Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 3

Reagan and S&L Scandal
jjksahjsksalsaaa

WOW WIKIPEDIA REALLY SUCKS I COULD WRITE ANYTHING LOLZ :P

Reagan and the 2004 U.S. Election
I've moved the following paragraph from the main article. The assertion in the first sentence is not supported by the following three sentences. Someone may want to argue that there was a similar dynamic at work, but that would require rewriting.

Reagan's passing helped Bush win re-election. Many people felt that the experiences of the Canadians during the six emotional days in September 2000 that marked the passing and state funeral of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was prime minister when Reagan became president (Mulroney didn't become prime minister until 1984) may have been the factor. Then-prime minister Jean Chretien called an election weeks later and it helped him and his Liberals win another majority government. Both cases make one point clear: Reagan inspired Bush to be president, like Trudeau inspired Chretien to be prime minister.

Bbpen 18:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think this is pretty off-topic anyway and shouldn't be part of the article. Neilc 04:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reagan and the Mob's Hollywood Man
Mafia fixer Sidney Korshak the lawyer seems quite the character - but he wouldn't diss Nancy. He does admit to being quite the rake with Ronald Reagan between the man's marriages having whores visit the two of them in the same hotel room back then.

Doris Lilly and Jacqueline Parks
This ties in with Doris Lilly's 1949 opinion of Reagan before he transforms himself from a very hayseed type of a man into a swinger. This might explain his treatment of Jacqueline Parks who said in 1991:
 * "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. He was a swinger in those days. He went out with this girl and that girl. But the moment he married Nancy and became a Republican, he was reformed, and there's nothing more boring than a reformed swinger." - Sparky 19:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Selene Walters allegation What the hell is the Selene Waters allegation doing in that part of the article. It basically goes: "Author Kitty Kelley claimed he raped this person..." and then just goes on to talk about how he got Alzheimer's in the same paragraph. Pretty misplaced. Trey Stone 00:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That part of the article is about his retirement. It's just a coincidence, the allegation and diagnostic placed in the same period of time. --Vasile 06:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * occurred within 3 years of the same decade.

Why does no one feel his abandonment, infidelity, and rape is important? I'm stunned. - Sparky 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those "shocked" about unsupported allegations should remember that gossip has no place in an encyclopedia article.

article size
This article is already 60KB and growing. I think that it is time to think about how to best split it up. The ==Presidency== and ==Foreign Interventions== sections and their subsections could be moved to Presidency of Ronald Reagan, leaving two to three subsection summary under ==Presidency== and a Main article: Presidency of Ronald Reagan link under that heading. Any other ideas on how to split? --mav 21:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You could do as you suggested above, or simply include items 3 through 7 in your proposed Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. If you include all items relating to the Reagan presidency, that might be more consistent.  I'd drop off where he wins the presidency (while including a note to readers saying "for information on the Reagan Presidency, see Presidency of Ronald Reagan."  Then I'd continue where  ==Legacy and Retirement from Public Life== begins.  The paragraph in Early political career discussing the 1984 campaign vs. Walter Mondale can be inserted in the new Presidency article.  The Presidency article also will need a note letting readers know about the ==Ronald Reagan== article for more information on his life pre and post presidency.


 * Because Ronald Reagan is either (you choose) embraced (or despised) by the US voting public, he generates a lot of rhetoric from opposing viewpoints (and also a lot of detail not present in other similar articles). His death only accelerated that discussion.  Hence, the 60 KB length.  (and I'm not even getting into what the rest of the world's population thinks. . .)  Separating out his presidential years from the rest of his life is probably in the end going to result in acceptable article lengths for both articles.  I have hope. . .  Your kind thoughts?  --avnative 02:57, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Go for it. It could be worse: there's George W. Bush, as well as an article on his 2000 campaign and his 2004 campaign. Same goes for Al Gore and John Kerry. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:59, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC) P.S. There's also Al Gore's views, in an extreme example of bloat


 * Sounds good. I'll be gone for this weekend but I'll try to help out next weekend. To be clear, a good-sized summary of his presidency needs to still be left here. The more detailed stuff can go in a separate article. --mav 07:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Mav, I agree with your thoughts expressed above. Certainly a summary of his presidency should be included with the main Ronald Reagan article.  However, my time is limited towards this (sad to say) and as a relatively new Wikipedian, haven't yet mastered the art of reverting, transplanting massive material to a new article, etc.  I took your earlier comments literally, and offered my thoughts to you.  I'd be glad to offer advice to you, though!  Just let me know. . .  After the transplanting is done, I certainly would be glad to go over it for readability/copyediting (and making sure things are in their rightful place).  Please leave me a note at my user discussion page when you need me.  Thanks!  --avnative 04:30, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK - the summary is in place and more detailed text moved to Reagan Administration. I'm working on making that into an article in its own right now. --mav 08:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This can be something larger. Currently, all John Doe Administration links redirect to President John Doe's biography. We could have an article on the Reagan Administration and the same for all other presidents. --Jiang 07:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. But this should only be used to split the president articles once they get too big. --mav 08:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "Miscellaneous" section should have its content moved elsewhere. For example, the air traffic controllers strike belongs under domestic. --17:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That whole section should be integrated into the rest of the article. In time. --mav 02:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reaganomics
I changed it, b/c it defined Reaganomics as cutting taxes and increased military spending. That was a compromise; not what Reagan actually wanted. A big part of what Republicans generally want is a reduction of funds for social programs by the Federal Government.

