Talk:Presidency of Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Iran-Contra

Did Reagan say he was unaware of the entire Iran-Contra fiasco, or just the funding of the Contras? Trey Stone 01:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He said he was unaware that some of the proceeds of the sale were being diverted to funding the Contras (whether or not he actually was unaware is a matter for some dispute -- however, there has never been any conclusive evidence that he was informed). Reagan always admitted to being aware of (and giving authorization for) the broader initiative to free the hostages via arms sales. Neilc 01:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AIDS

Generally

Changed the sentence in the header about the AIDS epidemic being ignored. The budget for AIDS research, treatment and prevention increased from $200,000 in FY 1981 (the last budget of the Carter administration), to more than $900 million in the Reagan administration's last budget (FY 1988, which closed on September 30, 1988). That can hardly be equated with "ignoring" the situation. Ellsworth 21:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to

Removed this sentence:

His administration approached the epidemic as a series of local and state issues rather than with a national strategy, and politicians for the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded behind the scenes for adequate funding.

I would like to see this documented: as mentioned above, the AIDS research budget skyrocketed during the '80s and the CDC took the lead on the issue. Ellsworth 00:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And also removed this sentence from para. about the Watkins commission:

but its recommendations for increased funding went largely ignored by the Reagan and the subsequent Bush administration.

Incorrect: see the report below. Funding for AIDS research, prevention and treatment increased every year during both the Reagan and the G.H.W. Bush administrations. Ellsworth 21:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Source on funding data

Analysis of AIDS spending by Federal government (PDF document) Ellsworth

A couple of comments on this report: a) The report shows that AIDS funding doubled within 2 years after Reagan left office. b) Shouldn't funding be somewhat proportional to the number of AIDS cases, which ballooned even more under this administration? User: anon

a) Agreed, but so what? AIDS funding increased by 25-fold in Reagan's first budget and by 5-fold in his second. (FY 82-83)
b) Not sure what "this administration" means, but there's no magic "proportionality" in determining whether spending on a problem like this is necessary or desirable with respect to its numerical scope. Ellsworth 02:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Busted links

I dropped these links about when Reagan mentioned AIDS: one was a policy address and the other was a press conference.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/91785c.htm http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/20686c.htm

I'll find the sources again one of these days....

Ellsworth 02:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a reply "The links below should get you to these speeches. I should mention however, that the second link does not lead to either a speech or press conference. Rather, it was a message transmitted to Congress in a letter or report form."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/91785c.htm http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/20686c.htm Brian Pearson 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Found one

This Sullivan blog entry contains an unsourced quote from September 1985 by Reagan on AIDS funding. It'll do until I can run down a source. Ellsworth 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Drats

Now this one is down to - redirects to his Atlantic blog page. I'll find some perm. links eventually. The busted link: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_06_dish_archive.html#108667202656741224 Ellsworth 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some looking, myself. Couldn't find the links at the library, but I did write. I imagine they get a lot of email, though, so I haven't gotten my hopes up. Brian Pearson 03:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Policy

I see the NPOV section dispute, and agree in part, but could someone cite specifics? In the mean time I will try and remove some of the more tendentious phrases. Ellsworth 01:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I took out some weasel words about economic program. Ellsworth 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The section seems fair enough now and not too many other users have chimed in. I have removed the dispute marker, if you disagree please comment. Ellsworth 22:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted/merged

(formerly Administration pages)

Why is it that some presidents have two pages about them, one for the person in general and one for just the administration. See Ronald Reagan and Reagan Administration. The administration pages seem redundant as the information is mostly the same on both pages. I have also posted this on the Ronald Reagan talk page.

