Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 11

Scare Quotes

What is Wikipedia's policy on scare quotes? To me, scare quotes mean that the writer is trying deprecate the scare quoted word(s). This reflects the witers POV. Vegasprof (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking through Wikipedia's policy on quotes (WP:QUOTE) and the MOS quote page (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks) I cannot find any mention of scare quotes. If you have issues with any used in the article, feel free to present them here and I will take a look. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting something in quotes is not necessarily deprecating the words or opinion, it is used to indicate briefly that the statement could be questioned by some people, or might be controversial, might reasonably turn out later as untrue, etc. Take a look at some sites like the BBC news site [1] that take these things seriously, and you will regularly see quotes around many words where there aren't always significantly questioning the statement, but indicating it is someone elses statement or opinion. For example currently there is an article on the front page - Child dies in 'tragic accident' [2] - lets be clear the BBC isn't trying to accuse the parents of murder by adding quotes to this are they? --81.150.229.68 (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's role in the Cold War

As I've previously stated, I feel the article minorly downplays Reagan's effect on the world and the U.S. Republican party. I have begun to add additonal citations to improve the article's quality, and feel that the legacy section should be expanded as well, touching on Reagan's world impact (both good and bad) and effect on the U.S. and the Republican party (not with gushing POV, of course. I've been around here long enough to know that that will not be tolerated and shouldn't be).

Just after the article became featured, the lead was redone and fixed up (we all remember that grueling debate). It included the phrase: "Despite his rejection of détente, he negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War" which, because of POV concerns, was later changed to "...nuclear arsenals and was a major driving force behind the end of the Cold War". That was up there for awhile, until more POV concerns were raised and it was taken down. One of the comments left on this talk page said, "My main point is that it looks like the cold war would have ended soon enough also without Reagan. At the very least, we need a source for this "driving force" statement. It would be helpful if some historian had said this" and it was written on my talk page: "the Soviet Union collapsed not because of anything Reagan did (any more than Kennedy or Truman or Ike or even Carter did - he simply kept up the pressure of competition in every way), but because the Soviet brand of communism could not succeed in Europe... Reagan was just at the helm when the Soviets (literally) ran out of gas."

I've been researching Reagan's affect on the Cold War. In a NPOV article written by Jeffery Knopf, Ph.D., Assistant Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Center of Contemporary Conflict (basically, the guy's a historian), he wrote: "Reagan contributed positively to the end of the Cold War, but his role was just one of several essential factors and his positive contributions were not always the result of taking a hard-line stance." - Knopf is saying that Reagan pursued the correct policies to contribute to the end, but they were nothing special and they were necessary. In many ways he was in the right place at the right time, but he did the right things in the right place at the right time. So you may ask, well why is that significant? According to Knopf from that same article: "Reagan stands out in part because he believed the Soviet Union could be defeated. For most of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations alike had assumed the Soviet Union would prove durable for the foreseeable future. The bipartisan policy of containment aimed to keep the Soviet Union in check while trying to avoid nuclear war; it did not seek to force the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Ronald Reagan, in contrast, believed that the Soviet economy was so weak that increased pressure could bring the Soviet Union to the brink of failure," and "Reagan's belief that communism was ready to crumble contributed to making his approach different from that of other presidents. This is one area in which his personal role stands out." His very close ties with Mikhail Gorbachev from the summits helped as well, although other presidents were on good terms with the Soviet leaders as well.