A note about the deficits/debt being a "record" and "tripling". This isn't factually correct. The records are during the WWII era. The deficit under Reagan peaked at about 6% of GDP, far below the record (about 33% of GDP in 1943). The debt increased substantially but again measured against the economy did not double or triple. The increase against GDP was less than 20%. Only if one uses nominal dollars can one say that there is any kind of "record" being set, but that ignores inflation and the size of the economy.

Portrait
Wasn't his Governor portrait defaced/damaged at some point? Rhymeless 02:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
I notice the NPOV tag is on the page. Glancing through Talk & the archives, I didn't notice a specific dispute in progress justifying the tag.

Would someone mind bringing me up to speed on the specific complaint leading to the NPOV tag? A linki to the appropriate discussion would be fine. Thanks. Wolfman 19:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, no one has made any comments about a neutrality dispute in over a month. Nor has my query been answered.  So, I am removing the NPOV tag.  If someone still does in fact have specific neutrality objections, please state the specific objection below and reinsert the tag.  Thanks. Wolfman 00:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Iraqi chemical weapons
The article claims:


 * At various times the administration supported both nations but mainly sided with Iraq, believing that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was less dangerous than Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Weapons and tactical support were sent to Iraq, including the transfer of chemical and biological materials, ostensibly for humanitarian purposes. These materials were in fact used to make chemical and biological weapons.

But declines to include any references or sources to support this (controversial) claim. Does anyone have any links to documentation concerning the sale of chemical and biological materials, and the future use of these materials in weapons? Neilc 04:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did some research into this. This WaPo article is informative. I've updated the article to reflect my understanding of what is accurate. Neilc 07:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Links
I've noticed that there are more anti-Reagan links than pro-Reagan links, which is odd considering he had 60% of the popular vote and 49 states....It should at least be 50/50. Anyone to help? BMWman

Like George Bush, one can be popular with half of the US and unpopular with almost everyone else in the world :) Wikipedia is also for Angolans, Iranians, Central Americans... Greenman 13 Dec 2004

You don't think the man that set an electoral college record should get an equal saying in the links saying? This was much, MUCH more than half the US. It may be for others also, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt have a say. BMWman


 * Go for it, dude! However you're going to be riding uphill on this, the consensus on this 'pedia seems to tilt to the left. Only way to achieve true NPOV is to try to balance everything out with worthwhile content. Ellsworth 23:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court Nominations
Any objections to me adding such a section? BMWman


 * Certainly, such information would be welcome. If you want to add a lot of detail (more than a paragraph or two), please consider making a separate article on his nominations.  Then a summary and a link to the nomination article can be included here in the Reagan biography.  In fact, a general article on Reagan's judicial nominees at all levels would be a nice addition. Wolfman 02:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I started a section on that topic at Reagan Administration. Ellsworth 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links to speeches
The reagan2020.com website has got links to all his major speeches at /speeches. Maybe we could condense the links section a bit? Normally I'd go for it but as all editing to this artcle seems to stir up contention (deservedly or not) I thought I'd solicit some opinions. Ellsworth 21:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, on second thought, I decided to just note on the link pipe that there are numerous speeches collected there. Ellsworth 01:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Link section has now been trimmed, so follow that link to major speeches. Ellsworth 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

labor union
The phrase "labor union" gives the wrong impression. Yes, Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, but that's not what most people think of when they hear "labor union". There is probably a better way to express this that doesn't put Reagan in the same camp as Joe Hill or Jimmy Hoffa or Walther Reuther. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a labor union. He wasn't a Republican at the time. He fought and won minimum wage claims for members and better conditions etc. He was a labor union leader in the classical sense I think. I don't mean it as praise or a put-down just an important fact. Ollieplatt 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Attitude towards
Anti-Reagan advocates have portrayed Reagan as "not caring" about HIV sufferers and being hostile to homosexual people. Pro-Reagan advocates claim that Reagan "cared". I'd like the article to describe this dispute fairly.

I remember reading online somewhere about funding initiated by Reagan, as well as statements he made about the importance of preventing, detecting and/or treating AIDS. I vividly recall Reagan's reply to his daughter about some actor (Rock Hudson ?) whose on-screen kiss looked strange. Paraphrasing: "I think he'd rather be kissing a man", he said, matter-of-factly. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

-- does it make any sense to talk about whether Reagan "cared" or not? Many politicians deal with such issues in accordance with their advisors and major political allies. "Caring" doesn't enter into it much. It's more of an ongoing political calculation ...

Government funding for
Dropped sentence:


 * It recommended an unprecedented increase in funding for research, which the administration wouldn't accommodate.

This is incorrect - AIDS funding increased steadily during Reagan's second term and afterwards, see Talk:Reagan Administration.
 * Actually, you are incorrect in your facts. AIDS funding was increased by slashing other projects, and the Reagan administration did not implement the funding recommended by the commission. This is easily verified. Please restore the sentence, or reword to make it more accurate. Jliberty 13:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * This PDF document shows the increases in AIDS funding. As for "slashing other projects", that may be true (source?) but it doesn't change the fact that AIDS funding increased. Ellsworth

Also dropped sentence:


 * By the time Reagan addressed Aids directly, in May of 1987 (six years into the epidemic) over 20,000 Americans had already died of the illness.

