Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 5

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

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

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


 * 1) one Reagan's religious beliefs.
 * 2) two Reagan's military policies.
 * 3) three Reagan's international activities including disarmament treaties and negotiations.

please let me know what you think..

AD Adinov 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, so simplistic is fine, solong as not a caricature. I like this purported quote for Reagan: "Ronald Reagan once said, when asked the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists, that Marxists are those who have read the books of Karl Marx and anti-Marxists are those who have understood them." RL Raylopez99 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in fairly simple English, but it presents a reasonably complex and full portrait of President Reagan. The author notes that Reagan was widely criticized for some of his policies, and he or she includes a number of foot-in-mouth Reagan quotes. The comment, "tax cuts leading to dramatic increases in government revenue, which couldn't keep up with congressional spending," may be an exaggeration. However, in general I am satisfied that the article is balanced. -Larry Siegel

Re-think your choice of words. "Simplistic" implies simple-minded. Readable language is a plus, but not at the expense of facts and fairness.

Mention of Governor Reagan's handling of the Cesar Chavez-led grape-pickers strikes is vital. --JJP

This article is not merely generous, it is unjustifiably (and disgustingly) reverent. Let me put it this way ... when it was announced that he had Alzheimer's, my reaction was "how could they tell?" ;Bear 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's simplistic interpretation will improve to one more scholarly when less attention is given to his alleged religiosity, rather than more. Too much of the article accepts at face value Reagan's own self-assessments, and those of his most strident supporters. His mother gave him a strong religious upbringing, but he was a nominal Christian as an adult (insofar as anyone knows). He was very private in his personal feelings and beliefs, but knew how to quote the Bible to woo the religious right. Indeed, the most striking aspect of Reagan's religious beliefs was his almost Machiavellian orchestration of religious voters into a bloc that has exerted immense political power in American politics since 1980.--JStripes 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why has the Reagan's legacy section made no mention of the fact that under his administration, the U.S. national debt TRIPLED and that virtually EVERY gay activist in the country who was alive and active during Reagan's first term, regards him as the single greatest abettor in the spread of the AIDS epidemic? For a citation, see investigative journalist Randy Shilts' "And the Band Played On".

I recall there used to be a section in this article concerning Reagan's (rather poor) record on the homeless which mentioned, among other things the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. What happened? That section was't complimentary enough?

religion edit
I'm editing this line: As an adult, Reagan was a member of Bel Air Presbyterian Church but never attended church regularly, including during his presidency.

to reflect the well-known reasoning that Reagan had for not attending during his presidency - the church services became all about him - people would come just to see the president, and it caused genuine inconvenience to the other parishioners at the church.

See, for example, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E1D71539F93BA35750C0A962948260

I'm changing the sentence to: As an adult, Reagan was a member of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, but didn't attend regularly during his presidency, due to the inconvenience his presence caused the parishioners.

with a reference to that NYTimes archive.

Also, this sentence is highly subjective: Reagan had an easy-going but deep Christian faith.

perhaps someone will consider making that a bit more scholarly! 80.229.242.179 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening section
This sentence...

"and huge tax cuts leading to huge budget deficits and subsequent tax increases labeled as "revenue enhancements" and tax reform"

...is this necessary as part of the introduction to the article? I see this as a slanted statement.

WikiProject Baseball
I don't think Reagan's article really warrants being a part of this Project based only on the following excerpt of a paragraph: "In 1932, after graduating from Eureka, Reagan worked at radio stations WOC in Davenport, Iowa, and then WHO in Des Moines as an announcer for Chicago Cubs baseball games, getting only the bare outlines of the game from a ticker and relying on his imagination to flesh out the game. Once, during the ninth inning of a game, the wire went dead but Reagan smoothly improvised a fictional play-by-play (in which hitters on both teams fouled off numerous pitches) until the wire was restored. As a Headline radio announcer, Reagan took a screen test that led to a seven-year contract with the Warner Brothers studio." That's the only part in the entire article that talks about his connections with professional baseball; surely that doesn't count, does it? If there are no objections raised, I will revert the bot's adding of this project. --ScreaminEagle 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Baseball/Iowa
You could add in that he stopped in to a Cubs game when Harry Carey came back and called an inning with him.

It should also be noted that it was because of baseball - that he became more than just "Dutch" the play by play guy. He was "discovered" while covering the Cubs in Arizona during spring training.

Should probably be added in here that his first few years in Iowa he was the Iowa Hawkeye play by play man - and you can find a few quotes around the web from those days that give an insight on what he believed in the 30s.. most telling would be the way he regarded black Americans then. (... and the guy that replaced him in the mid 30s - Jim Zabel - just retired as the play by play man of the Iowa Hawkeyes a couple of years ago)

Glaring propaganda
There are probably many problems with this article, but a severe one jumped out at me, namely the article's assertion that the US "was found guilty of having supported terrorism in Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice". Firstly, this was not a criminal court and nobody was "found guilty". Second, the court did adjudicate on the issue of "terrorism" or even support for "terrorism" but was instead found to have been involved in the "unlawful use of force" (because of the treaty with Nicaragua and because the court rejected the claim of collective security). This is not a trivial distinction, but the assertion is quite trivial and should be removed. 129.71.73.248 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This part bothered me as well, I second its removal or rewording.Welostclyde 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So...?
When does the "disabled editing by unregistered users" tag come off, that way user including I can edit now?(71.96.229.107 13:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)).


 * The article is no longer semiprotected. In the future, if you would like an article to be unprotected so that you can edit, you can make such a request at requests for page protection and unprotection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

amnesty to illegal immigrants
does anyone remember when regan granted amnesty for imigration. if so, does anyone have any websites or sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.159.86 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Greatest President in US history i miss u Reagan very much god bless u Rest in peace.