I'm starting this disussion because I feel there needs to be some mention of Reagan's affect on the Cold War in the lead. We can't say "he won it!" because that's pure POV and not completely accurate; by the same token we cannot ignore the fact that he had an effect. I've waited for about a month to bring this up but feel it is time as I am going to nominate it to be today's featured article on February 6 and it must be in tip-top shape. Any comments are welcome. Thanks a lot. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. There are tons of sources which state that Ronald Reagan was the major driving force to bring forth the end of the Cold War. I and many others believe this to be the biggest accomplishment of his administration. --STX 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather disagree, and I would suspect that a great many of those sources come from a fairly pie-in-the-sky point of view about Reagan. He was continuing policies begun by Ike, and just happened to be in office when the failed experiment of Soviet communism nosedived into the empty pool of history. I am quite sure that there are numerous sources who have given just as compelling arguments as to how Reagan was not the driving force. I think the article, avoiding such hotly (imagine the heart of the sun and multiply that by an order of magnitude)-debated claims, is the more neutral path to follow. There are far too many people (myself among them) who feel that this sort of aggrandizement is closer to legends like Washington chopping down the cherry tree than the actual truth. You might as well give Kennedy the credit for the failure of communism (and there are at least 40 books on Kennedy that do just that). I say its a third rail; let's leave it be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think there could be room for expansion. Personally I am in the camp that agrees that Reagan was one of many factors in ending the Cold War. Without Gorbachev for instance, I think Reagans policies would only have scared the Soviets, not ended the Cold War. It took a lot of people on all sides to change things. While I do believe this I also think that Reagan was a key "driving force" behind bringing Communism down. This is a key asssertion shared by many historians - his biographer Richard Reeves gives large detail to Reagans role and he argues that his attitude toward the soviets, his determination to make SDI work and his increased military spending helped to show the Soviets that they could not compete with the US economy and military complex. Moreover Reagan, being one of the most conservative American Presidents in the 20th century was able to meet with Gorbachev and actually bring about change. Its like only Nixon could go to China in the same way that only Reagan could go to Russia. Carter, JFK for instance would never have been able to sign arms reduction treaties etc because they are Democrats (I dont like the argument but there is an element of truth to it - this is a view shared by Lawrence Freedman in his book Kennedys Wars). Again the view that Reagan helped make the Soviet Union see how they couldn afford the arms race is a view asserted by Patterson in the Oxford History of the US - the Restless Giant Volume. I think if you are going to expand the section in the RR article then you need to focus on the legacy section especially the historial arguments relating to it. I think also you need to put in both sides of the argument; not only those who think he was a main player but also those who think he was just at the right time/right place. Furthermore along with conclusion from historians, you should also add some views of other leaders at the time - I am sure for instance Thatcher, Gorbachev, Bush etc all commented on Reagans role in ending the cold war - perhaps you could track that down? I think in our research we will also be able to expand Cold War (1985-1991) which is hardly comprehensive. Sorry but I have to disagree with Arcayne on this and say that there are enough reputable arguments existing from historians to expand some form of his cold war legacy. Also just because it will be a hot topic/third rail is not a reason to not try and expand it. If we create a sandbox off the talk page to write up a few new balanced paragraphs on this then we avoid any edit wars and agree on any sentances that we feel are not referenced/verifiable/POV etc. Sandbox, what do you all think? LordHarris 10:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm game. A sandbox is a very good idea. I'm putting one together from my talk page right now and will present the link when I have completed it. In the meantime, what should be said in the lead? Happyme22 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is viewed by numerous reputable sources as, at the very least, one of the major driving forces behind the end of the cold war. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to state this in the lead. Why this was removed is beyond me. His role in ending the cold war is debatable, but I'm not aware of any respected historian that claims he had little or no role in ending it.--Rise Above The Vile 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've drafted a proposal at my user sandbox here. I imagine there is going to be a lot of criticism of it, but it is not perfect and probably still POV. The section of world leaders commenting on Reagan's role could use come clean up as well as there are weasel words. Feel free to take a look and edit. Happyme22 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I am afraid that I simply do not know enough about the period to offer anything substantial (I was 7-15 years old at the time); when I wrote my comment, I based it on the Cold War article (which is itself of course a part of Wikipedia; not necessarily more trustworthy!) and my own memories as a European youngster at the time. Let me put it this way: I did not have the feeling that Reagan's attitude was *constructive*, and the Cold War article seemed to confirm my opinion. In your note, you write that you have been doing research. Isn't one of the principles of Wikipedia that there should be no original research? I think that it is most likely too soon (only 20 years later) to say anything definite about the role Reagan played. All we could add at the moment is what various historians think, but you can probably find historians with opposite opinions as well.