See here and here - Reagan discussed AIDS in a 1985 press conference.Ellsworth 00:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, it took him four years, not six. :-)  Jliberty 13:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

And dropped this sentence:
 * For example, during the onset of the epidemic, the Reagan administration slashed the budgets of the CDC and NIH, and allocated no funding at all for AIDS research, while stating publicly that the scientists had all the funding they needed.

This is incorrect, as the report cited in the supra link shows, discretionary funding for the department of HHS related to AIDS ramped up rapidly beginning in FY 1983 (which began on September 1, 1982). Ellsworth 21:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I will leave your changes as they stand because I can't right now do the research, but I will tell you that the facts as described in great detail in the book "And the Band Plays On" contradict the report you cite (which, as I remember is not exactly a neutral audit -- when time allows I'll try to find further documentation or perhaps someone else will provide other details. Jliberty 23:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm open to revising my opinion on this. Obviously, there are multiple ways of characterizing government spending: for instance the cited report shows discretionary HHS spending on AIDS was $200,000 in FY 1981 - I'm not sure the term AIDS was even coined at that time. Maybe that represents a certain item in the CDC epidemiology budget, or something like that. Ellsworth 00:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * AIDS funding did increase under Regan, but it was non-discretionary: this included increased spending on the common cold, as both were linked to a degrading immune system, when in fact,funding into HIV research was poorly alloacted. Here is a link it's also cited in And the band played on. The Regan administration also tried to stop AIDS prevention education in schools, as mentioned in that article as well as in And the band played on (R, Shilts).
 * - PSYCH 06:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The PDF document I cited supra breaks out AIDS spending into discretionary and non-discretionary categories. Discretionary AIDS spending (research, prevention, education) went up, and the Advocate article you cited doesn't refute that. The Bronski article also repeats the common error that Reagan didn't publicly mention AIDS until 1987.Ellsworth 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Bronski article also repeats the common error that Reagan didn't publicly mention AIDS until 1987." Yes, but the sources that propose Reagan mentioned AIDS before 1987 are from the Reagan Library. Not exactly neutral sources. And as I mentioned, in the book and the band played on, it clearly demonstrates that funding for AIDS wasn't actually reaching HIV research. - PSYCH 10:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I note that you are not challenging the accuracy (as opposed to the neutrality) of the sources on the timing of Reagan's AIDS comments. In any event, do you propose changing the section of the article on AIDS? Ellsworth 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed quotations regarding
Hey JL, why'd you drop the Morris quote from Dutch? Not that I disagree with the edit. I just feel that as Morris has acknowledged that Dutch contains numerous fabrications, any quotations from that source should require corrorboration. Ellsworth 20:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Because once the quote is disputable the dispute distracts from the key points made in the paragraph. There is plenty of undisputed evidence of the failures of the Reagan administration to deal with aids without dealing with a disputed (or at least disputable) quote.Jliberty 02:37, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes sense - about the quotation, I mean.Ellsworth 17:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, the last extant version of the quotation is:
 * According to Dutch, a memoir of Reagan by authorized biographer Edmund Morris, Reagan said, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." The conservative columnist Deroy Murdock of National Review has speculated that this latter quotation, along with much of the rest of Dutch, could have been a product of Morris's imagination..

Fairly characterizing the AIDS/homophobia dispute
There is clearly a dispute over the character and degree of Reagan's sympathy for homosexuals. Generally, the two sides fall into the categories of pro-Reagan and anti-Reagan.

The anti-Reagan side criticizes Reagan for:
 * not supporting the "right" of homosexuals to "be gay", and/or calling heterosexuality as "the only true moral position"
 * being "homophobic" (in the sense of active hostility toward homosexual people)
 * failing to respond quickly or emphatically enough to the HIV/AIDS crisis; particularly, not providing "enough" government funding for research, education, prevention and so on

The pro-Reagan side defends Reagan by:
 * asserting that there's nothing wrong with standing up for a particular view on morality, Biblically-based or otherwise
 * denying rumors that Reagan ever expressed hostility toward homosexual people; they use the discussion with Patti (?) as an example of his mildness and tolerance
 * recounting the rapid and enormous increases in HIV/AIDS funding during Reagan's 8-year administration.

I don't think the Wikipedia should draw any conclusions about this, but simply mention that there are two sides to the story. The easiest to verify are, of course, the data about funding the various HIV/AIDS initiatives.

We should mention his public statements and other conversations (as with his daughter) to give perspective on his supposed mildness and tolerance vs. his supposed homophobic attitude. But this will be harder, since the word "homophobia" is often used deliberately to blur the distinction between "principled criticism of homosexuality as a general practice" and "unprincipled hostility toward homosexuals". --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ksnow's massive edit
User Ksnow, for POV or other misguided reasons, removed large amounts of valid information from the article on March 11. This should be reverted. 63.209.14.211 00:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I was rather concerned by Ksnow's edits, as well. But, if you closely examine every edit that she made, you'll notice that many were valid.  (I wish that she would have put some sort of description of her edits, but I guess that's a moot point now;  she hasn't made a single edit description in her last 1000 edits, and I don't see her starting now.)
 * I went through and restored some things which I believed should not have been taken out. A wholesale revert of her changes should not be done, however, since she did fix some grammatical errors, POV statements, factual inaccuracies, unencyclopedic comments, etc. --BaronLarf 00:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

oops
I should have been clearer when I labeled an edit of mine an edit for "NPOV." The POV issue was the sentence "One of the most loathsome things for him about Soviet communism was its atheism and denial of its people's chances to know Christ." It lacked any qualifier, and I changed it. I also made an unrelated edit to shorten the quotation, which I felt was too long and was just as well-served by just including the last paragraph.