I believe people working the Ronald Reagan article were unaware of the Ronald Reagan presidency article. It is hoped by some at least, that the Ronald Reagan article will go more into "who" Reagan was, what his philosophies were, where they came from, and so forth -- and focus less on his presidency. It's possible this examination could extend to his younger years. Any thoughts? Brian Pearson 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My thought is that this article shouldn't exist, and anything of value here should be rolled into the Ronald Reagan article.--Paul 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I utterly disagree. This article focuses on the 8-year presidency of the man, whereas the main article will eventually be focusing on the man himself. This is actually developing on the Discussion page there. Brian has the right idea, and the two articles should remain distinctly separate. The main article contains wikilinks to not only this page, but at least four other wikilinks to other Reagan-related pages, like Reaganomics, the assassinations attempt, etc. Therefore, there is ample precedent for keeping this article a distinct and encompassing source of specific info about Reagan's terms as president. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If y'all have ideas about 'Reagan the man', his philosophies, and so forth, come on over. I personally think we should be patient and do a bang-up job on it, take our time getting all kinds of good stuff, including paper sources, biographies, and so forth. As someone has said, the article has been re-written three times, already, but that was when we were completely unaware of the Reagan presidency article, and they were trying to roll everything into one article. Brian Pearson 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be merged with Ronald Reagan unless we're willing to make "Presidency of..." articles for every two-term president in U.S. history. I just did a search for presidents of the 20th Century and William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon are all missing articles, despite the fact that they all served for two (in FDR's case more than 3; in LBJ and Nixon's case 1.5) terms. I didn't even look at 19th Century Presidents but I did a search and George Washington even has one. George W. Bush has one even though he also has his own article and the article on "Bush Administration;" all three articles repeat one another to some extent. We need some kind of consistency.--Antodav2007 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Revolution

I came by this site searching for the term "reagan revolution", yet it is not defined in the text. Perhaps this should be added. 84.169.217.197 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


"Ash Heap of History" quote

My apologies if no-one else regards this as significant. But upon reading the actual script of Reagan's 1982 address to the House of Commons (available at[1], I note that he announced his plan to leave "Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history", whereas this article suggests he wanted to committ the Soviet State (described using Reagan's terminology Evil Empire) to said ash heap.

Isn't the actual text much less provocative? I think the difference is worth noting. Hydeparkblvd (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Reagan planned to bring an end to the Soviet Union rather than Marxist-Leninist ideology makes it easier to convince people of the myth that he succeeded in that goal. After all, the Soviet Union really did cease to exist, but Marxism-Leninism hasn't. It's no longer a major force in global politics, but it hasn't vanished. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Perro asesino, ojala te estes pudriendo en el infierno. f. Los masacrados en el mozote. El Salvador —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.243.226 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment etc..

Didn't Unemployment rise significantly during his first term in office? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. In fact the whole article seems to find no fault in Reagan's period in office. I seem to recall he hit the poorest pretty bad. Setwisohi (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Previously, I merged the content from Reagan administration scandals into the "Controversies" section of this article. Then I remembered WP:CRITICISM, and merged that section as rewritten, integrated text into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, where they currently remain.

WP:MERGE states: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. 'you cannot do that without discussion' is not a good argument." My actions were in good faith and I was bold and merged the pages because I found it to be a very big improvement to the encyclopedia. But, the merge has now been contested. Here's why I believe the merge should occur:

  • The scandals article has three maintenance tags: one for a complete rewrite, one for NPOV, and one for additional citations. The rewrite has been there since September 2007, and the other two since April 2008. Merging, rewriting and restructuring the content would be a way to eliminate the tasks presented by the tags.
  • There aren't any scandals/controversies articles for any other presidents. None. Zipo. Why only Reagan? And there are significant differences in the definition of a scandal and a controversy. According to dictionary.com, a scandal is a disgraceful or discredible action; an incident that brings about disgrace. A controversy is a prolonged dispute concerning a matter of opinion. Which of the five mentioned on that page are controversies? Which scandals? So there are problems with the title.
  • There are WP:WEIGHT concerns, as only five scandals (or controversies) are mentioned. How many actually affected the administration, and how many are there only for POV-pushing? Was the 'lobbying scandal' really a scandal (or controversy) that affected the administration? As I recall, both Deaver and Nofziger were convicted after leaving the White House in their post-White House activities.

