; in that case, the number of years served – easily discernable from the opening sentence – conveys more useful information. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reagan & Auschwitz
I removed a poorly sourced section yesterday that was put back in and removed again by me today. Again, there's one source cited for this information and it's by an opinion writer from a book that at best would be considered a polemic (earlier on the same page it has similar poorly sourced tabloid journalism claims of Reagan meeting Nacy Reagan because of reported sexual prowess, I am GREATLY paraphrasing). This book has no footnotes or sources. The editor who put it back said there were sources, but didn't cite them. Cockburn is a tertiary source and as such his secondary sources should be checked and there are none. Recently Ronald Reagan Jr talked about it on his talk show and makes reference to his father showing him the unedited Auschwitz footage. He makes no reference to his father claiming to have shot the film, he said he had the film which, given Reagan's wartime duties, makes sense. There's also an American Thinker story which addresses and purports to refute the controversy. However, American Thinker is unabashedly conservative, not something I would cite in any article and while some secondary sources are listed in the article not all of them are. I did some searching to find the secondary sources for Cockburn's claim and couldn't find any except possibly this Washington Post artice which is a pay-through. Until a reliable source is found for this claim, it shouldn't appear in the article, particularly given its nature (the POTUS lying about his military service). --WGFinley (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After doing some of my own research on the subject, I have to concur with the above-noted observation. In his book, Turmoil and triumph: my years as secretary of state, George Shultz explicitly debunks this claim and asserts that President Reagan made no such comment concerning his presence at Auschwitz. During the latter part of WW II, Reagan's job involved viewing war footage shot by cameramen and war correspondents. Among the reels was footage from Auschwitz that Reagan kept (against regulations) for the purpose of showing it to others who questioned the events of the Holocaust and the horrors of the camps. He relayed this to Shamir at a dinner. Shamir, was deeply moved and relayed the story to Israeli press. American press garbled the translation and erroneously reported that Reagan had said that he was in Auschwitz. According to Shultz, who had a first hand account of the story, Reagan made no such assertion and claims attributed to him concerning his presence at Auschwitz are outright falsehoods. Implying that the former president was either a liar or could not distinguish between reality and fantasy is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. This is especially true since there are better sources that explicitly debunk the Auschwitz claim.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Joan Didion calls "Secretary Shultz's version of this story ... a little wishful." She quotes extensively from Cannon, author of one book I cited, to back that up. It turns out he was one of the first English language reporters to write about this. Reagan told the same story to Simon Wiesenthal and Rabbi Marvin Hier. Also, "Ed Walsh, then The Washington Post correspondent in Jerusalem, was able to confirm the accuracy of the Ma'ariv report with Dan Meridor, the Israeli cabinet secretary." In full reverse, "Reagan had told Baker that 'a Jewish friend' had questioned him about the accuracy of the death camp reports a year or two later. Reagan had shown him a copy of the film. I put this in a column that concluded with the reservations that I hold today: 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?" - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1998/mar/05/the-lion-king-an-exchange/?pagination=false -Attleboro (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well seeing as there are differing opinions as to what actually happened, the obvious solution is to fuse the two together. I propose the following:
 * "Reagan never left the United States during the war, though he kept a film reel, obtained while in the service, depicting the liberation of Auschwitz, as he believed that someday doubts would arise as to whether the Holocaust had occurred. It has been alleged that he was overheard telling Israeli foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1983 that he had filmed that footage himself and helped liberate Auschwitz, though this purported conversation was disputed by Secretary of State George Shultz."


 * Seeing as consensus seems to agree that Cockburn is not a reliable source, we should remove him as a source and attribute it instead to Lou Cannon and Schaller. I think that encompasses the arguments of both sides nicely. Happyme22 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds quite reasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Spouse(s)
Spouse(s)	Jane Wyman (1940–1949) Nancy Davis (1952–2004)