Sorry to both people I've confused so far. Dave 08:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, no problemo. However, it is not POV but fact that Reagan found the USSR's atheism loathsome.138.130.201.204 09:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why it still says "He argued that communism's enforced atheism was one of its worst features." The issue with the original wording was that it lacked the "he argued" part.  It just said "the soviet union was bad."
 * Dave 09:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You're right, your revision was more NPOV. 138.130.201.204 08:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quotations
Will people please stop the POV censorship? Reagan's wishing a deadly food poisoning on hungry people is an important clue to his personality behind the avuncular mask. Hardly "unencyclopedic". If any current leader said that today, we'd probably have a special ARTICLE about the quote. Is Daniel Quinlan also concerned that whole articles like You forgot Poland may be unencyclopedic? 63.209.14.211 14:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the POV here is yours. Hit and run edits, adding negative out-of-context trivial quotes made by people you don't like... sounds like POV.  Get past your hate.  Daniel Quinlan 22:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * What, pray tell, is a "hit and run edit"? First of all, I didn't originally add this. It stood in the article all the time until Ksnow removed it along with about 20 other relevant items. I first reverted Ksnow's entire edit, but was reverted by BaronLarf. Then I tried to reintroduce two deleted items, and you reverted me. Now I'll just try one by one. As to this item: it is not at all "out of context" since the context is precisely given (the Patti Hearst abduction, in which context he made the quote), nor is it trivial, since it was widely reported at the time and indeed if it were just trivial it wouldn't matter much either way if it's mentioned in the article and you wouldn't be so eager to censor it, seeing that Wikipedia is full of much greater trivialities. And if it's "negative", well, it's nevertheless a fact, and I don't see why facts should be censored because they reflect negatively on a person. Otherwise the article should not have any quotes. 63.209.14.211 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I try to follow the 3 revert rule, and I think I've more or less hit it now, so others will have to take this one on. I'm just trying to keep this crap article from becoming even worse POV vs. POV crap. Daniel Quinlan 23:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a compromise version for the end of the paragraph, I came up with, to put the quote in greater context (missteps). Since I'm holding off on editing this, I leave it to others:


 * After police had used deadly force suppressing the violent People's Park protests and he sent 2,200 National Guard troops into Berkeley in 1970, he famously mused in a public misstep, "If it takes a bloodbath [to end the disruptions], let's get it over with." Another misstep was when reacting to a food giveaway program made as a demand by the kidnappers of newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, Reagan facetiously suggested that it might be a good time for an outbreak of botulism.

Daniel Quinlan 00:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion (now archived) on the appropriateness of a quotations section. Since it seems that inclusion/exclusion of quotations is going to result in edit wars, why not just let the curious follow the Wikiquote link?

Apropos that: I just dropped the following quotations from the article:


 * ==Quotes and witticisms ==

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." 

The link is just a merchandising site.


 * On August 11 1984, Reagan's sound check for his weekly national radio address was taped and later broadcast by reporters. He said: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." The remark was almost universally regarded as a joke, however the Soviets were not amused and some critics wondered if it did not express Reagan's truest wishes.

Again, this is just debate fodder.


 * "What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives&#8212;the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. (Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 1883)."

The date leads me to suspect that the quotation was placed there as a troll. On the other hand, it could be just a mistake. Anyway, I stand by my position that quotations should be left off the article since the have their own Wikiquote entry. Ellsworth 00:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weapons to Iraq
The following is a direct quote from the WaPo article; I think it clearly says the US authorized sales of weapons to Iraq: "A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."--csloat 08:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That quote doesn't support the claims the article makes &mdash; it merely says "authorize", while the Wiki article says "provided". Also, the quote above does not necessarily suggest that they provided weapons to the Iraqis &mdash; since the material was dual-use, I would expect it would not be shipped by commercial companies in a weaponized form (although I won't claim to be an expert, of course). I think the WaPo story supports the claim that the US govt. turned a blind eye to the export of potentially dangerous substances to the Iraqis, but I don't think it supports the current claims the Wiki article makes. Please adjust the claims, or find more evidence. Neilc 12:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What are we talking about here when we say "weapons"? In terms of modern warfare, I suggest that "weapons", unmodified, means guns, bullets, tanks, mines, bombs and other materiel whose primary purpose is to kill people and break things. If that's not the meaning, what do you propose?  If it is the meaning, isn't it clear that the Soviet Union and France provided the weapons (e.g. France with the Mirage bombers and Exocet missiles, the Soviets with MiG's and ground warfare items). Ellsworth 14:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have tried to come up with a compromise statement on the disputed para. that comes just short of saying "the US supplied weapons to the Iraqi military". Check it out. Ellsworth 00:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talking about "weapons" to Iraq and "biological weapons" ignores the facts of the matter. The United States and the then Soviet Union held many dangerous substances that had to be provided to other nations for research purposes unless there was a compelling reason not too, and that would not be the United States' decision. Iraq, with a huge population of cattle/sheep had a legitimate reason for wanting anthrax cultures. Not that Saddam didn't/wouldn't weaponize them, but the US was not in a position to deny them the request at that point.