Again, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I look highly upon Ronald Reagan. As I think I've demonstrated before, though, I'm not above placing criticisms of him in his article or other places. But I'm not advocating the merge of this article to "sanitize" Reagan or anyone else; I'm doing it because of the reasons listed above. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You say above, that "There aren't any scandals/controversies articles for any other presidents. None. Zippo*." Why only Reagan" - indeed? (see I feel that as the definition somewhat implies; a "controversy" only "starts" when one believes that "one" "exists". Honestly, I do believe that there really isn't a controversy regarding President Reagan's Cabinet or Administration. If I may say so; it was one of the most well constructed ever. Given the time frame and possible and available choices, Mr. Reagan made excellent considerations and picks. I consider most of them; basically all, to be highly regarded political figures; basically all of whom have gone on to aspire from their roles; and became contributors and consultants; that as I said, were, and still are, highly regarded. After all that blah.. My point. There have too been controversies/scandals surrounding other president's administrations. I do believe almost "every single one" - note that phrase please- *every single one* (member) of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton's Administration were INDICTED. That's not a controversy huh? Writing this makes it one does it not? I would suggest having a similar link and merge of an article regarding "slick willy's" administration scandals. You really don't even have to go back that far to see more of them too. Regarding Kennedy, Nixon (watergates a given - but his first vp Mr. Agnew caused many a controversy with his .. "bold".. words.) and lets not forget.. old lovable "Andy Jackson". (Mr. 20)" God bless 'em; that there good ol' boy." Good chance we would not be where we are today, regarding the economy; checks and balances, and the markets without his "banking" knowledge and theres that other word.. scandal. (lol) So I close with, think again about Reagan's admin/cab being the only one to "suffer" from contro/scandal; because that statement is not accurate. Anyway thanks and god bless Ronald Reagan. H8Cro0KCnty (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The partisan rant aside, I think you have touched on one of my main points: that only Reagan has an article completely devoted to scandals (or controversies). Yes, President Clinton experienced many controversies/scandals during his presidential tenure. And the editors dealing with those have made the right decision not to create a separate article only for his controveries/criticisms, but instead have correctly integrated them into the Presidency of Bill Clinton article. The same goes for President G.W. Bush, and the editors of that page have correctly decided to integrate controversies/criticisms into the Presidency of George W. Bush article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I think that simply because there is not currently a precedent for such articles doesn't necessarily imply that one cannot (or should not) exist. And thanks for noting the party rant stuff; I really hate wasting my time exterminating H8Cro0KCnty's claims about how 'all of Clinton's Administration were indicted' as utterly untrue. Tell me, did Maddie Albright do time? How about Lloyd Bentsen or Warren Christopher? Please do us the largest single favor of your editing career here and actually research your commentary before hitting that 'Return' key - no one has the time to spend on ranty hallucinations. Focus your attentions on the situation at hand. If yu cannot separate your political fantasies from your editorial realities, the door to Lala land is thattaway.
(Ahem) Now, the reason why the article deserves to stay is that, while other presidents have had considerable scandals in their own Administrations, none of them count as numerous or profound as some of Reagan's. Iran-Contra or the October Suprise both count technically and specifically as treason, no laughing matter, and certainly a far leap beyond getting a hummer in the Oval Office.
Reagan has, at last count, over a dozen different articles nine different wikiprojects concerning him and his presidency (America's greatest preseidents, Lincoln and Kennedy, have fewer). Say what you will about the feller, but there is no mistaking that he made an impact in the American Consciousness. A balanced, informative and non-partisan article about the controversies is appropriate and warranted, and links from the parent articles are certainly warranted. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How did I know it would come to this? Haha :) As you mentioned, there is not currently a precedent for articles of scandals of presidential administrations. And there is not going to be, as I guarentee ardent Jimmy Carter supporters or ardent Calvin Coolidge supporters are not going to smile upon newly created articles devoted soley to criticism of the person or scandals of their administration. Let me just say that it is not our job to determine which scandals of presidential administrations are worse or 'more profund' than others. And we cannot label scandals as treasonous without hard proof. The Iran-Contra affair was very bad, yes, but that has its own article which delves into all kinds of detail about the history, the arms transactions, why the funds were diverted to the contras, etc. and does not need to be written about on this page as well. October surprise conspiracy theory has its own article as well; Newsweek, of all publications, found those charges to be 'groundless', nothing came of it, and nothing was ever proven.
The title of that article is 'Reagan adminstration scandals'; which of those mentioned in that article are scandals? Which are controversies? There are two different definitions which are not adaquately represented. Why do we need a 'balanced, non-partisan article about the controversies' when we have the Iran-Contra affair article, the October surprise conspiracy theory article, the Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging is in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration#Environment, the EPA Superfunds is also in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration#Environment, the Savings and Loans bailout is in Domestic_policy_of_the_Reagan_administration#Economic_record. The only reason to have an article such as that is to be a "directory" to all the scandal/controversy mentions, which is not warranted. By integrating the scandals/controversies into the text, the POV has been "reverted" with the scandals/controversies being mentioned side-by-side with other material and placing them in their proper context. That's what I attempted to do, modeling it after Presidency of Bill Clinton. Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think you've made an error. Neither Coolidge nor Carter were popular, but their lack of such didn't arise out of scandal or controversy. Avoiding the creation of the article because some addle-pated Reaganaut is going to scream about how we are ruining "the Regan Legacy" is not at all a reason to avoid it. Frankly, it's that sort of slavish devotion to an ideal that urges me ever more strongly to keep it. Misinformation is not our business.
A scandal is the appropriate term to utilize when referring to the various shenanigans that occurred during the Reagan presidency and it bears pointing out that we aren't the ones calling it a scandal. the sources cited say it rather clearly. And repeatedly note them as severe and/or extensive. Now, if someone wants to go out and create the Clinton Administration scandals article, go to it. No one said you couldn't. The Republicans don't have a monopoly on scandal (though pundits will usually suggest that their scandals tend to reach a lot further than the skirt-chasing Dems). If you want to debate the various scandals, such as October Surprise or Iran-Contra (both of which are, by definition, treason), meet me over at those article discussions, and we can talk about it. Noting their cited relevance as serious scandals in comparison to getting a blowjob by someone other than one's wife and then lying about it (and honestly, what cheating spouse is going to tell the truth?) isn't really rocket science; its common sense, and the comparison is cited.
The article should stay in place and be cleaned up further, so as to serve as a central point from which the different scandals (or controversies, if that assuages the sting of wrongdoing better). My main issue is that, if merged, the content and focus will be watered down in a death of a thousand paper cutes - tons of little Reaganaut IPs will come by and cut little bits here and there until essentially, we would be left with: 'Reagan did some things wrong, but he saved the world from the Commies with naught but his folksy charm, so that is all that should count.' I'd prefer to avoid that long, protracted little battle. Evidenced by the strong, pro-Reagan zealotry (excusing Hap - he is a believer, not a zealot) we have seen in the last year by folk who were likely less than an inkling in Daddy's pants, I have no reason int he world to think that this sort of nonsense woudn't occur. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I don't have time to respond to all that :) Although these usually get low turn out, let's put in an RfC and let that sit for a few days. I'm going on vacation until Sunday (short but sweet) and hopefully some more editors will give their comments. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge The fact that this is the only scandal article for a president is POV. I would even support merging the controversies from the controversy scetion to the Domestic policy article, as happyme222 did. 12.87.88.6 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - As per my comments above, I disagree. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge I don't see "scandal" pages as POV. They are controversial, but I think it's worthwhile to document perceived scandals that might not otherwise be important parts of person's career. It can also be useful for those looking back at an administration to see a summary of the controversies the administration faced. The argument that Reagan is the only one with a scandal page doesn't fly. If you think this article makes Wikipedia unbalanced, then balance it by adding to Wikipedia rather than deleting from it. I think a Clinton, Bush, or Nixon scandal page would be a good addition.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal - RfC