 * Hello. This is not the appropriate place to either ask factual questions about the subject of an article - for that, see Questions - or to discuss and give commentary; instead, it is a discussion page for how to improve this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jelly Beans Picture
The trivia section mentions his well-known love of Jelly Beans. Do people think a picture should be added? The following one from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is in the public domain so should be ok: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c1638-18.jpg. Uberdude85 11:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be a nice touch. Too bad it's not the famous one made of jelly beans as a portrait of him. Morenooso 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Administration
Hi everyone. I know that you guys on here are all about "short and concise" articles, but after taking a look at Gerald Ford's article, and looking at his "Presidency" section, it looked a lot nicer than Ronald Reagan's, which is so shortend down, that it makes it seem like the Reagan Presidency was no big deal. But it was a big deal, and for Wikipedia readers, I propose that we eliminate the article called "Reagan Administration", and just use that as the "Presidency" section. Yes, it will be long, but we can cut out info. Also, if you want to shorten the article, take a look at the "1976 Campaign", "1980 Campaign", and "1984 Campaign" sections, which are very long. I think, that if we work hard enough (and add some citations), we can get President Reagan's article back on to the "Featured Articles" list. Drop me a line, and tell me what you think. Happyme22 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not make major revisions, removals, or edits without consensus for change.K. Scott Bailey 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
I added quite a bit of info from the article Reagan Administration, which I think helps Ronald Reagan's article, and makes it look more similar to Gerald Ford's and George H.W. Bush's. Ford's is a featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happyme22 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Deletion
Hey guys. I added a ton of useful info that you guys all deleted! I even icted it in the proper format! Can you tell me what was wrong with what I had done? Also, what makes your edit right, but mine wrong? Happyme22 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMPRESSIVE WORK!
Six months ago this Reagan article was filled with partisan phony claims and partisan lies, which only hurts Reagan's long-term reputation. I was turned off. But what I just read is impressive!

What do you mean by partisan? Neo-faciast slant or a reality slant. Evan of PDX

GDP Numbers
Are the GDP numbers from the Reagan recovery listed (maybe by year)? I see this line "GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession." By the way, I thought the coverage of the deficits is very good, so now maybe a one liner on the GDP growth by year would be good.

inconsistent syntax
This article desperately needs revision for consistency. In particular, lists, such as under "policies" need consistent syntax. It currently reads as if the whole article is a stitch job by a group of minimally illiterate undergrads and high school students (which may be closer to the truth than we like to admit). JStripes 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 19, 2007 edits/deletions
user:Happyme22's edit summaries suggest that he is arbitrarily editting this article. Those same summaries are disruptive with capitals that indicate shouting. Suggest another editor review. Morenooso 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone/deletion
First, I have a question. Why do people dislike me around here? I'm just trying to improve Reagan's article, but I'm getting yelled at for doing too much (see the above comment). Why? Anyway, everything that is listed in the "policies and desicions" section is mentioned in other places in the article. Should we check through it one more time, add unmentioned things to the correct places in the article, and then delete the section? It seems unnessecary to keep it if everything is already listed. I'll do it, if you want me to, but I'll probably get yealled at for trying to do too much :) . -- Happyme22 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one dislikes you, bud. They disagree with your point of view, and some might not be very civil or AGF about their comments, and that just makes them ass-clowns. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun (remember, you aren't getting paid for this, and you aren't really getting published), and people are supposed to work together. Since you are new, people with more experience are supposed to be helping you out by explaining things to you. If they aren't, then that's on them. If you don't get something, or don't get a particular edit, go to the person's talk page and ask them. Often, you will find people respond better to being talked to rather than arbitrarily reverted. And never use caps in an edit summary, as most of us geeks consider that the net equivalent of shouting. Arcayne 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing A Fine Job
Don't take it personally. Any political entry is going to invoke responses in others. Some think the information given is fake. Some simply do not like the other side. Some want to ensure that the information is from a good source. Just be careful that everything you add is rooted in an impartial, reliable source.

As you know, I disagreed with a few things but you compromised and made adjustments, so I think your work fair. The exagerated phrase "won the Cold War" was eliminated for example. So I think what' happening here is good work. Speaking of which, how about the great ground work that Harry Truman did to win the Cold War? Who won the Cold War?

By the way, I give this article high marks. Just be careful to avoid exagerations.

this is an amazing article
i would like to say that this is a wonder biography on Ronald Reagan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.70.118.217 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

this is an amazing article
i would like to say that this is a wonder biography on Ronald Reagan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.70.118.217 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

And someone really needs to address the GLARING flaws in the War on Drugs section which is ENTIRELY inaccurate. Time magazine itself has reported that DARE officials have now admitted as far back as 2001 that the Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" campaign is a nearly COMPLETE FAILURE. Not only did it NOT reduce juvenile drug use but it actually led to LOWER rates of self-esteem in teens who went through the program. Having been one of your fellow Americans who paid with my professional life because of the crack epidemic Reagan's administration oversaw, likely because of the drug dealings in the Iran'Contra corruption, I demand that section be re-written to reflect REALITY and TRUTH, not wishful thinking!

Critisicms dispute
Hi everyone. This article was recently tagged for POV by User:83.233.181.88, because it did not have a "Criticisms" section. This is the same message that I sent to the user:

Hi there. I noticed you said that Reagan's article does not have a criticisms section. That is because all of the crisicisms are woven into the correct places of the article. I was told during the FAC candidacy to remove the critcism section, and integrate the criticisms into the correct sections that they belong in. Check out the page for yourself:. For that reason alone, I am removing the nuetrality tag. Happyme22 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I right? Happyme22 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. Jimbo himself has stated that "Criticism" sections are "troll magnets" it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms". And since what Jimbo says is Law... The only kind of "Criticism" section one would include would be a critical "Reception" section in terms of how Reagan has been perceived by political historians of all stripes, that sort of thing. Awadewit 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

 * Hi all. I had authored a large part of Ronald Reagan's pervious lead, stating:

Ronald Wilson Reagan' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and moved to California in the 1930s. Before entering politics, he was a successful Hollywood and television actor, President of the Screen Actors Guild, and a spokesman for General Electric. Previously a New Deal Democrat, Reagan became a conservative Republican in 1962. During his work for General Electric Theatre, he began to articulate the political themes that would carry him into the California Governorship, which he won in 1966, and the Presidency of the United States. He narrowly lost a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 before winning the Presidency in 1980.

As President, Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of political setbacks and economic stagflation with high interest rates. Beginning in 1981, he implemented large tax cuts; following a brief recession, he presided over record-setting economic expansion, jobs creation, and reductions in inflation, after surviving an assassination attempt.

In foreign affairs, Reagan rejected détente, famously portraying the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide, <ref name="Carpenter, Ted Galen" while simultaneously negotiating with Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. He believed in a strong national defense, and supported increases in military spending. Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, and helping to bring down the Berlin Wall. Reagan survived several scandals during his Presidency, the most infamous being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.