I agree that any discussion of "weapons" to Iraq needs to state quite clearly that the major suppliers of military hardware were France, Germany, China, the Soviet Union and South Africa...and not the United States.

Excellent article
I've been reviewing many articles relating to politics and some have got me so mad, I've put disputed tags on them. This article is however excellent. It presents the good and the bad with little editorializing. Is it possible those responsible could re-write the George W Bush article which is really a mess. Lagavulin 20:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, but since George W. Bush is the current president, it's hard to get anything done on that article. Changes have to be made one by one and hacked out on the talk page, where nothing really seems to resolved.  If someone is bold and does a complete rewrite, it will be reverted since it is a contenscious article and *someone* is going to find something wrong with the article. Add to that the endless vandalism on the page which constantly needs to be reverted. I think that a good article on GWB is going to have to wait until he's been out of office for a while and the passion has died down.  But I hope I'm wrong.  --BaronLarf 20:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I fear you might be right. I've been looking at many political articles and some are just terrible while others - where you might expect controversy - are just great. The Oliver North one is particularly bad I think. Haven't had the courage to look at Bill Clinton's one yet. It's a shame that fanatics of both sides seem to be able to get their way. But congrats to all those who made the Reagan article, it's excellent. And he was as controversial as there ever was. Lagavulin 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Make that "is". ;-> Ellsworth 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assassination attempt
I suggest that the Hinkley stuff be move to its own section since it isn't really a part or Reagan Domestic agenda.

Buchanan quote
I've deleted the following quote: "Reagan's communication director Pat Buchanan argued that 'AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men.'" because when I went to find a source so I could add it to the article I was unable to find one. If a source can be found I think it should be put back in the article provided that Buchanan said it while he was a part of the Reagan administration.

help a girl out
i am doing a project for school and i really need the cabinet officials for reagon. please give me some links. Thanxs bunches.
 * Try here Reagan's Cabinet and search google using those names.

Succession Box
Should Reagan's tenure as head of the Screen Actors Guild be included in the succession box"?  NoSeptember 11:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it should. If you head fifty notable organizations, you get fifty succession boxes.  -- Un  focused  22:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I finally got around to adding it. :)  NoSeptember  20:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Editorializing
This article seems RIFE with editorializing. There are a lot of "comments" that seem either lifted directly from a non-journalistic/-encyclopedic source (= plagiarism) or are made up on the spot, which is as poor a practice. At first, this was just a general impression, but the most egregious ones were evident even then, and frankly were distressing upon a closer reading. I recommend that this article be made more compact and topical, and that these comments be removed. I don't want to edit the page further without more input, and the task certainly belongs to someone more qualified in these matters than I.


 * I reversed your recent edit because it left a gap in the paragraph that caused it to no longer make sense. You removed two sentences without removing the speech link that followed.  (Reagan was a loving and devoted husband. One of the most touching speeches he ever made as president was a tribute to his wife.)  You can't call these editorializing if they are supported by proof (such as the following link).  What you could dispute or change is the way the speech is introduced.  I see nothing wrong with the innocuous sentences to introduce the link but perhaps you could simplify them somehow while retaining the fact that he paid tribute to his wife in the linked speech. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Solar Panels
The idea that Reagan personally ordered Carter-era solar panels removed from the roof of the White House early in his presidency seems to be a popular one, but I can't find any support for it. On the contrary, this article from BusinessWeek  suggests that the panels were removed in 1986 to repair the roof and were simply never put back in place. --Bziobnic 20:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reducing this article
This article is 51KB. Which section as of this moment is the best to put into its own article?? Georgia guy 22:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reagan's grades?
An anonymous editor changed "earned excellent grades" to "earned mediocre grades" -- this should be easy to check; can anyone document whether Reagan's grades in school were excellent or mediocre? --csloat 04:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reagan Bust in Hungary
Apparently, there is talk of putting up a bust of Reagan in Budapest, alongside one of George Washington (see link). If this comes to pass, I imagine it would be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5071695,00.html

Funnyhat 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

public psychiatric hospital system
"During his governorship, Reagan actively dismantled the public psychiatric hospital system, proposing that a community-based housing and treatment system replace it."

I recently had someone bring this up in conversation, and realized I had never heard of it.

Googling didn't really turn anything up, and even the california governor's page didn't have much.

What's the deal? What was the name of the system? When was it dismantled? Was it through the legislature? What was Governor Reagan's involvment? 68.167.2.149 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most Fascinating Person/Greatest American?
These seem inappropriate for inclusion; being representative of a transient popular-culture viewpoint, I would argue that they are not encyclopedic and thus ought to be removed. Spider Jerusalem 04:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For the time being, I've reduced their size.  --BaronLarf 05:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan
He was endorsed for President in 1980 by a unit of the Ku Klux Klan which was based in the State of California. They said that he was an ideal candidate. 70.17.165.18 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was an actual Klan member and used the word "nigger," on the Senate floor. What's your point? Do you really want to play this game after all, Anon? Dwain 02:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * The endorsement by the KKK helped him to win the election in 1980. He went on television and uttered his patented mumbling:  "...eh ...well... um... er... I... uh... ah... don't know much about those people... huh... gasp... uh...  hmmm...."