I wanted to request an edit for Nancy Davis under the spouse section on Ronald Reagan's page. She did not pass away in 2004, only he did. She celebrated her 90th birthday last summer and I see no news that she has passed away since. Thanks! Evilyorkies (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor was she born in 1952, the year she and Reagan were married; for that matter, his first wife, Jane Wyman, did not die in 1949 at the age of nine either... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reagan's Profession
Why is the article about Ronald Reagan the only article about a recent president that does not mention his profession in the upper legend? His path to the White House was unique and its noteworthiness is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.76.27 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Censored article?
Reagan's notorious racism, including blatantly racist (and well documented) campaigning for the California governorship, support for Southern resistance to Civil Rights and opposition to federal civil rights legislation are all disregarded, and only a single sentence mentions Reagan's racism at all. Is this article written by the GOP itself? It certainly isn't encyclopaedic, more like hagiographic! 82.176.204.198 (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Files of Reagan speeches
What is the convention for adding audio & video files of Reagan's speeches? I've added a number to Timeline of modern American conservatism.– Lionel (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They're definitely interesting and often it can be more interesting to viewers to watch video clips than look at pictures... but not always. Which ones did you have in mind? Happyme22 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I created commons:category:Speeches by Ronald Reagan so they're all in one place. Two that come to mind right off the bat:
 * File:Ronald Reagan TV Address 1981.ogv - we can swap the video for the static pic already in the article
 * File:Reagan Brandenburg Gate speech.ogg - we could add the audio and use the existing pic; e.g. see the Conservatism portal: Portal:Conservatism/Selected picture/4
 * And File:A Time for Choosing by Ronald Reagan.ogv video would be a nice addition to "Early political career" as it has no images--and "Time for Choosing" aka "The Speech" is seminal.
 * Also the trailers from his early movies are in the public domain.
 * The trailer for Knute has Reagan acting at 1:14 and his credit as George Gill at 2:20.
 * More acting from Cowboy at 1:58.
 * And in King's at 1:25.
 * This may be the best of all, from his first movie:.
 * Btw the films This is the Army and Santa Fe Trail are pd in their entirety. – Lionel (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

During the war
Any chance someone putting a bit about him claiming to have served in WW2? When actually he just acted in a war movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinDibs (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Auschwitz claim?
From the article: "Reagan never left the United States during the war, though he kept a film reel, obtained while in the service, depicting the liberation of Auschwitz, as he believed that someday doubts would arise as to whether the Holocaust had occurred. It has been alleged that he was overheard telling Israeli foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1983 that he had filmed that footage himself and helped liberate Auschwitz, though this purported conversation was disputed by Secretary of State George Shultz." The cited sources are unfortunately not freely available online. Can somebody provide more information on when this allegation was made, and by whom? Is the allegation sufficiently notable to warrant mention in the article? It would make no sense for Reagan to claim to have participated in the Soviet liberation of Auschwitz. Capedia (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats' the problem with conspiracy theories and unfounded allegations. Someone always says that they heard it from a friend who who it from a friend. Yet none can ever say that they actually saw or heard anything. This rubbish does not deserve to be in the article.-- JOJ Hutton  02:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just Say No
First Lady Nancy Reagan made the War on Drugs her main priority by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which aimed to encourage people to say no when peer pressure told them that drugs were a good idea. Mrs. Reagan traveled to 65 cities in 33 states, raising awareness about the dangers of drugs. Barry From DC has praised her work and praised her as a role model for the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.32.188 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Military Service
Understanding Wikipedia's Manual of Style for military terms, it appears some of the rank titles should be proper rather than general. When an officer is promoted, the term should be capitalized as it is used to denote the specific rank and is indicating preeminence. Additionally, references to Cavalry are describing the branch of service and should be capitalized accordingly. Tedious, but I'd like to analyze specifics with this. Or, if someone can find something specific to prove me wrong, like in AR 25-50 or the Libel Manual, please educate me. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first bulleted example at WP:MILTERMS says:
 * Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general.
 * With the exception of one specific reference to "Captain Reagan", the usage of ranks in the article seems much more akin to the second formulation than the first.


 * "322nd Cavalry" obviously needs to be capitalized as the name of a specific unit. Other references to "the [unmodified] cavalry" are somewhat more ambiguous, but since Cavalry was a branch of the U.S. Army, I'm not particularly opposed to capitalizing it as a reference to that specific branch. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

comment in 1968 about divorced man running for president
OK, I see "He is the only US president to have been divorced". I recall a 1968 remark where he said it was possible for a divorced man to become President. (By then, he was married, since 1952, to Nancy.) I don't know if that 1968 remark is referenced anywhere on Wikipedia, and I cannot "source" it myself. Richard Nixon got the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1972, then Reagan finished runnerup for the 1976 nomination before taking the 1980 & 1984 nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies
All of the articles detailing controversies and scandals are not linked to this main article. Anyone doing research on Reagan using this article would think he was not controversial at all. This article doesn't paint an accurate picture of how he was perceived during his presidency. He was often criticized in pop culture and criticized overseas as well.