That said, your point that Reagan was the first president who believed that the Soviet Union could be defeated, not merely contained, sounds very interesting. This is perhaps a point that should be mentioned in the article, it sounds very relevant, and it might be easier to get support for than the larger "driving force" argument. --KarlFrei (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan was ridiculed for his belief that Communism was bound to fail, and sooner rather than later. Even many conservatives and anti-communists didn't believe that. The book Victory explains that Reagan was the architect behind the strategy which won the Cold War. The strategy was to put pressure on the Soviets across the board: continue arming the Afghans against the Soviet military, persuade the Saudis to keep the price of oil low, to reduce the revenue the Soviets made from oil exports, encourage Pope John Paul II to provide moral support for anti-Communist movements within the Soviet empire, particularly within Poland, work on a missile defence program with the primary intent of making the Soviets spend too much on attempts to match or counter the American effort. Argyriou (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Reagan was not ridiculed for thinking that Communism was bound to fail. Many, many, many others also felt so, as well. It wasn't anything new. As well, the author of the book you mentioned, Peter Schweizer, acknowledges that the USSR was in serious financial trouble before the end of the Carter Administration. The man did not not end Soviet communism. He was just leaning against the wall when it happened to fall down. He contributed tot he effort, but he did not make it happen. Let's keep things in perspective, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The USSR was *always* in financial trouble, because socialism can't solve the allocation problem. Having been politically aware through both of Reagan's terms, I remember quite a lot of ridicule and disbelief when Reagan said that the Soviet Empire would fall. (Ridicule from the left, who were sympathetic to communism, and disbelief from most of the right, who thought they were doomed to fail, but had to try anyway.) Back in 1980, elite opinion wasn't even certain that we could successfully contain communism, much less roll it back or cause the fall of the Soviet Union. If Carter had managed to be re-elected in 1980, the fall of communism would have taken much longer. Argyriou (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to think so, though contrafactual supposition like that is going to be pretty hard to cite.

Again, I've drafted a proposal at my user sandbox here. I imagine there is going to be a lot of criticism of it. The section of world leaders commenting on Reagan's role could use some clean up as well. Feel free to take a look. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. Do you think it would be better to put the proposal in the project part, and not in the discussion, where we can discuss changes? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've been around Wiki for just about a year and I have no idea what you mean by that. Sorry! Happyme22 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting you put the proposed text [[3]] there, instead of in the discussion section, so that the discussion area is left open to, well, discuss. As far as the proposal itself, I think it's a good start. Frankly, I think the first line needs work, as I think it goes to far trying to tow a middle line. I also have no idea what "His policies of peace through strength and hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and communism accelerated the downfall by being necessary" means, particularly the "accelerated the downfall by being necessary"? Being necessary for what? I fully agree that the article minimizes this topic, and will give a more thoughtfull answer later this afternoon when I get off duty. JCO312 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. The proposed text is now at User:Happyme22/Sandbox and the discussion section is clear and awaiting discussion. Happyme22 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Senility claim

Arcayne, Thanks for the back-handed compliment. I would be the first to agree that my edit wasn't so great. As you said fair.org does tremendous stuff. Feel free to attempt a re-write. Cindy5a (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Cindy5a

Okay, sometimes I am not the most tactful person, but thanks for being gracious at taking the hit, Cindy; I've rephrased accordingly. As for what Hap wrote on my user talk, I agree that there is enough info saying that he was not, but the fact that several unconnected people considered him to be having bouts of Alzheimer's-like behavior seem relevant. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability, and we have two opposing views on Reagan's health; it would seem prudent to present that opposition of views, especially since both are well cited by pretty credible sources. Thoughts? (you, too, Cindy :) ) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I agree that both sides have some pretty credible people on their side. It is impossible to know for sure as to where the truth lies. Rather than saying nothing, it would be prudent to have the article acknowledge both view points, with citations. Cindy5a (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Cindy5a