 * The Gipper (as his friends called him) gypped the poorer people by enriching the rich people with his trickle-down tax cuts for the rich. He was a pick-pocket who ruined the United States.  Some of the rich beneficiaries of his tax cuts told him that they didn't need the extra money.  They told him to keep the money and improve the nation with it, but he had a head made out of stone, and he was greedy, too.


 * His henchman, "Bill" Clinton covered his tracks during his eight years.


 * 141.151.173.113 18:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And there is a line on the federal tax form which would have allowed his rich friends to contribute more than the legal minimum. This is not the place to discuss this. - Calmypal (T) 21:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Patty Hearst
yeah, all the SLA was doing was asking for redistribution of food to the poor. give it a rest. J. Parker Stone 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
Why in the world is a disambiguation notice to the ship necessary at the top of the article? Nobody who is looking for the ship will put in just "Ronald Reagan", they should know better than that. The ship is properly linked down below in the See also section. --Michael Snow 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is standard procedure (check out other pages like JFK). Instead of a direct link to the ship, we should have a link to a disambig page that includes the building and the airport.  NoSeptember -  22:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a similar case. John F. Kennedy, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, has a notice because of the three-letter abbreviation that is best known as their initials, and therefore redirects to the article. JFK in particular needs such a notice because someone seeking JFK (movie) would have no other option than to type that in, unless they're familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions. Rather, the comparable situation is Harry S. Truman, who also has an article about the ship named after him, but it is in the See also section and not disambiguated on top (a disambiguation notice exists for other reasons in his case). --Michael Snow 23:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right. I'd like to hear other opinions. In any case I created Ronald Reagan (disambiguation) and changed the link to that.  I invite you all to improve that page, whether the link ends up remaining or not.  NoSeptember -  23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Governorship
It reads like one editor had a field day with this sub article. Please provide sources for quotes about botulism, SLA requesting food for the poor, when he sent troops and a direct quote on his alleged eagerness to use violence. If this information cannot be provided, it will be erased. Finally, the information about him dismantling the public psychiatric system is plain pov unsupported by historical fact. The actual details are more complex than that. If relevent information is not provided, for example that he inherited a bankrupt California during his administration and the fact that the right of goverment to house mental patients against their will was a civil liberties issue at that time, is mentioned, this information will be erased. I will give about one day for this information to be provided, then I will proceed to erase it.

Guy Montag 01:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * On "Democratic Congress:" I know the House has more power with appropriating spending and such Montag, but we should recall that there was a Republican Senate until 1987. J. Parker Stone 02:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, but it was the house that blocked Reagan's public cut initiatives, not the Senate. You can change it to reflect the specificality of Congressional representation of each house, but I think the story remains the same.

Guy Montag 02:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The cuts were not "blocked." They were compromised between what the House wanted and what Reagan wanted. We should also recall the "boll weevil" Dems who supported Reagan's agenda. J. Parker Stone 02:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, they were gridlocked and Reagan was not able to have his program passed, which was partly (or mostly) responsible for the deficit. I think changing the word blocked to gridlocked is fine if you wish to change it. Many Reagan democrats supported his foreign policy but balked on some parts of domestic policy.

Guy Montag 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds like POV to me. I never heard of Reagan's program being "gridlocked." J. Parker Stone 02:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What matters is that the Congress was not able to compromise to equalize tax cuts with public spending.

Guy Montag 02:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever man, i just don't want "the deficits were Congress's fault" imposed as fact into this article. J. Parker Stone 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then propose a different wording which keeps the facts.

Guy Montag 03:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

April 7, 1970: Ronald Reagan, in "'Bloodbath' Remark by Gov. Reagan," San Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 1970, p. 1. The Los Angeles Times's version of the quote was: "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer." (Ed Meagher, "Reagan Assails Militants, Then Tempers Words," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1970, p. 3.).
 * The "bloodbath" quote has been pretty much universally cited since it was uttered on April 7, 1970 (a month before Kent State). Contemporary cites:
 * The "botulism" comment was made March 6, 1974, to the Bull Elephant club in Washington, DC: It’s just too bad we can’t have an epidemic of botulism. When the press caught wind of the comment, he apologized. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This could have been solved sooner if Nopuzzle didn't act like a prick and provided the information when I asked, instead breaking wiki policy by revert warring and insulting me.

Guy Montag 20:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with other people making personal attacks, don't make them yourself. -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist organizations
This is still a little convoluted, but i think it's better than it was before. ANC, FMLN can certainly be called guerrillas rather than terrorists. Hezbollah and the PLO cannot -- when it is the M.O. to kidnap, torture, or murder civilians then it is a terrorist group, period. J. Parker Stone 02:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree.

Guy Montag 02:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The videogame president
I believe it is noteworthy that Reagan was (if I'm not mistaken) the first real politician featured in a videogame. In the arcade game Bad Dudes, "president Ronnie has been kidnapped by the Ninjas. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue Ronnie?"

Also, In the face of Evil should be added to the list of documentaries.