After leaving office, Reagan wrote a best-selling autobiography, An American Life. In 1994, Reagan disclosed that he had been afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease, and he died ten years later, in 2004, at the age of ninety-three. After a major state funeral in Washington, D.C., Reagan was laid to rest in California. He is the second longest-lived president in U.S. history, 45 days behind Gerald Ford. Academics and historians rate Reagan among the top twelve American presidents, although he is ranked higher in several public opinion surveys. <ref name= "President's and History"


 * I had it like that. It's not too detailed, but outlines the major events during Reagan's Presidency. User:Hats1$ changed it to this, even after I left a message on his/her talk page stating to please read WP:LEAD

.....As President, Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of political setbacks and economic stagflation with high interest rates. Reagan advocated free markets, and he implemented large tax cuts and increases in defense spending to stimulate the economy, and moderate deregulation to encourage investment. Reagan's popularity with the American people initially waned due to a brief but severe recession in 1981, but Reagan's popularity rebounded and he was reelected by the second-largest electoral landslide (97.58%) of the 20th Century after surviving an assassination attempt and achieving a record-setting economic expansion, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but large budget deficits. "The Teflon President" survived several scandals during his Presidency, the most infamous being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.

In foreign affairs, Reagan enacted the largest peacetime military budget in American history, including modernizing America's weapons systems, to pursue his foreign policy of "peace through strength." He rejected détente and confronted Communism, famously portraying the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide, <ref name="Carpenter, Ted Galen" Reagan later negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. When Reagan visited Moscow to give a speech on free markets at Moscow State Univerity by Gorbachev's request, a journalist asked the president if he still considered the Soviet Union the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era." Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, three years after Reagan left office, and helping bring down the Berlin Wall.


 * The first and last paragraphs were left untouched


 * Look at the diferences. I beleive User:Hats1$'s version is too long and detailed for what WP:LEAD says to do. He/She keeps changing it back to his/her way without and compromise. Even in the Peer Review, one of the recommendations said to cut down the lead. I did, and now it's longer than what it was before! Tell me what you guys think. Again, it's too long and deatailed. -- Happyme22 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead
I like the compromise lead as it is loaded as of this time at 11:18 PM EST on April 2, 2007. The previous version was not accurate. This new version still leans much that way, but I am willing to accept it.

By the way, not long before Happyme22 came here, I made significant contibutions to the introduction and much of the other text under another log-in. I received a warning from one of the administrators for the sweeping contibutions I made. I added Reagan's autobiography quotes and set much of the narrative. So I don't appreciate my work being erased. You have to leave the work of other people, too. I'm simply restoring what was there. It's Happyme22 who has erased other work.

And just to be clear, Ronald Reagan says in his own autobiography that he peacefully ended the Cold War long before USSR collaped three years after he left office. He gave the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to Gorbachev for his lead role in ending the Cold War and ALLOWING Eastern Europe to slip away. Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize and Time Magazine's Man of the Decade. The current version stretches the truth past that, but not beyond a reasonable point. Leave it how it is and do not make it worse.

When asked if USSR was still the evil empire, Reagan said, "NO. THAT WAS ANOTHER TIME. ANOTHER ERA"

So DON'T PUSH IT, HAPPYME22. The tax interpretation changes you made are also bologna. Take the best compromises you can get.

In the long run, distorting the truth only hurts Reagan's legacy. The truth is simply so sincere and charming that it does not need much fluffery. He was one in a million


 * Please sign your posts with four tildas ~ . Since wikipedia is a collaborative project, you must accept that your work will be revised by other editors. Also, please see the discussion of Reagan's autobiography as a problematic source in the most recent FAC nomination. Just because Reagan said he did something in his autobiography does not mean he did it. He has an interest in representing himself in a particular way in that book for political and historical reasons. Statements such as "he peacefully ended the Cold War" from his autobiography need to be verified using scholarly sources because scholars have a more objective view of the events. I would also urge you to reconsider your notion of "truth;" it is rarely "simple." Clearly, there are different interpretations of the "truth" of Reagan's presidency. Awadewit 18:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit, If history paints a pretty picture of Reagan than it's time for open revolution. I don't remember anything good about that man. I do remember NO HEAT, DRUGS AND GANG VIOLENCE EVERYWHERE, IGNORING THE AIDS EPIDEMIC you know "the gay disease", PEOPLE LOOSING JOBS ALL OVER THE PLACE ONLY TO GET ANOTHER LOWER-PAID JOB, CHOOSING BETWEEN UTILITIES OR FOOD FOR YOUR FAMILY, FOUR AMERICAN NUNs GETTING RAPPED & KILLED BY A FASCIST, US backed, GOVERNMENT, FRIEND'S FAMILIES LIVING OUT OF THEIR CARS, THE SALE OF WEAPONS TO A SWORN ENEMY FOR DRUG MONEY TO ASSIST A FASCIST UPRISING, you know the list just keeps going on and on. People only remember hiom in a good light because they made a great deal of blood money during his administration.

GA comment
The statements followed by citation needed tags need to be addressed, or the article will be quick-failed. --Nehrams2020 05:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag
The intro to this article is blatantly biased towards Reagan. There is no mention of the Iran-Contra affair or the other numerous scandals which were important parts of his presidency. The current introduction portrays Reagan as the savior of the American economy. Progressives would argue that these "tax cuts" would ultimately create a greater tax burden on the middle class and that Reagan tax policy primarily benefited the rich. As the introduction currently reads it could have been written by the RNC. Wikipediatoperfection 09:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient(see the Wikipedia entry for this statistical measure of inequality) of the USA soared under Reagan, taking the USA to being far more unequal than castebound India. It is a horrible legacy.
 * You're the one showing the point of view by stating that it's a horrible legacy! I'll add the Iran-Contra, but other than that I see nothing wrong with the lead. Reagan's tax policies sought to stimulate the economy by implementing large tax cuts. Iflation dropped. Unemployment dropped. Yes, Reaganomics led to huge budget deficits, but that is mentioned. The Military grew. Reagan spoke with Gorbachev, and their summits helped draw a close to the Cold War. You can't disput the facts! So, I'll add Iran-Contra, and maybe a critical statement, but I'm going to rm the POV tag. Happyme22 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Happyme22, I think what Wikipediatoperfection is trying to point out is something similar that I mentioned in my peer review - real wages have dropped steadily in the United States since the late 1970s (that includes the Reagan years). What that means is that what people can buy with their money, even if they are making more money, is actually less. Also, you mention in the article that the tax burden on the top brackets dropped dramatically during the Reagan years. Not everyone agrees that this is a good thing, because it pushes the tax burden onto the middle class and the poor, who have less money to begin with (20-30% of $40,000 is not the same as 20-30% of $500,000). Also, the rich do not always invest their "freed-up" money in a way that benefits the middle-class and the poor; for example, investing their money in the stock market does not always the rest of us little people. The article really needs to be clear that only some economists, such as those from the conservative Cato Institute, think that Reagan's economic policies worked to benefit the entire country. Many other economists think that they benefited primarily the rich (just like Bush's). By the way, for the "War on Drugs" section, you might want to listen to NPR's ongoing series about the "War on Drugs." It might give you some ideas for sources on the "War on Drugs." It is available online. Awadewit 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead
The lead (by the way, not the "lede") for this article is much too long and contains details that are better left to the article (such as religious details about Reagan's parents). Please don't continually revert edits made by other editors in good faith (especially when they contain spelling mistakes!) without discussing them on the talk page. There are just a couple of examples. Editors are not going to be encouraged to work on this article if the editors on this article consistently revert their contributions and reinsert poorly worded, misspelled and superfluous information. Awadewit 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph about his early life is much too long, for example. We do not need all that detail (it is provided later); also Reagan is best-known as a President, so the lead should focus on that.
 * Here is a good example of an edit that I made for conciseness and clarity that keeps getting reverted: "Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of political setbacks and economic stagflation with high interest rates." To "Reagan is credited [we still need to know by whom] with revitalizing America's economy after an economic recession, which was characterized by stagflation and high interest rates." - The second sentence emphasizes his economic policy and eliminates the vague "morale" and "political setbacks" which are never clearly articulated.