Whether the contents of Reagan administration scandals should be reworked and integrated into the text of Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration.

Support Merge - I would support the merge based on WP:UNDUE if nothing else. As has been pointed out the major controversies already have dedicated pages which can be appropriately linked and summarized from within the pages identified above. Having a separate "scandals" page only serves to provide yet another place to rehash the same material thus making it WP:UNDUE. Summarize the material in the appropriate other pages for the Reagan presidency as has been done with other presidents and, for the truly large controversies, let them each have their own dedicated article so that the details can be brought forth there. There is no need for a redundant repository of this material. --GoRight (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Put it ALL out there. Even on the all of the other Presidents. Why are we so afraid to tell it like it was? Put the positives and the negatives of the Reagan admistration out for all to see. Don't try to clean up the man's term as President just because he has passed. TELL IT ALL !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.1.206 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's as early as 1988

Queen Noor in her biography "Leap of Faith" (2003) recounts her late husband's meeting with Ronald Reagan in 1988 and mentions that King Hussein was surprised that Reagan could not sustain a simple conversation and did not understand his questions. She assumes that President Reagan was already sick by that time. (Paperback edition, page 279)Пипумбрик (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan#Alzheimer's as early as 1988. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Savings and Loan Crisis

The article states: " This with some other "deregulation" policies ultimately led[citation needed] to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history: The Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.[citation needed] An indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote at the time, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources...the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes."[18] John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[19]"

First, I believe that it is very much a matter of opinion whether or not the Reagan Administration was responsible for the S&L crisis. If we are going to present a claim that the Reagan Administration was responsible it should be balanced with a contrary opinion unless there is an overwhelming consensus.