First, is fair.org a reliable source? The piece mentioned New York Times articles, but doesn't cite them. It seems like a hit-piece. It is stated in that article: "Some Americans may not remember the era when Teflon news coverage was afforded to a president who fell asleep at White House meetings and didn't recognize members of his Cabinet. Untethered by cue cards or teleprompter, he could ramble off into dark fogs of gibberish....For when it came to watchdogging Reagan's economic and foreign policies, mainstream media were as disconnected and dozy as the President was." No cites + no NPOV = not right for Wikipedia. I have a reliable video source with former Chief of Staff James Baker stating the exact opposite. Baker was one of those people in Reagan's cabinet who the president "didn't recognize"; he stated: "the idea that Reagan fell asleep in cabinet meetings in ludicrous" (Thomas, Rhys (Writer/Producer); Baker, James (Interviewee) (2005). The Presidents (Documentary). A&E Television.) I will acknowledge the claim that Reagan was going senile is a relevant one, as it was rumored and he could be disengaged, but he was not just an old man who woke up one day in the cabinet room after sleeping in the meetings. I would like to see it cited with a better source before we compromise on what to include. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to track down sources; it isn't as if Fair.Org is glossing over them (it at least states where they are arriving at their conclusions). I don't sense any more attack in it than in most other pieces about politicians. Therefore, I don't see a partisan bent to the article (or any of the other Fair.org articles I browsed); I do however see a noticeable distaste in their articles for any spin or lying - and that's never to be considered a bad thing. Remember, the best sources of information are not going to be those folk with a vested, partisan interest in maintaining a fairly unrealistic view of a President Who Could Do No Wrong. Again, since we are surely able to verify the accuracy of the cited sources, I don't see a problem with its inclusion (though we might want to add the noted sources as well). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you here. I think that a mention of the claim merits inclusion, but with a better source than fair.org. Find one, and then perhaps:

"During Reagan's second term, it was questioned whether he had shown signs of senility. It was rumored that he could be disengaged from matters and fell asleep in cabinet meetings; Reagan's doctors deny ever finding any evidence to support that, and former Chief of Staff James Baker stated, "The idea that Reagan fell asleep in cabinet meetings in ludicrous."

Good? --Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me look around for some sources tomorrow. I am not sure the suggested rewrite you are proposing is that much better. Quoting Baker and not any of the others who saw signs of senility seems unbalanced to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see anything too POV about this. It presents the claim that Reagan showed signs of senilty, has Reagan's doctors saying it's not completely true, and James Baker, someone who was in the cabinet meetings Reagan was rumored to fall asleep in, sheds light on what really happened. I suppose you could include an example from the other side's argument, but take it from a better source than fair.org. Arcayne, once you find a better source please feel free to list it here and give an example of how Reagan supposedly displayed senility; we can use that in the text. --Happyme22 (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Lesley Stahl comes from her 1997 book, "Reporting Live". Another quote:

"Reagan sometimes has difficulty remembering names, much less complex negotiating positions. Meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone in June, he repeatedly referred to his own Vice President as 'Prime Minister Bush.'"

With these articles in mind, it might be better to have something like the following:

"After his diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, there was considerable speculation over whether had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. Former CBS White House Press Corps Lesley Stahl recalled an unsettling incident in her 1997 book, "Reporting Live". She noted that for several moments during an interview, "a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room", and that before he "reemerged into alertness" she recalls that "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile." . Reagan would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, most notably while meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, wherein he repeatedly referred to his own Vice President as "Prime minister Bush".

Reagan's doctors, however, note that Reagan only began exhibiting overt symptoms of the illness in 1992, several years after he had left office, but acknowledge that no one can be absolutely certain when Mr. Reagan's Alzheimer's began. His former staff was also quick to defend him. Former Chief of Staff James Baker stated in a documentary on Reagan that he found the idea of his former President nodding off during cabinet meeting "ludicrous".

This seems to be a better arrangement of information. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That was more neutral, as you included an example from Stahl. But in order to remove some newly-added POV :) and false info, I'd say this is better:

"After his diagnosis of Alzheimer's, there was speculation over whether had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. Former CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl noted that for several moments during an interview, Reagan "barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room," and that before he "reemerged into alertness" she recalls that "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile." He would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, once wherein he referred to his Vice President as "Prime Minister Bush".

Reagan's doctors, however, note that he only began exhibiting overt symptoms of the illness in late 1992, several years after he had left office. Former Chief of Staff James Baker stated that he found the idea of Reagan sleeping during cabinet meeting "ludicrous".

It is more neutral, excluding the "his former staff was also quick to defend him...he found the idea of his former President..." and the little puff about Bush. Also, the doctors did not say that no one knows when the Alzheimer's began; it started late 1992. Doctors say that they did not detect any signs of it while in office ([4][5][6][7]), but it was the media that spectualted about it. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a few problems with your rewrite, but none that cannot be fixed. The first paragraph from my version seems to be better, prose-wise and more informative. The commentary about Bush being repeatedly referred to as Prime Minister Bush is correct, while the soft-pedaling of "once" isn't accurate. It is cited as happening more than once, and its neutral to note it, especially in a section concerning his mental health while in office. Calling the repetitive mistake a 'puff' is, to my reckoning, soft-pedaling. Let's not do that.