As far as I'm aware all other Presidents have a list of controversies included in their main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.148.223 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's "Voodoo economics"?
I posted "George Bush Sr. referred to Reagan's 'Trickle-Down-Economics' as 'Voodoo Economics'". This has been deleted. Why? Politics, maybe? The fact that Reagan's own Vice-President famously called Reagan's fiscal plan for the Federal Government "voodoo economics" while they were running for the Republicon Presidential nominee in 1980 is very noteworthy. This is the 2nd time I've discussed this on this talk page., but the 1st time has been deleted. Why? Politics, maybe? - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When did you add it? Whoever removed it should have left a note in the edit summary that may explain why. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a neologism. We need consensus to add.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad's right and the citation proves it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This would be a fine place for Collect to explain his edit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Not in common use - it appears in campaign commentary as a political slogan and also as a dysphemism used for political purposes. To be fair, the New York Times uses "Reagonomics" as the term of choice. "Voodoo economics" is used by Krugman and in some letters to the editor, "Reagonomics" is used in editorials, news articles, and general articles. Wikipedia should not be in the position of presenting political slogans as common names. I suggest we use the NYT as a guide here.  (Still24 -- it would be a fine time for you to allow a couple of minutes before jerking your knee!)  Collect (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To save time and avoid gotchas, let me point out that the New York Times has used the term"voodoo economics", and in particular, Paul Krugman uses it all the time. These are highly reliable sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- that Krugman "uses it all the time" holds zero water on Wikipedia. Other than him and some few articles about the campaign etc., the NYT uses "Reaganomics" no matter how hartd you are willing to push the POV.  It is a political slogan and dysphemism, and is not the common term for the policies.  And you made my day -- saying Krugman is your authority here! Collect (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Krugman, lol.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrary to "popular" (it's not popular at all) opinion, GHWB used it to label all forms of "supply-side" economics as "Voodoo Economics". Also the term was used during the Republican primary of 1980 which ceased to exist after that UNTIL Krugman.  It is used by Paul Krugman as a pejorative term which is his POV he expresses in regards to all "supply-side economics", not just "Reaganomics".  Reaganomics actually didn't take effect until AFTER Reagan won the election so Bush had no clue how Reagan was going to implement his forms of "supply-side economics".  For example, did Bush predict that Reagan was going to work with Volcker to counteract inflation?  Nope.  Krugman brought back the term only because he likes to use it as an attack against all ideas or forms of "Supply-side economics" or ideas of Hayek.  After all, he is a big proponent of the Keynesian theory.  ViriiK (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the gang's all here. Too bad derision doesn't count as much of an argument, eh? No amount of laughter can make Krugman any less of an expert on economics, hence a reliable source. But, hey, laugh it up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, voodoo economics is clearly a pejorative term. That does not mean it should not be included - it is no less valid than calling it "Reaganomics", another neologism. It was first used by another POTUS (as cited), and also used by other sources (as argued above). My edit was to change "AKA Reaganomics" to "AKA Reaganomics or Voodoo Economics". If your only objection is that Reaganomics is another alias, or that Voodoo Economics is pejorative/neologisms than those are indeed true statements, but they are not in any way legitimate objections. Please find valid objections or restore my edit.Galestar (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