"Diatribes"
maybe not necessarily that, but they certainly are POV. let's keep some things in mind. first, the U.S. imposed sanctions on South Africa during Reagan's second term. and we don't need to include a whole quote about how Reagan "politicized" human rights for chrissakes, we can just say "critics of reagan foreign policy, like  and, claim that the admin. had a double standard on human rights with regards to anti-communist governments."

the Soviet military buildup during the '80s. this is certainly relevant, as it is comparing the Reaganite rhetoric to what actually happened statistically, but as it stands now it's nothing more than left-slanted POV. one, it isn't cited (unless I missed a link at the bottom that has such statistics on Soviet military spending) and two, it admits that military spending was growing faster during 1985-87 but then dismisses it with "but they weren't offensive weapons." we also need to keep in mind that regardless of whether the Soviets tried to significantly compete with the U.S. military buildup, Reagan did more than that -- for the majority of the country, he restored confidence after a decade when it seemed the Soviets were winning on the international stage, after we had lost Vietnam. so statistics may be relevant, but they shouldn't be presented as if Reagan had no role in ending the Cold War (though, I just looked at the edit comparisons, not in-depth on the article. gotta check) J. Parker Stone 03:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that not only did the recent edits include a criticism by Ramos-Horta, but by Tutu as well... c'mon now, i'm not saying these guys aren't prominent, but we don't include long pro-Reagan quotes in here, and we shouldn't include long anti-Reagan ones either. not to mention that in Reagan's second term, when the Cold War was winding down, we were not unambiguously friendly to Chile and South Africa (and the worst period of the Guatemalan civil war had passed,) so these criticisms are not entirely accurate.

east timor, i don't know the specifics of the ebbs and flows of the violence, I just know that there were several massacres when the UN was beginning to launch a peacekeeping plan. what Reagan did was continue the (with the possible exception of Carter) U.S. policy of diplomatic friendliness with Indonesia as an anti-communist ally. in this sense, Ramos-Horta's point is correct, but we should recall (speaking of "sources") that Wolfowitz, the ambassador to Indonesia at the time, praised Suharto for the country's economic progress while at the same time saying that it was long time for him to step down. it's true that East Timor was not really paid attention to until the '90s, but again... long quotes, i tells ya. i don't like 'em -- criticisms in an encyclopedia can be substantive as well as concise. J. Parker Stone 03:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to change some of the quotes to summaries, that is fine, but you are just deleting information that is accurate and backed up because it doesn't suit your POV. I didn't include this info and I am not wedded to its particular form of expression, but change the way it is expressed rather than deleting it.  Tutu, by the way, is a major international figure of the period -- his view is at least as relevant as, say, Margaret Thatcher's.  Your points about Reagan's role in the cold war are reasonable but you don't have to erase large chunks of info to express them. --csloat 05:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * i currently can't edit political articles. this page is on my watchlist. i know Tutu is an authority with regards to South Africa, but the selection of the quote is an obvious ploy by whatever anon added them chosen because of the "evil, immoral, un-Christian" line. Reagan's priority was anti-communism, and there happened to be two pro-Soviet regimes in southern Africa at the time. as I said, there were some sanctions imposed on South Africa during the second term, Reagan just never supported protesters' demands for complete disinvestment due to the aforementioned interests.


 * tutu can be referenced, but the line as it stands is currently POV. J. Parker Stone 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, suggest a NPOV wording rather than deleting the entire passages you disagree with.--csloat 05:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * again i am not deleting anything. that whole section needs to be reworked. i've created an edit on the human rights issues here, if anyone has suggestions. J. Parker Stone 07:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * putting aside the general ideology over at commondreams.org, the quote as it stands now is inaccurate. Tutu called apartheid "evil, immoral, and totally un-Christian" and the author of that opinion piece is using that quote to complain about the "laudatory" coverage Reagan received after he died. J. Parker Stone 04:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the Criticism Section
The first paragraph of the Criticism section says:
 * "A frequent objection by his critics, however, was that his personal charm also permitted him to say nearly anything and yet prevail, a quality that earned him the nickname "the Teflon President" (i.e., to whom nothing sticks). His denial of awareness of the Iran-Contra illegalities was belied by quotations in now-archived notes by his defense secretary, Casper Weinberger, that he (Reagan) could survive violating the law or Constitution, but not the negative public image that "big, strong Ronald Reagan passed up a chance to get the hostages free." However, in the almost twenty years since the Iran-Contra affair, no "smoking gun" has yet been revealed to show that he in fact did know about trading arms for hostages. Reagan-era papers were originally scheduled to be released starting in 2001, but President George W. Bush enacted a rule change to allow these to be withheld indefinitely."

There are two problems with this. First, the opening sentence is too long and syntactically complex. Second, the reference to hostages in the Weinberger quotation is puzzling. What was the connection between Iran-Contra and hostages? This needs to be explained. The American hostages in Iran were released on Reagan's first day in office, years before Iran-Contra.