As well, the characterization of Stahl's reaction to Reagan's loss of lucidity as 'unsettling' is her own, and supported by both numerous citations as well as being a quote from her book. Note that I am not opting for or suggesting super-quotations of the statement, but that characterization is both accurate and fair. the idea of the most powerful leader in the free world losing his marbles is indeed unsettling.

As far as the second paragraph goes, I guess I can concede the statement about not knowing when the Alzheimer's began (despite the fact that that specific quote can be cited, and despite the fact that Alzheimer's doesn't usually manifest as sudden onset but instead as progressive - like spots on a tablecloth, wherein enough spots begin to run together into a discernible stain). As well, it would be important to note the circumstances of Baker's comment - it was given during a documentary on his president, and not a personal aside. That there was also other support from his staff has been paraphrased and generally acknowledged, suggests that it seems appropriate to include it.

I don't mind the citation as to his medical evaluations of good mental health, but perhaps we can limit them to the strongest citations. I personally think that the second one (about Dr. Ruge) is weak, as it addresses his status as doctor during the assassination attempt and subsequent years from 1981-85. The third citation (from CBS News) is quite weak as well, as it doesn't address when/if his presidency was touched by the disease. The fourth citation is a duplicate of the first. I think if you wish to have two citations about his medical evaluations while in office, it would be helpful to see another independent citation about that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The subsequent alteration would look as such:

"After his diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, there was considerable speculation over whether had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. Former CBS White House Press Corps Lesley Stahl recalled an unsettling incident in her 1997 book, "Reporting Live". She noted that for several moments during an interview, "a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room", and that before he "reemerged into alertness" she recalls that "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile." Reagan would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, most notably while meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, wherein he repeatedly referred to his own Vice President as "Prime minister Bush".

Reagan's doctors, however, note that he only began exhibiting overt symptoms of the illness in late 1992, several years after he had left office. His former staff also defended him; former Chief of Staff James Baker stated that the idea of Reagan sleeping during cabinet meetings was "ludicrous".

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not nessecary to refer to Stalh's book as it could easily be written without a mention, and we should show that Stahl reffered to it as "unsettling" rather than it being the POV of the author. The Bush section would read better as: "Reagan would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, wherein he repeatedly referred to his Vice President as "Prime Minister Bush"." - It's the same but the mention of Nakasone is unnecessary. The James Baker sentence I also reworded because saying they were "quick to defend him" makes it sounds like they were covering something up. Here:

"After his diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, there was considerable speculation over whether had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. Former CBS White House Press Corps Lesley Stahl recalled an "unsettling" interview with the president where, "a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room", and that before he "reemerged into alertness" she recalls that "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile." Reagan would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, wherein he repeatedly referred to his Vice President as "Prime Minister Bush".

Reagan's doctors, however, note that he only began exhibiting overt symptoms of the illness in late 1992, several years after he had left office. His former staff also defended him; Chief of Staff James Baker stated that the idea of Reagan sleeping during cabinet meetings was "ludicrous".

--Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is important that the reference came from the book so as to establish the context of the recollection. Also important for context was the mistakes regarding 'Prime Minister Bush' while in the company of Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone; often, one of the earlier signs of a pre-Alzheimer lapse include mixing up of words and titles, etc.

Lastly, Baker was his former chief of staff; we should call him that (since he isn't a chief of staff anymore). Additionally, I am sure we can tighten up that last sentence better, like: "His former staff also defended him; Chief of Staff James Baker considered "ludicrous" the idea of Reagan sleeping during cabinet meetings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With a mention of the book I would expect a citation directly from the book, which we do not have. I would go against it because it is well worded without it. I'm going to insert the example above, with your proposed changes and (if it really makes that much of a difference) a mention of the book. Happyme22 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hap, would it make it easier if we included the citebook template? I thought it might be easier to have a web-ready citation, but if you are more comfortable having the book template in place,i can do it.

So, is this the version we are agreed on?"