 * I think one thing extremely important to mention in the intro is that Reagan opposed the use of government intervention to solve problems, as he said in his inaugural address "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem." Government intervention in the economy caused the problems that we faced at the time according to him. And he wanted to roll it all back, including high taxation, the welfare state, regulations, and other interventions. This is the essence of his philosophy and deserves to be mentioned. Not just what he did but the philosophy behind what he did. BillyBoom 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many Wiki users only read the lede to the article. It has to be comprehensive and cover all the main points, as the whole article is much too long for many users. ("lede" is the term used by editors for the opening part of an article). When dealing with one of the most important people in the 20th century, that means we have to squeeze a lot of material in. Users will be interested in this or that specific topic and then can go to the main text for more details. As for Awadewit's specific complaints: I suggest religion was a major factor in Reagan's political coalition, and so it deserves mention. Reagan himself made much of his Irish ethnicity and style.  Reagan did not suddenly become president, and how he got there is a very important story covered in all biographies.  Thus Pemberton's excellent bio has 10 chapters: 4 chapters deal pre-1980, and 6 chapters are on the presidency. 40-60 makes a pretty good balance, I think.  Currently this article as about 34% pre 1980, so we are well under the Pemberton ratio.  Rjensen 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, please do not erase other user's comments. In adding your own, you obviously intentionally erased mine. I am posting my response to BillyBoom again below. Also, I understand the many users only read the lead (best to use recognizble words, not obscure journalism jargon, by the way; note WP:LEAD is not WP:LEDE), but I would still argue that this lead is too detailed. For example, despite Reagan's supposed rhetorical appeals to his Irish ethnicity, his ethnicity is not a central part of his life, his presidency (as it was with Kennedy's) or his legacy. You will notice that in my edited version of the lead, I did not eliminate Reagan's acting career or his actions in Hollywood. I just thought that historical contextualization was best left for the article (such as the Goldwater information). Please do not misrepresent my edits. Also, we are discussing the lead here, not the entire article (please make the distinction). I have already expressed my thoughts on that issue in the peer review; I mentioned that the Hollywood section was a little truncated since Reagan spent much of his life there (so we agree that the article should have more information on that issue). You argue that Reagan was "one of the most important people in the 20th century;" his importance does not stem from being an actor, so the lead that those masses of readers are looking at should focus on what actually was important about him while not totally eliminating other minor facts. What are the most important things for someone to know about Reagan? That is one question that one should think about when writing the lead. Awadewit 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (added back after Rjension deleted) BillyBoom, I think it would be fair enough to mention that that was Reagan's stated philosophy (please remember that inaugural speeches are largely rhetorical events). The reader can then decide from the article if he actually followed that philosophy. Awadewit 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Awadewit! As a major editor to this article, I was the one who gratly changed the old lead, making it new. As I've said on the History page, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read WP:LEAD!! All of the important facts should be mentioned here, but you shouldn't go too far into detail. What we have right now is probably the best we're going to get (i think I'm going to clean it up more and shorten it, but it's good for now). Please don't majorly edit the lead, because (and I think other major contributores will agree with me) THIS IS GOOD. Again, I'm going to try to shorten it down some more. Please don't revert my edits! Happyme22 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should be shortened quite a bit. This can be done through copyediting (as one of my examples above demonstrates) but also through removal of excess information. Interestingly, the Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln leads deal only with their presidencies (I'm sure someone argued that Lincoln's legal career should have been mentioned). The John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford leads discuss only what is relevant to their political careers. Best not to trivialize Reagan by including insignificant details, I think. (I think it would be odd to have a lead longer than Lincoln's or FDR's. No one can pretend that Reagan was more influential than Lincoln or FDR. It does not matter whether you agree with their policies or not, their administrations were more influential than Reagan's.) Awadewit 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * to shorten the lede hurts our users. Most of them will only read the lede (and then go to specific parts of the article as a followup). Keep in mind that this is a very long article (about 15,000 words of main text). All of Reagan's biographers agree that his life history is essential to understanding him.  Stripping it down to dates is a very seriousweakening. Example: why did he win in 1980 is one of the central issue--the lede is now no help whatsoever. I'll fix that now. Maybe if we go sentence by sentence people will appreciate our goal is to help readers understand Reagan just by reading the opening. (as for comparisons with Gerry Ford--let's get serious: Reagan was one of the dominant figures of the 20th century.Rjensen 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course Reagan's entire life is essential to understanding him. That is true of every person, not just Reagan. But there is no way to encompass Reagan's entire life in three to four paragraphs. If users actually think they are learning something by just reading a lead, that is their problem. We can only write a summary, and it is a feeble attempt at best. That is why we should focus on what is most important for users to know. The rest of the article should probably be cut down so that users are more likely to read it all and actually learn something. (And, by the way, where did anyone suggest the lead should be stripped down to its dates? Rjensen, you seem to be very fond of strawmen.) Deliberately provocative comment: "Bush the Younger is a far more important figure than Reagan simply because he initiated the disastrous Iraq war whose consequences have proven quite detrimental to US foreign interests and economic stability." The point is, we are relatively close in time to presidents such as Reagan and Bush, so it is difficult to know just how important they will really turn out to be in the grand historical scheme. To my way of thinking, it is better not to prematurely inflate or deflate someone's importance (albeit a very tricky thing to do). Awadewit 00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * there are multiple user needs the article serves. Some people will want a short biography (we give it in 15,000 words), and others will want a very short one (we have that in the lede of about 440 words). Most people will want more specific information--was he really an actor? did he call Russia an evil empire? Did he cut taxes and spending? was he always a conservative? etc etc. We must try to meet all their needs. As for strawmen, compare these versions of the momentious election of 1980:

I suggest that version 1 tells users much more about the momentous 1980 election. Will history in year 2030 lower Reagan's importance? Maybe, in which case Wiki editors in year 2031 can make the necessary changes. Anyone who compares the recent funeral of President Ford with Reagan's in 2004 will observe that the whole world thought Reagan a much more important figure. Rjensen 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Defeated for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976, he easily won the nomination in 1980. The incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter warned that Reagan was an extremist who would bring nuclear war. Reagan won the 1980 election by denouncing what he called Carter's failures in terms of runaway inflation, soaring interest rates, persistent unemployment, and a series of humilations abroad, coupled with a weakened military in the face of growing Soviet power. Reagan's long coattails gave the Republicans control of the Senate, but not the House. and
 * 2) Defeated for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976, he won the nomination in 1980, and won the 1980 general election by a landslide.
 * Again, thank you for stating the obvious. Of course, there are multiple uses the article will be put to. We are discussing the lead not the article right now. Yes, #1 is more detailed than #2, but the lead is not supposed to have overly detailed statements and is not supposed to give undue weight to particular sections of the article. I quote from WP:LEAD.
 * In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article. - Notice, it does not say, reiterate the entire argument.
 * The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article. - You are giving undue weight, in this instance, to the 1980 election, which is given minimal coverage in the article, compared to the presidency itself.
 * Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs. - We have this problem.
 * Please see straw man, as you do not seem to understand it. (And by the way, just because the mourners thought Reagan was more important, does not make him so; I refer you again to my point about the myopia of present times.) Awadewit 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't want low-quality simplicity. The WP:lead suggests an article of 30k should have 3-4 opening paragraphs. This article is twice as long, and should have about 5 paragraphs. The 1980 election is what made Reagan famous (if he lost he would be somewhere around Gerry Ford in importance) and we have to tell why that happened.Rjensen 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead, by its very structure and length, is going to be simplistic; there is no way to avoid that. As I said before, you cannot encapsulate Reagan in three to four paragraphs (according to WP:LEAD, that is longest a lead should be). And I would dispute your interpretation of history; the 1980 election did not make Reagan famous, it is what he did as President that makes him important (or perhaps more precisely, what his Administration did). But let the books decide, what do scholars of Reagan spend the most time on? The candidacy or the Presidency? I am going to go out on a limb here and say they probably spend more time on his eight years as President than they do on his 1980 candidacy (I believe this was your criteria before). Awadewit 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pemberton runs 214 pp of which about 6%= 14pp (pp 80-94) cover the 19676 and 1980 presidential runs. The 80 election is considered very important by scholars; see most recently Andrew E. Busch, Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right. U. Pr. of Kansas, 2005. 237 pp. Rjensen 02:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, using your criteria, currently the 1976 and 1980 runs occupy 16% of the lead by word count and 13% by sentence count. You are arguing to expand the coverage of the 1976/1980 runs from 13-16% of the lead (depending on how you count) to 6%? I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Awadewit 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The version at present is crippled--it does not tell readers who Carter was and commits POV by stripping out Carter's important criticism of Reagan (that he was dangerous). That hurts readers. My argument is that the lede should be much longer -- more like 5 paragraphs. The point is that most people only read the lede. (I've taught Wiki in school computer labs and seen them flip through.) I see no reason whatever to have a short opening. Rjensen 03:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to follow wikipedia's policies, such as WP:LEAD, then you should try to change them, but until they are changed, the point of a consensus is that one must follow them until they are changed. To address your specific points, to attempt to put Carter into historical context in the lead of the Reagan article is utterly ridiculous. The reader must come with some knowledge or be willing to look up other information. Why not explain what the United States is? or the Presidency? One must draw lines. And Carter's "important criticism of Reagan"? Please. Those statements were rhetorical - they were made during an election year. Did Bush mean everything he said when he was campaigning? Obviously not. In the 2000 campaign, he promised that he would never engage in nation-building; that appealed to conservative voters. Well, we are certainly nation-buildling now. Again, I reiterate, the lead is going to be simplistic by its very nature. If you sincerely believe that you can explain Reagan in five paragraphs, I suggest you stop writing articles; there is obviously no point in your doing so. Finally, I've taught plenty of inattentive and noncurious students. The solution isn't to feed them five paragraphs on Reagan; it is to motivate them to read the rest of the article. That is where the "brilliant and compelling prose" comes in. Awadewit 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * it's astonishing that Awadewit is ignorant of Michael Barone, the nation's top election expert[ http://www.amazon.com/Almanac-American-Politics-2006/dp/0892341122/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175655979&sr=8-2 ] and [ http://www.amazon.com/Almanac-American-Politics-1982/dp/0940702010/ref=sr_1_17/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175656044&sr=1-17 ], and blanks his solid review based on misinformation. Please be more careful. Rjensen 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is more astonishing that Rjensen cannot check his/her sources. My elimination of the review was entirely appropriate. Barone is a political commentator for Fox News and a reporter for US News and World Report; his articles are published in most right-wing publications. Rjensen's above links are to almanacs about elections at amazon.com, which proves nothing. In regards to the removed book review, Wikipedia should not link to book reviews (as Rjensen had done on the Reagan page) unless they are done by scholars who are experts in the field. Rjensen's book review linked to a site that was clearly ideologically-titled to the right as is Barone himself. Please review WP:ATT and WP:RS. Awadewit 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every election expert in America relies on Barone--the #1 expert in the field-- and has been for 30 years. Dropping his book review link is a bad mistake. It indicates that we have a problem with an editor unfamiliar with the experts in the field or with Wiki rules about how we have to depend on experts. Carter vs Reagan was a great drama and it's essential to have some idea of Carter's defense esp to introduce early on the main attack line on Reagan (that he was dangerous and might go nuclear). That's the history we have to cover here. Rjensen 04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the problems with Barone and I am not going to bother to explain all of the problems with your last statement - it is obviously fruitless. Again, if you have a problem with wikipolicy, you need to work to change it. In the meantime, you need to adhere to it, not simply revert edits that you dislike which do adhere to wikipolicy (as you have done in this case). There is obviously no reason for serious editors to work on this page since their edits are simply reverted by those unwilling to follow wikipolicy. Awadewit 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Side note on POV
To all of you Reagan supporters out there, this article will never pass FA if you keep removing all of the clauses that even slightly criticize Reagan from the lead or the attempts to make it clear who is saying what about Reagan. To say that the US and USSR still had thousands of nuclear weapons left after the negotiations is correct, for example, and makes it clear that even if Reagan reduced the nuclear weapons held by the two countries, it wasn't by much. Also, to say that it is primarily Reagan's supporters who claim that he brought about an end to the Cold War and the USSR is also correct. The article must adhere to NPOV. I have not even tried to edit the rest of the article, but my experiences with the lead discourage me from doing so if everything is just going to be reverted instantly. This article should aim to be just to Reagan; it should not be a glorified fanpage. This page has a much better of achieving FA if it has both liberal and conservative editors (gasp!). That way, a decent political consensus on the content will have been reached before peer review, GAC or FAC. Awadewit 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I was the one who I deleted the nuclear weapons statement, for I found it unnecessary for the lead. If you insist that it go in (or some form of it) put it in. I just think it was an odd way to phrase the statement. Mabye another argument would be better? Happyme22 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another phrase, but I am not going to bother editing it anymore. There is apparently very little desire to achieve a neutral article at this time, so I am not going to waste my time mulling over the perfect the phrase that will be instantly deleted. I'm sorry. Awadewit 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION of the Real Reagan History
There are some differentiations that need to be made. Right now some facts are incorrectly mixing together. Let me explain the history of what really happened.