Second, any such claim should be backed by a cite. Note that nowhere in what I have excerpted is a cite for the link between the crisis and the Reagan Administration - this is pure unsourced opinion.

Finally, note that we have 2.5 paragraphs of this. Two of them are just talking about how bad the S&L crisis was without any link to the Reagan Administration. I think this is undue weight.

If this was not a high profile (and probably controversial page) I would just delete this but since I expect that there are still some people with strong emotions about Reagan I will wait for comments. Mike Friedman (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

oil price control non sequitur

This statement is a non sequitur

His first act as president was to issue an executive order ending certain price controls on domestic oil, which had contributed to the 1973 Oil Crisis and the 1979 Energy Crisis.[2][3] The price of oil subsequently dropped, and the 1980s did not see the gasoline lines and fuel shortages that the 1970s had.[3]

The price controls didn't cause OPEC to cut production, and the impact the price controls had was was unclear - higher prices on old production would not have increased production of oil oil, and new oil and imports was priced at market. And after the 1981 tax cut caused the 81 recession, the reduced demand for oil due to CAFE and switching away from oil for electricity was overtaken by the oil from North Seas, Alaska, the et al, so the price fell and the price controls would have had zero effect. Mulp (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

reagan re-presidentized the presidency

there were a number of things that carter did as president intentionally to demystify the presidency...beach boys, blue jeans, etc. reagan worked hard to reverse that, with a particular wardrobe, and by changing angles for the cameras, etc. this really should be in this article. Kingturtle (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

To a non-partisan, sufficiently experienced, well educated individual old enough to have lived through Ronald Reagan's presidency during their fully adult years, the introduction to this article is embarrassingly biased.

1) In the first paragraph: "After surviving an early assassination attempt, Reagan became the first U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower to be re-elected and serve two complete terms in office." 1a) Though unintentional, this sentence makes an horrific insinuation, to wit.: If JFK had survived his assassination attempt, he most probably would have been re-elected. 1b) Lyndon Johnson both served in two presidential terms and was elected to an executive office, then re-elected. 1c) Because Richard Nixon was re-elected and Johnson served in two terms, a stretch is made to come-up with a seemingly significant statistic by adding two complete terms. 1d) Due to JFK's assassination, Johnson's terms and Nixon's re-election, the kernel of information upon which the stretched fact is built, that Reagan was re-elected, is fabulously mundane and certainly not worthy of being the defining sentence in the first paragraph of an encyclopedic article about an U.S. President.

Action: I have therefore removed this rather obtuse, arguably actually uninformative sentence.

Note: Should I discover that my considered edit has been respected and left unchanged, I shall continue attempting to "improve this article" via "cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards"; if, however, my edit isn't respect then I'll assume the article is controlled by a Reaganite and waste no further time or effort attempting to assist Wikipedia herein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.230.113 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:REAGANWH.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:REAGANWH.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:REAGANWH.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Only president to survive assassination attempt?

The article states (supported by a ref) that Reagan was "the first serving U.S. President to survive being wounded in an assassination attempt." The main article linked to, Reagan assassination attempt, flat out contradicts that, stating (supported by a ref) "Reagan was not the first serving U.S. President to survive being shot in an assassination attempt. Theodore Roosevelt survived a shot to the chest during his Bull Moose Campaign in 1912."