< This is where we left off. Galestar asked for an explanation, and waited days to receive nothing. Therefore, if there's any consensus, it's to keep. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at today's edit, he apparently claims to have consensus which there is no consensus given. I'm objected to this which I don't care if Still says my argument is "unpersuasive" as he likes to label all of my discussion as.  Meanwhile feel free to gain consensus anyways.  ViriiK (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want further reasonings. The term was not used during the Reagan Administration since it was just a campaign term used by GWHB against Reagan before Reagan became the nominee and Bush his running mate.  Meanwhile, the NYT used the term Reaganomics during the entire period of his administration consistently and it still is used today even when disparaging Reagan.  ViriiK (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than speaking in terms of consensus, you need to explain why it shouldn't be included. You haven't done that at all, so there cannot be a consensus to remove. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not turn it around on me. You haven't explained why it should be included.  As I've already explained, it is not a notable term that was used during the Reagan Administration years.  I can go on JSTOR right now and search for Voodoo Economics during the 80's and gets very little references due to the fact that people are using the word "Voodoo" for other reasons.  Whereas boom Reaganomics gets many hits which goes in the thousands in terms of academic journals.  Heck Ebsco for example returns only 6 hits on Voodoo Economics vs plenty on Reaganomics particularly in the New York Times.  ViriiK (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to see what argument remains once the original research is cleared away. You admit that Bush Sr. used the term even before "Reaganomics". And you admit that the term is still in use, but claim you get few hits on some specialized search engine that I can't even use. In the meantime, it's all over Google. Looks to me like your personal criteria have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies about notability and reliable sources. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding or just being obtused. GHWB used the term DURING the Republican Primary but ceased to used it AFTER he became Reagan's running mate, there the term died.  JSTOR is not some specialized search engine.  It is a well found academic search ending no different than Ebsco is and people like myself do have access to it.  You know Wikipedia is advertising access to reference search engines however you're a new user so you wouldn't be qualified anyways unless you can probably ask politely!  Google unfortunately was established way way after the Reagan years however you could do searches on scholar.google.com which does have limited access to JSTOR, the same access I use.  Here's another one.  "The Reagan economic program, once derided by opponents as "voodoo economics," is working."  ViriiK (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, should I remind you of being civil? ViriiK (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, should you? I don't see anything uncivil with my name attached to it, but if you do, you'll need to be much more specific. After all, vague claims of incivility are themselves uncivil. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know you were being uncivil and still are in this point. You went ahead and made the change knowing that there was no consensus thus acting as a consensus of one (you).  Especially you're trying to redirect the attention from your reasoning (which there are none except based on original research) to us which we've clearly made our case and you declined.  ViriiK (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD is civil. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing. You are currently at 3RR.  You are clearly gaming the system in order to give the appearance that you worked for consensus when you did nothing of the sort.  Instead you sat and waited out the 24 hour window.  ViriiK (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I'm not, but you're free to report me if you think that anyone shares your unique take on WP:3RR. What I did today was classic BRD. The issue was being ignored on the talk page -- poor Galestar was being kept waiting -- so I Bolded to force a response. Unfortunately, your response is not sufficient. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're at 3RR just so you know and you acknowledge that. Thank you.  ViriiK (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not acknowledge your claim as valid, because the edit history shows that I am not at 3RR. You are mistaken. Please look again, but regardless, do not ascribe any beliefs to me other than what I explicitly state. Thank you. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And I note with great amusement that this is the very same editor who argued that "Compassionate conservatism" should be removed from an article on the grounds that it's "an obsolete campaign slogan".  I swear, you just couldn't make up this sort of stuff.    Belch fire - TALK  22:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly can make this stuff up, because you just did. The issue with "compassionate conservatism" is that it's a slogan, not a distinct form of conservatism that should have its own section treating it as such. The issue here is unrelated: We have an economic policy that has various nicknames, including "Reagonomics", "voodoo economics" (thanks, Bush!) and "trickle-down economics", but you would like us to keep the nicest-sounding of the bunch while saying nothing about the rest. Now that's something you just can't make up. Fortunately, it's also a violation of WP:NPOV. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your original research is unpersuasive. ViriiK (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there are reliable sources for voodoo and trickle-down. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Trickle down, more than likely. Voodoo economic during the 80's?  Not very likely since it died right before Bush became Reagan's running mate.  The whole point here is that the terminology was not used during the Reagan Administration when compared to either Reaganomics or Trickle-down economics.   As I've said above I can go on JSTOR right now and search for Voodoo Economics during the 80's and gets very little references due to the fact that people are using the word "Voodoo" for other reasons.  Whereas boom Reaganomics gets many hits which goes in the thousands in terms of academic journals.  Heck Ebsco for example returns only 6 hits on Voodoo Economics vs plenty on Reaganomics particularly in the New York Times. ViriiK (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the earliest example which I restricted JSTOR searches to "Voodoo" + "Reagan" in order to discriminate economics out to get a better result. "On the Limits of the Public Economy" by David R. Cameron which he's a professor at Yale.  He uses the term "Voodoo" once but unfortunately he actually associates it with Thatcher.  Thatcher governments have been the most enthusiastic and determined practitioners of such "voodoo" economics, the attraction of monetarism and fiscal austerity as a response to macroeconomic weakness has been widespread."  Unfortunately that was a year into Reagan's presidency written in January 1982.  Now I found another academic journal that states When implemented, supply-side economics has not turned out to be "voodoo," as many, including Vice President Bush, once thought. Rather, it is a politically potent mixture of monetarism, Keynesianism, the Protestant work ethic, and the so-called rational expectations hypothesis  So given that impression, it is patently obvious that the term died right in the beginning and switched over to Reaganomics as most of my sources seem to indicate.  ViriiK (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now based on that, you are free to lecture me on how popular the term was during the 80's although I've disproven your original research quite easily. No BS snides, no distractions, I want pure facts from you, not conjecture, opinion, or original research.  ViriiK (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're asking and answering the wrong question. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a question? You said This is where we left off. Galestar asked for an explanation, and waited days to receive nothing. Therefore, if there's any consensus, it's to keep.  No question was asked.  ViriiK (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, there is no consensus to add this. This is a WP:Featured article and already represents the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. You know there are thousands and thousands of stubs that are crying out for your attention. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 03:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Galestar demanded an explanation and didn't get it. I demanded one just now and didn't get it. Therefore, there is no explanation and no consensus to remove. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked nothing because you've yet to ask a question. Galestar asked a question why it was removed and got answered plenty of times.  You do know questions end with a ?, right?  Making statements or derisions do not make questions.  ViriiK (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)