"After his diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, there was considerable speculation over whether had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration while in office. Former CBS White House Press Corps Lesley Stahl recalled an unsettling incident in her 1997 book, "Reporting Live". She noted that for several moments during an interview, "a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room", and that before he "reemerged into alertness" she recalls that "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile." Reagan would also encounter occasional difficulty recalling names and titles, most notably while meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, wherein he repeatedly referred to his own Vice President as "Prime minister Bush".

Reagan's doctors, however, note that he only began exhibiting overt symptoms of the illness in late 1992, several years after he had left office. "His former staff also defended him; Chief of Staff James Baker considered "ludicrous" the idea of Reagan sleeping during cabinet meetings.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Prettymuch. I put it in. Happyme22 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Teflon President

This might bear mentioning as well.

"why the Washington press had such a hard time knocking Reagan off stride by reporting about his vacant style (forgetting the name of a cabinet member), or his abuse of anecdote (taking stories from the movies without realizing it) or the contradictions in his record (cutting the budget for programs he later celebrated.)

“Major newspapers would run stories on all the facts he had mangled, a practice that faded as it became clear that most Americans weren’t terribly concerned,” wrote Howard Kurtz this week, “The media dubbed him the Teflon president, and it was not meant as a compliment.” This is an apt summation of the conventional wisdom captured in Stahl’s “a-ha” moment. A puzzle had been solved. Put crudely (but then it’s a crude story) how could Ronald Reagan, intellectual bumbler and fact fumbler, be so popular?

The Parable gives an answer: They don’t care what we say, only what is shown on television. Just as Reagan doesn’t care if what he says is true, as long as it makes a great story. And by extension the American people don’t care about the “tough,” factual reporting we’ve done on Reagan (“five minutes and 40 seconds, practically a documentary!”) because they are lost in the visuals, seduced by a simpler story line than the press could offer by recounting the facts."

Ie, the significant problem was not just that there was corruption and scandal and mistakes, but rather that his handlers made sure that nothing every stuck to Reagan.

(The reference for the moniker, "Teflon President" appears here. The comment about cutting the budget for programs he later supported is also there: "During the 1984 campaign, Reagan stood in front of a senior citizens' project built under a program he tried to kill - but his aides didn't care, concluding that the pictures were more important than the reporters' contrary words."

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) In his 1988 book "On Bended Knee," author Mark Hertsgaard complained that "news accounts generally failed to make clear the real-world implications of Reagan's inability or unwillingness to distinguish fact from fiction."

The mentioning of his nickname "the Teflon president" should be included, although I don't even know if we mention "the Great Communicator" in here. And the argument that his advisors (I presume you mean Mike Deaver) worked the media so that no bad press of Reagan was ever shown is very POV and does not merit inclusion on the grounds of high spectulation and non-encyclopedic content. Deaver took so much heat for what the media said was making sure that the camera lights were "perfect" and that Reagan stood in exactly the right place. He did coordinate events for Reagan which usually made sure the setting for a speech was very well captured, although, if anywhere, that belongs in the Deaver article. I'll mention about the Teflon nickname in the article, though, because that does merit inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't mentioned Deaver at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry haha. Mostly when people talk about the teflon "aspect", if you will, Deaver's name comes up. I'm sory to accuse you. Again, a mention of the teflon president is fine with me, but the great communicator should probably be mentioned as well. Happyme22 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, We can mention it right next to the Gipper and Dutch, and we can provide brief explanations for each. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the references for both Teflon President and Great Communicator. I am thinking that these twin terms deserve mention in the lead, but am unsure where they should go, or should comprise a new section. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that they deserve mention in the lead as they both do not contribute to the overall summary of Reagan's life. I am also opposed to a new section. With all the recent proposed changes and all the fixing of cites, the article is getting pretty long. They both belong in the "popularity" section anyway (labled as "teflon" because "nothing stuck to him" and even with Iran Contra his popularity did not exceptionally wane; labeled as "great communicator" because he was a good speaker which boosted his popularity). Happyme22 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I pulled the following statement, as I think it needs a bit more work:

Due to his manner of speaking and ability to connect to the American people, Reagan gained the nickname "The Great Communicator". He also coined the moniker "The Teflon President" as Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder said, "he could do almost anything and not get blamed for it."

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's change things around a little bit:

Reagan's ability to connect visually with the American people earned Reagan the moniker, "The Great Communicator," while he simultaneously earned the nickname "the Teflon President", which was not meant as a compliment. It referred to Reagan's ability to - according to both reporter Howard Kurtz and Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder - "do almost anything (wrong) and not get blamed for it."

