Talk:The Reagan Diaries

Promo
This really isn't neutral enough. The lead paragraph reads like promo copy, and it's mostly cited to the publisher's own description. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some sentences that fit your description of a "promo copy?" Happyme22 05:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This article still reads like a fawning promotional piece. It also contradicts itself in the first paragraph by first stating that the volume is an "...edited version of the actual diaries..." and then ending with "...access to the unfiltered experiences and opinions of a President in his own words... Which is it -- "edited" or "unfiltered" -- because it cannot be both. Moreover, why does the latter quote mention anything about "...seldom before have the American people gained..." -- Is this book or similar volumes about other presidents only to be available for Americans? Regarding the question about specific sentences, the best example is contained in the link provided to the Amazon.com sale page for this book . The section titled "Book Description" seems to have been paraphrased directly into this Wikipedia article. This article does not need to kowtow to the "Reagan" and his diaries. It needs a more objective review of this book. The following are two examples of detailed reviews of this book, but they do not contain a one sided description:
 * Book review by David Shribman, May 22, 2007 Retrieved on June 13, 2007.
 * O Lucky Man! The diaries of Ronald Reagan. by Nicholas Lemann Retrieved on June 13, 2007.
 * The notice "This reads like an advertisement" has to be reinstated until the article is fully revised (and not just by removing one word - "actually") to remove its obsequious POV. CZmarlin 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and edited to to a more neutral POV. This included adding material that explains what is this volume, what is in the edited work, as well as removed information that not related to the actual book. Removed the "advertisement" tag. CZmarlin 14:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing?
The last paragraph in this section doesn't read nor seem very encyclopedic:
 * "Compared to other diaries recording innermost thoughts, what is missing is the deeper form of reflection that might have elevated "The Reagan Diaries" to the first tier of presidential writing. Those who adore him will find that he didn’t have much of a dark side; he doesn’t curse and plot against enemies, like the Richard Nixon; he doesn’t agonize and fall prey to insecurity, like Lyndon Johnson; and keeps a couple of key principles—taxation is bad and Communism is evil—clearly in mind at all times and doesn’t get mired in details."

The paragraph sounds like it's very POV and someone's own personal beleif. For example: "he doesn’t curse and plot against enemies, like the Richard Nixon"--POV; "he doesn’t agonize and fall prey to insecurity, like Lyndon Johnson"--POV.

I noticed User:68.96.76.118 tried to remove it, but his/her edit was undone, and I'd like to inquire as to why. Happyme22 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are different types of personal journals. For example, diaries are a written record of usually personal experiences and observations . They often allow "the writer to communicate deep and often spiritual realizations" journal#History. The first sentence in the paragraph provides information that this work does not have this deep analysis that is often found in diaries written by historical figures. Nevertheless, the publication of these edited diaries adds to the literature of work by American Presidents. It is only appropriate to provide a short comparison of the thoughts jotted down by Reagan to the range of written or recorded thinking available from some of the other presidents. The whole point of an encyclopedic entry is to provide its readers with an overview of this subject - in this case, the Reagan Diaries. In other words, it is necessary and very informative to provide a contrast of Reagan's diary to the others. Please also note that the passage you have selected is a direct quote from one of the in-depth reviews of the book. Furthermore, the descriptions of the Nixon and Johnson thoughts mentioned in this sentence are accurate. They are not "POV and someone's own personal beleif. [sic]", but the facts (See: Nixon, Richard. "RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon" and listen to the White House Tapes  or other sources such as, as well as Johnson, Lyndon B. "The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency, 1963–1969" and Beschloss Michael R. "Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963–1964"). Clearly, Reagan has a different take in his diaries, and that is why it is worthy of mention in the article and this paragraph. The statement that Reagan "keeps a couple of key principles—taxation is bad and Communism is evil—clearly in mind at all times and doesn’t get mired in details" is also not POV, but a referenced quote from a reputable source. In summary, this paragraph helps situate this volume of work among a few the other famous and autobiographical or reflective works that have been written by American presidents. CZmarlin 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe what you are trying to say is not POV, but the way that they are written definetly are. I am totally alright with the idea of the first sentence in the last paragraph, although I think it should be reworded, as with the next two. It is someone's own personal belief that Richard Nixon plotted and cursed against his enemies (it's even that way from the source you cited). It's also POV to state that LBJ fell prey to insecurity. Maybe it's okay to compare what Ronald Reagan wrote, with what other Presidents wrote, but not in the fashion that it is currently being presented in, therefore I reworded some phrases and sentences and removed some non-encyclopedic language/prose (ex: those who adore him). I understand you point, which is a very good one, and I agree that revisions of the book (such as the ones you cited) are good, but I didn't agree with how the paragraph was written, so I reworded it slightly. Happyme22 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

George's Ne're-do-well son hoax
This article should at least contain a nod to the hoax going around the 'net. Here's a url: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6580 SkyDot 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

if that is right (origin?), who were the other four?:
"Ronald Reagan was one of five American Presidents to have kept a consistent diary as President" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.8.94 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James K. Polk were three of them. Not sure about #4. 45750born (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fourth one was George Washington! (reference: Book review, 2007-08-07) – CZmarlin (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And we can now add Jimmy Carter. He quoted from his Presidential diaries in his memoirs and other writings, but now he has published White House Diary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.213.11 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Memoir or diary?
In the genre field, it is called a "Memoir," but isn't it a diary? TuckerResearch (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, I suppose a diary would better describe the genre. Happyme22 (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Compared to other Presidential writings of innermost thoughts, Reagan's thoughts appear far more shallow.
I read the citation for this statement, “Compared to other Presidential writings of innermost thoughts, Reagan's thoughts appear far more shallow”

Nowhere in the cited Boston arts and entertainment article does it state anything about Reagan being shallow. It’s almost like it’s someone’s opinion, and they tried to use that citation to back them up, problem is the citation doesn’t say anything about being shallow. I’m going to remove it since it reads like an opinion and the citation doesn’t state that Reagan was shallow. Paige Matheson (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)