FIRST, THERE NEEDS TO BE A DIVIDER BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF INFLATION THAT REAGAN INHERITED AND THE RECESSION IN HIS FIRST TWO YEARS OF OFFICE. THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT WITH DIFFERENT POLICIES ASSOCIATED WITH 1) INFLATION AND 2) THE RECESSION.

We need to say that Reagan came during a period of inflation, but his policies to fight the recession must be differentiated.

INFLATION had been a problem since the Vietnam War, with Lyndon Johnson starting the inflation. A common fact is that a government can pursue "guns OR butter." Either domestic prosperity or war. John tried to wage both a war on poverty (domestic spending) and a war in Vietnam (foreign spending). He sought guns AND butter. That overheated the economy beyond the capacity to produce. Demand exceeded the ability to suppply, and then you had inflation.

Nixon made the problem much worse with wage and price controls, dismantling the natural corrective action of supply-and demand equilibrium. Also, other excessive bureaucratic regulations had shackled the economy in the name of stability. The economy was partly disfunctional (slight exaggeration). When Ford took office, he promised WIN - whip inflation now.

History does not recognize this, but Carter was actually the one who finally defeated inflation. He appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed, and he cranked up interest rates so high that the economy fell into a deep recession. This strong medicine was needed to straggle inflation once and for all. The Fed ended inflation by cranking up interest rates, plunging America into a deep recession.

When you hear about the horribly high interest rates during the Carter years, that actually was the strong medicine that cured inflation. But popular history will never recognize this, although every expert on the matter knows this to be common knowledge. Carter will never receive due credite because he was truly a horrible leader. He went on TV and chastised the American people. He never understood what the job of president really meant.

When Reagan took office, the country was still in stagflation with high interest rates. But it was quickly falling into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment fell into the double-digits. A year after Reagan was president, inflation was no longer a problem. Instead, recession was the problem. Inflation and recession are the opposite. Inflation is when the economy is overheating. Recession is when it is contracting.

Reagan gets credit for taking major political risks and staying the course. He never pressured the Fed to reverse course. He took the recession to end inflation once and for all. He popularity was almost the lowest of any president in recorded history at that point. However, a new threat appeared, and that was the possibility that the economy would not pull out of the recession. The fed began lowering interest rates, which began to stimulate the economy. Reagan also massively spent on the defense through massive defense spending and huge tax cuts, 80% of which went to the top 2%. This stimulated the economy and pulled America out of the recession. And it also helped Reagan appear to be the savior of the economy. He was reelected by a landslide. The assassinaiton attempt helped his polularity, too.

So Reagan can be vaguely attributed to the period when inflation went away, but that can only be vague. Instead, Reagan's greatest legacy is what he actually achieved. For starters, he stimulated the country out of the recession with defense spending and tax cuts.

He also was a believable voice for FREE MARKETS. Since the trauma of the Great Depression, Americans were scared of capitalism. Reagan sold them again on the virtue of letting market forces work. He moved to deregulate the economy. Mother Bell was broken up. America saw a wave of mergers as finance experts bought stagnant companies and stipped out the middle-level bureacracy and waste. America's economy was reborn.

Technically, this deregulation began in Congress when Carter was president. In 1978, the power to regulate rates was taken away from the CAB by Congress. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (before Reagan was president) deregulated the trucking business. This new era began before Reagan took office, and Reagan continued it.

So what does this mean? I strongly feel that Reagan is the icon for this period of history. He was a great president. James MacGregor Burns, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Frankin Roosevelt, said that Reagan was "a great president" because he was a "transformational leader." Reagan is the man who sold American on this, and the economy has been much better ever since.

The "natural rate" of unemployment (full employment in the economy) used to be 6.5%. Since Reagan, we now see it 4-something all the time, and people still moan. Reagan was right about free markets. Poor people in America have DVD players, CD players, and are often fat.

So Reagan on economics needs to be divided among 1) the period of inflation 2) his policies to fight the severe recession he inherited and 3) he profound reforms for free markets.

SECOND, REAGAN'S FOREIGN POLICY CAN BE DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS 1) AGGRESSIVE CONFRONTATION OF EVIL COMMUNISM GLOBALLY (BUT NOT WAGING WAR, WHICH HE DID NOT LIKE UNLESS NECESSARY) 2) EMBRACING THE REFORMER GORBACHEV AND ENDING THE COLD WAR PEACEFULLY. WITH REAGAN'S SUPPORT, GORBACHEV BROUGHT FREEDOM TO USSR AND EASTERN EUROPE, WHICH LED TO A RAPID LOSS OF CONTROL. HE THOUGHT HE COULD MANAGE PERESTROIKA AND GLASNOST, BUT ONCE THE PEOPLE TASTED FREEDOM, THEY TOLD HIM TO GO TO HELL. UNLIKE HIS PREDECESSOR, HE REFUSED TO CRUSH THE REBELLIONS THAT BROKE OUT IN EASTERN EUROPE (EGGED ON BY REAGAN). SOVIET HARDLINERS KIDNAPPED HIM TO TRY AND RESTORE ORDER, BUT THE POLICE AND MILITARY REFUSED TO GO ALONG. YELTSIN RALLIED THE CITIZENS IN THE STREET, AND THE HARDLINERS GAVE UP. THE USSR UMPIRE COLLAPSES UNDER GORBACHEV'S WATCH BECAUSE HE COULD NOT CONTROL THE REFORMS ONCE LET LOOSE. WITHOUT REAGAN'S CHARMING DIPLOMACY, GORBACHEV WOULD NEVER HAVE FELT SECURE ENOUGH TO ATTEMPT THESE REFORMS.