Which is correct? Valenciano (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

TR was an ex-president in 1912...he left office in March 1909. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing Legislation

Hi. Where's the rest of the legislation that Reagan's two administrations did? For example, there's nothing about law enforcement. Who wrote this article? Where's the rest of it? Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's specific legislation that you feel is missing, feel free to add it to the section. Orser67 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Role in setting foreign policy section

The "role in setting foreign policy" section is essentially a criticism section that relies on a collection of quotes from disgruntled staffers. I could make a similar section tearing down any 20th century president on any of these "presidency of" pages, but I strongly oppose the inclusion of any such section. These articles should focus first and foremost on covering what happened instead of getting bogged down in subjective evaluations of the president. While I'm not against adding criticism to presidency articles, I think it should be interspersed throughout the article (e.g. the Tower Commission criticism is already mentioned in the Iran-Contra scandal section) or discussed in the evaluation/legacy/historical reputation section. And when we do include criticism, we should countering viewpoints as well; it's not like every single one of Reagan's staffers thinks that Reagan was a disaster in setting foreign policy. Overall, this section is a poor addition to the article that sets a bad precedent. Orser67 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Its's not true and it's irrelevant that ". I could make a similar section tearing down any 20th century president " The statements reflect the consensus of historians and are fully sourced. The statements describe what happened--Reagan did not focus on the issues AND staff was chaotic. As for the claim that "it's not like every single one of Reagan's staffers thinks that Reagan was a disaster in setting foreign policy" -- the solution is to provide statements from staffers that DISAGREE with what is sourced here. Wiki is not designed to cover up historical facts. Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Since you already addressed the fact that the section in question should have provided contrary opinions, I won't go into detail on the topic of balance. Anyway, Wikipedia is not designed to cover up facts, but nor is it designed to go into detail on every single opinion that someone feels like adding, even if those opinions represent the consensus of reliable sources. Wikipedia is designed to cover a topic in a reasonably-concise fashion, and if we add multiple sections devoted to criticism and/or praise of a president for each aspect of their presidency it will be impossible to write a concise article. Ignoring NPOV concerns, the section would be appropriate for Foreign policy of Ronald Reagan, but it isn't appropriate for this article. Orser67 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed

The age and health section needs more sources. I have added inline tags to it accordingly. There is also a sentence that could be made clearer; I have added a tag there as well. SunCrow (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

7.22.19 Edits

Orser67, your explanation that the section "meandered a bit too much away from Reagan" doesn't quite make sense to me. If we are going to have a section entitled "Conservative shift in politics" (and your edit leaves it in), how is giving a in-depth background for the Reagan revolution "meandering"?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing the section and incorporating it in the 1980 election section, which is the practice in other presidency articles. If it does stay in, I think the section should focus on Reagan and how his leadership of the conservative movement in the 1970s informed his presidency a little more than the previous version of the section did, since the subject of the article is his presidency, and because the conservative shift is covered a bit more in the broader Reagan Era article. I think it would be fair to say that my edits de-emphasized the long term trends (without completely removing them) and added in a little more about Reagan in the section in question. Orser67 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to remove it.....but I think some important info has been removed. One thing that really caught my eye is the removal of the statement "The argument that whites had to vote Democratic in order to protect segregation in the South was dead. It became socially acceptable for conservative whites to vote Republican at the presidential level in the South. This was especially true for well educated suburbanites. By the late 1980s they were also voting Republican in state and local elections. (the citation being 'Politics and Society in the South', by: Black & Black). Since then there has been more research that backs up this view (see 'The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South', by: Shafer & Johnston). I thought that was a excellent observation (rarely made, that helps explain Reagan's ascendancy) that I hated to see go.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I reworked the section a bit and restored some info about the alienation of Southern whites/civil rights legislation, what do you think now? Orser67 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
agree--looks good. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Environmental Policy

The new section on environmental policy looks pretty good but has some issues. The first is no page number is cited for the sources....the second is: this appears to be a lot of opinion. Things are said like "Reagan frequently ignored science that was inconsistent with his political views on economic growth and industrial regulation; climate science was no different."

Something else I am noticing is: some of the facts are mixed up. The claim that Reagan removed the solar panels on the White House (saying that this symbolized the end of the "decade of the environment") is a problem on numerous levels. The first of which is: that's not what happened. True they were removed.....but it was years into his presidency (1986 to be precise), and it was done for the sake of repairs and was not deemed cost effective to put them back up.

The other thing here is: shouldn't there be some balance? One of the cited sources brings up the Reagan admin's leadership in agreeing to the Montreal Protocol. Yet this goes unmentioned.

Don't get me wrong, the section has potential......but it needs a serious overhaul.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Edited as per my comments. Mainly just stuck with the facts. Any problems: let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Righteye1234. Peer reviewers: MicaelaFeltl, Barkerke, Liyahyow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan/Archive_1&oldid=1083279343"