Problems with User:Barneygumble
he seems to be copying the same bit about Reagan and Gobechev into every cold war themed article, that is more than false, and more than inncorrect, it's the same paragraph, how many times is the SDI article going to reproduce?? this human spambot has now gone back and re-added the same sentence, changing the wording enough that it doesn't look like random vandalsim... <--these bits look like copy/paste pov vandalism to me, how about you? he also seems to have a very simplistic understanding Mutually Assured Destruction, but that's another story.. ..this seems like a good a place as any, since his point of origin, seems to be the Reagan article, It would be a good idea to watch out for him- (signed warning by 172.128.124.231 /172.149.94.2)
 * |bit # 1
 * |bit # 2


 * So why did Gorbechev opposed SDI then? Why oppose a defensive mechanism? It is like opposed someone putting a lock on their front door. I self-edited those pages to present a more NPOV. That is what supporters of Reagan claim. It is strictly their opinion on the subject. Quit being such a vandal Barneygumble 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One, you're not qualified to answer the question you just asked, two... are you kidding me? why would somebody be afraid of nuclear weapons orbiting the planet earth, that have a snowball's chance in texas of being aimed correctly???obviously, the answer is, he was being a bully, not that he realized the only way to continue the diplomatic language he had with Carter would be to cut down on nuclear weapons deployment, not just escalate it to a new planet killing level--172.140.221.199 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, you want the PC answer, fine, the reason he was threatened by Regan's expensive yet ineffective missile defense sheild, was because he'd have to waste as much money as Regan wasted, to go and build his own version for the USSR, and that kind of spending would be virtually impossible for the failed economic entity that was the Soviet Union of the 80s, and a recession as bad as the one affecting the US, would cripple the Soviet Union, which it eventually did--172.140.221.199 21:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to answer either of my responses, the fact that I can offer multiple alternatives, should at the very least show how ridiculous it is to make that kind of definative statement about what historical figure XYZ was thinking 20 years ago, beyond that, there's still no reason to go around inserting the same paragraph into a dozen similarlly themed articles--172.140.221.199 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Iran Hostage impact on Election
Can someone show me some evidence (eg. polls from that timeframe) that the Iran Hostage Crisis had a greater bearing on the election than the Economy for example. Otherwise that should be de-empahsized.


 * the reason Reagan beat out that loser Jimmy Carter was very simple, the country had grown up enough that we realized we had no more room for a bunch of whiney libs like you, just like now, if this trend continues you guys may never hold public office again, isn't it great--I-2-d2 13:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Reagan and the Klan
In 1980 Ronold Reagan made a speach in Philidelphia Mississippi declareing the utost importance of states rights. Andrew Young pointed out the insensitivity of Reagan's making such a speach at the sight of the most infamous tripple murder the Klan ever commited.

Soon afterwards Klan Wizard Wilkinson endorced Reagan saying "The Republican platform reads as if a Klanmen had written it."

Wilkinson especialy like Reagan's lukewarn stance on afermitive action.

Reagan regected this endorsement. Weeks after it had been made.

"The Firey Cross" page 387

That same year on september 1st Reagan claimed Jimmy Carter chose to open his campain in Tuscumbia Alabama because it "gave birth and is the parent body of the Klu Klux Klan" a lie that Reagan never gave a sincer apology for but used it when confronted with facts to further slander Jimmy Carter.

Soon after Regans lie Wilkinson went one step further and he argued The fact the Klan had been injected into the campain proved "the ideals of the Klan" had risen to high levels. "It's risen to such a high level that the GOP platform parallels our views almost one-hundred percent across the board"

"The Firey Cross" page 388

In 1985 when Reagan was denied millitary support for the contras in Nicuraga Klansmen rallied to his side. Don Black announced that he had created a 120 man Klan Unit called "The Nathanian Beford Forrest Brigade" with the intention of aiding the contras. Black said the brigade would engage in psychological warfare in Nicuraga to foster anti-government seniment and would provde "a civi action unit to promote a stable economy" The Klan felt that they were acting with Regan's blessing because he had said in October that "traditional" for American volunteers to take such actions in other countries.

"The Firey Cross" page 398

spelling+
In 1980 Ronold Reagan made a speach in Philidelphia Mississippi declareing the utost importance of states rights. Andrew Young pointed out the insensitivity of Reagan's making such a speach at the sight of the most infamous tripple murder the Klan ever commited.

Soon afterwards Klan Wizard Wilkinson endorced Reagan saying "The Republican platform reads as if a Klanmen had written it."

Wilkinson especialy like Reagan's lukewarn stance on afermitive action.

Reagan regected this endorsement. A long time after it had been made.

"The Fiery Cross" page 387

That same year on september 1st Reagan claimed Jimmy Carter chose to open his campain in Tuscumbia Alabama because it "gave birth and is the parent body of the Klu Klux Klan" a lie that Reagan never gave a sincer apology for but used it when confronted with facts to further slander Jimmy Carter.

Soon after Regans lie Wilkinson went one step further and he argued The fact the Klan had been injected into the campain proved "the ideals of the Klan" had risen to high levels. "It's risen to such a high level that the GOP platform parallels our views almost one-hundred percent across the board"

"The Fiery Cross" page 388

In 1985 when Reagan was denied millitary support for the contras in Nicuraga Klansmen rallied to his side. Don Black announced that he had created a 120 man Klan Unit called "The Nathanian Beford Forrest Brigade" with the intention of aiding the contras. Black said the brigade would engage in psychological warfare in Nicuraga to foster anti-government seniment and would provde "a civi action unit to promote a stable economy" The Klan felt that they were acting with Regan's blessing because he had said in October that "traditional" for American volunteers to take such actions in other countries.

"The Fiery Cross" page 398