3) Reagan quietly prayed for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. This is a shock to most people, but true. He even agreed to destroying all nukes at the private summitt with Gorbachev in Iceland and relacing it with a Star Wars defense shield shared by all. Reagan was in many ways not a clever guy, but his sincerity and beliefs were so right, so powerful, and so legendary. When Reagan told his advisors of what he proposed, his advisors said there must have been a mistake. Reagan relied along the lines of, "I was there. I know what we agreed to." It was a disaster. This deal fell apart after Gorbachev insisted that Star Wars be scrapped. Reagan would have nothing to do with that, since he hated nukes, and walked out. You have to wonder if God had orchestrated all this. It was astonishing and laid the groundwork for an historic thawing of relation between USSR and America.

Ronald Reagan gave the first ever Ronald Reagan Freedon Award to Gorbachev. Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But then when Reagan dies, these heinous neo-cons claimed that Reagan "won the Cold War" by making USSR collapse. It's not true. He did incite the rebellions in Eastern Europe, and he did HASTEN the end of the Soviet Empire, but it could never have happened without Gorbachev's Perestroika Glasnost reforms.

SO WE MUST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF CONFRONTATION AND HIS SKILLFUL DIPLOMACY. WITH TIME, HIS DIPLOMACY IS WHAT WILL BOLSTER HIS REPUTATION THE MOST. HE WAS MAYBE THE BEST DIPLOMAT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, AND THE NEO-CONS DO NOT WANT YOU TO NOW THAT.

Finally, Reagan absolutely adored the leadership skills of Franklin Roosevelt, and made clear that he voted for FDR four time. As an actor, he modeled his presidential style after FDR. Yet Reagan disagreed with some of FDR's failed economic experiments, and so Reagan should not be chained to FDR. But it's fair that we need to say that he admired FDR's leadership skills but became a conservative Republican.

Also, the facts stated about Reagan's tax policies are misleading. I have to wonder if HAPPYME22 is not a log-in for paid lobbyists.
 * I resent your statement that I am a Conservative Lobbyist. In fact, I'm a registered Democrat, but voted for Reagan in 1984 because of his tax policies which stimulated the economy. Why is there a dispute over that? You say I am a Conservative Lobbyist, but you are the one distorting many facts! I agree with you, Reagan was won of the greatest Presidents, like Lincoln and Wasington and FDR, but Hats1$, you are not understanding what the lead paragraph has to be about. The lead is the intro that must be SHORT (4 paragraphs AT THE MOST) and you should only have barley scroll down to read it (if that!). This lead is WAY TOO LONG. Although I agree with everything that's being said in it, THE STATEMENT MUST GO IN OTHER PLACES OF THE ARTICLE!!!!! NOT THE LEAD!!!!! The lead should outline the major things that Reagan did during his Presidency (i.e. the Economy and the Cold War) and then MAYBE A BRIEF statement or two from both political sides about the two events. It seems to me that YOU WANT DETAILS. Deatails are great, but NOT IN THE LEAD!!!! As I've said before, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ WP:LEAD!!!! I'm going to try to keep some of what you said, but the lead cannot possibly be as long as it currently is. Happyme22 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Happyme22, I don't think they are calling you anything, key word here is WONDER, Well you read that statement the way you wanted to makes me woder if you view history the way you want to as well. Evan

DISTORTION OF REAGAN TAX POLICIES
Reagan's tax cuts resulted in MASSIVE budget deficits. Reagan sincerely believes that tax cuts would pay for themselves with higher tax revenues, but this was absolutely proven to not be true. It did not happen, yet the liars out there want you to believe this.

This actually did happen when JFK sought tax cuts from a sky-high 90% tax tate for the richest American, and this was passed by LBJ. Tax revenues did exceed the tax cut, and to Reagan this was proof that this would work again. But cutting taxes from 90% to 75% is different than cutting tax rates from 75% 18%, or whatever it was. This resulted in MASSIVE deficits.

So how do you spin this?? What you do is you compare tax revenues when Reagan was president to tax revenues when America was in a very deep recession during 1981 and you say, "See tax revenues went up after Reagan cut taxes." In fact, this is because tax revenues for incredibly low during the severe recession. The truth is, if you compare tax revenues to the previous non-recession period, tax revenues were way down.

Instead, American saw an explosion in the amount of luxury consumer products as the rich has more money to spend from the massive tax cuts. Actually, I do not disagree with this since they earned the money in the first place. What is troubling is the claim that these tax cuts lead to miserly savings which led to investment which led to jobs. Yea, right. Just be honest and say that you gave people lower taxes because they worked hard to earn it, acting as an incentive for freeloaders to do the same.

The other "spin" is that Reagan is not responsible for the deficits. This is a lie. Reagan NEVER submitted a balanced budget. Reagan wanted to get reelected, so he never asked Americans to sacrifice cuts to government programs. Nothing changed. In fact, government spending sharply increased. We still have Medicare, student loans, AFDC, etc. He gave Americans tax cuts and then pushed the bill to a future generation.

The Republicans controlled Congress at first, and they spent like fiends. Reagan's budget director, David Stockton, was disgusted by the pigs feading at the trough, and Reagan went along with it.

So the tax policies "spin" in the Reagan article need to be eliminated. Just skip it. Reagan's story should focus on other things, and I do believe he was the seventh best president.


 * Both of the above editors, as well as some other editors on this page, need to sign their statements and should reread talk page guidelines. The talk page is supposed to discuss the article; for potentially controversial topics, such as what information to include in the article, it is best to back up one's claims with sources on the talk page. Awadewit 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead (again)
Many of you are still not understanding what should and shouldn't go in the lead. Here's some examples tat have been recently added:

--After Goldwater's defeat many conservatives supported Reagan, who defeated against the liberal governor of California in 1966; Reagan was reelected in 1970 after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators tring to shut the university. should not go in lead-too detailed, add in another place of the article.

--''Incumbent President Jimm Carter attacked Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war, but Reagan won a landslide victory in the 1980 election by denouncing what he called Carter's failures: runaway inflation, soaring interest rates, persistent unemployment, a series of humilations abroad, and a weakened military in the face of growing Soviet power. His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House.'' WHOAH! way too detailed and long. Jimm Carter?

--We don't want to know how/why Reagan won the presidency in the lead - we want the readers to read on, and find out!

Which first paragraph do you like better:

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and moved to California in the 1930s. Before entering politics, he was a successful Hollywood and television actor, President of the Screen Actors Guild, and a spokesman for General Electric. Previously a New Deal Democrat, Reagan became a conservative Republican in 1962. During his work for General Electric Theatre, he began to articulate the political themes that would carry him into the California Governorship, which he won in 1966, and the Presidency of the United States. He narrowly lost a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 before winning the Presidency in 1980.

OR.....

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Reagan was born in Illinois, but moved to Hollywood in the 1930s, where he starred in numerous "B" movies and became President of the Screen Actors Guild. He was a prominent Democrat who supported the New Deal Coalition in the 1940s, and was a leading opponent of Communism in Holywood. Reagan moved to the right in the early 1960s; he became a Republican and supported Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. After Goldwater's defeat many conservatives supported Reagan, who defeated against the liberal governor of California in 1966; Reagan was reelected in 1970 after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators tring to shut the university. Defeated for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976, he easily won the nomination in 1980. Incumbent President Jimm Carter attacked Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war, but Reagan won a landslide victory in the 1980 election by denouncing what he called Carter's failures: runaway inflation, soaring interest rates, persistent unemployment, a series of humilations abroad, and a weakened military in the face of growing Soviet power. His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House.

We get more of a gist with the first one. Don't you guys think so?


 * Again, please read WP:LEAD. Many of you are not, and saying that your long edits are justified. These edits were reverted. Please follow up with comments. --Happyme22 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP:Lead recommends a long lead for major articles and here is one of the most important figures in the 20th century. The short lead misrepresents Reagan (it mentions GE twice and gives too much emphasis on one TV show), ignores his conservatism and anti-communism and his work for Goldwater, tells nothing about his 8 years as governor, and fails to explain why he was elected president. It does not mention his landslide or his carrying the Senate, which are essential facts. Its vague --for example "he began to articulate the political themes..." fails to say what those themes were.  These are unfortunate and unnecessary wweaknesses, and they violate the Wiki rule that the opening should be a concise stand-alone summary.Rjensen 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this dubious: "He implemented large tax cuts and increases in defense spending to stimulate the economy." Yes he advocated tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but increases in defense spending? The purpose of increases in defense spending were simply to beef up defense. I find it hard to believe that Reagan advocated government spending in order to stimulate the economy. He was not a Keynesian. Is there any source for this dubious claim? BillyBoom 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's kinda premature to be tweaking the lead when there is so much work to be done on the article. Page numbers need to be found for all book sources, and there are numerous referencing problems.  I also worked on cleanup of references at Barack Obama, and they were impeccably perfect.  All I had to do was wikify dates, and I only found one error over there.  Wonder what that says about Wikipedia ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

separate bibliography page
I've created a separate page Ronald Reagan: Bibliography and copied all the entires to it. That means the bibliog in this article can be much shorter. Rjensen 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I sorted out the ones that were actually used here, put them in References, and got rid of the rest.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pAge revert of GA review
I have just reverted this talk page the editor is a sockpuppet of a user blocked for disruptive edits, the article is currently nominated for GA Gnangarra 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New Reagan Lead
Hey everyone. I actually like the new lead, but I've done some things to it, which slightly expanded it, but the info was vital. Here's what it currently is:
 * Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911–June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and moved to California in the 1930s. Before entering politics, he was a Hollywood actor, President of the Screen Actors Guild, and a spokesman for General Electric. Previously a New Deal Democrat, Reagan became a conservative Republican in 1962. During his work for General Electric Theatre, he began to articulate the political themes that would carry him into the California Governorship, which he won in 1966, and the Presidency of the United States, which he narrowly lost a bid for in 1976 before winning in 1980.


 * Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale in a period of economic stagflation and a recession, through his economic policies. Coined "Reaganomics," they consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but soaring budget deficits. Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, after surviving an assassination attempt. Reagan survived a few scandals during his presidency, the most notable being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.


 * "Reagan insituted massive defense spending in an arms race with the Soviet Union through his policy of "peace through strength." He rejected détente and confronted Communism, famously portraying the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire" and bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide. Reagan negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War.


 * After leaving office, in 1994, Reagan disclosed that he had been afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease, and died ten years later at the age of ninety-three.

If you look back at the history page, you'll see that I changed around some wording, but I really like it now. Do you? Happyme22 14:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Content aside, the length is ideal.-- Z leitzen (talk)  15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GA candidate - controversey
Umm...hey. I was just reading how Reagan's article is up for a GA nomination. Here's what the GA page describes good articles as:


 * "Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles considered to be of good quality but which are unlikely to be suitable featured article candidates."

Once this article is worked on a little more, I'm going to nominate it of FAC. Can it be a FA and still be a GA? And would the fact that it's a GA take away from its ability to become a FA because of the criteria? Is this GA nomination a good idea? Happyme22 14:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The GA is not a bad idea. It should simply mean that more people will peer review the article and perhaps advise improvements. Acheiving good article status will also have no impact on the article during a FAC.-- Z leitzen (talk)  14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed on new review
Even pretending the spurious way this article was first promoted as a GA, I have re-reviewed it under the criteria at WP:WIAGA, and found the following issues:
 * Criteria 2 (accuracy and referencing): There are MANY tags that are still unresolved.  It is clear that this article fails instantly on that grounds.
 * Criteria 4 (NPOV): The article ignores any criticism of Reagan and his policies. I would not suggest giving undue weight to such criticisms, but there is a wealth of scholarly review of Reagan's policies.  Some of it is positive criticism and some is negative.  To only report the positive and ignore the negative entirely violates NPOV requirements.

If the following issues can be fixed, please feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAC. If you feel this review has been handled inappropriately, please bring the issue up at WP:GA/R. Thanks and happy editing. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that only the poitive POV is shown; there are plently of negative criticisms! Now if the criticisms were proved to be incorrect, that's a different matter. Still, there are quite a bit of criticisms listed in the article. Happyme22 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayron's assessment of the fundamental lack of criticism. The article simply brushes over Reagan's possible involvement in the Iran Contra Affair by saying he denied knowledge, and mentioning a statement he signed. I agree that there is a wealth of scholarly, peer reviewed works on Reagan's policies, they should be heavily consulted and used for a person of with as much historical importance as Ronald Reagan. IvoShandor 08:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)