That seems a lot more accurate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying it's not a compliment is implying the obvious. I would only mention Congresswoman Schroeder because there is no need to include Kurtz - he is only a journalist. If we attributed every statement to a journalist this entire article would be full of irrelevant names. Schroeder came up with it and she does deserve mention. Also the parenthetical insert of "wrong" also is only pulling out the paragraph because, again, it is implied that being labelled "teflon" is not a compilment. And the connecting visually part is odd. Every president connects visually with the American people: Nixon gave his resignation announcement which confirmed the thought that he was responsible for Watergate in many people's minds, Carter gave his malaise speech which was not exceptionally popular with the Americans, Bush 43 gave his "axis of evil" speech that boosted support but look at his ratings now, and every president gives a state of the Union address. But MSNBC said Reagan's went beyond the norm as he had a great ability to connect with the American people through his largely optimistic speeches and his words, something that Nixon, Carter, and GWB didn't have. BBC said that he galvanized the American people with his words. That's more than just visually. ([8][9]). Happyme22 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I fully read it, the mention of "wrong" in the quote is exactly what Schroeder was trying to fully imply. Nevermind that part of my post above. Happyme22 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but each of those examples were the highlight of their connections to the public. Reagan had a great many more than just about anyone in recent memory (Kennedy and FDR spring to mind as exceptionally talented communicators as well). Reagan connected visually in that no matter what was being said, he (and his people made sure that he) always made sure that he came across as since and in control. As Schroeder and Kurtz (who isn't just a reporter but an author of at least five books - fairly notable, to my reckoning) also pointed out, it didn't matter what he said, one wink by the Gipper and he could essentially get off for murdering someone on the six o' clock news. An exaggeration, to be sure, but it points out the problem that Schoeder and Kurtz (and many others) found with Reagan. The Iran Contra Affair was the most notable of these, and Poindexter took a bullet for Reagan).

The BBC noting of the galvanizing words of Reagan were not simply radio words (as they were with FDR), they were delivered on camera - visually.

Other changes I made make note of the fact that Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers two years before admitting it. It's noteworthy if for no other reason as to clarify when he was actually diagnosed and when he announced that diagnosis to the public.

Also, Reagan didn't 'reject' detente as he still followed what had already been established by previous Administrations. In foregoing it, he chose not to accept the policy of containment and sought an endgame to the Cold War that didn't involve nuclear war. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I like you. You were the first person that I met and could work with on Wikipedia, and I'd say that although we disagree on just about everything, we are friends. I am going to strongly disagree with you here once again. You are incorrect in saying that Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1992. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in August 1994 ([10]) during the Reagan's annual trip to the Mayo Clinic (Cannon, Lou. President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. New York: Public Affairs, 2001 - page 284) and released it publicly in November 1994. Doctors said they began seeing signs of memory lapse in late 1992. It is false to say that he was diagnosed in 1992.

And mentioning Howard Kurtz only draws out the article. Ok, he's a journalist and author - Whoop-de-do! He has no influence over policy. Schroeder was a Congresswoman who coined the term and deserves mention. I suppose visually is more descriptive so "His ability to visually connect with..." is alright, I guess. With the better explanation you provided above, foregoing is probably the better word afterall (until I think of a better one because I don't particularly like it). Happyme22 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22, I like you, too, bud. Since coming here, you have been an exemplary editor, and I consider myself lucky to edit alongside you. Yes, we do disagree, but we can do so politely and friendly-like, and i have to say that that particular arrangement is extraordinarily rare in our community.

Okay, the citation from the Kurtz article, wherein he noted the diagnosis as '94, might be at fault. Something similar came up with nancy Reagan's birthdate and birthplace, and we decided to go with the strongest reference. Your reference is stronger here, so I'll concede that and remove the bit about 'two years earlier'. How do we mention the noticed lapses in 92? I'm open to ideas.

I think that including Kurtz is a good idea because he is the one responsible for the circulation of the nickname. Also, at least three of his books were on the Reagan years. He isn't a Kitty Kelley tabloid journalist; he writes responsibly. Both Schroeder and Kurtz are responsible for the nickname's popularity, to my reckoning. As well, the links connecting him to the bit about the teflon President are pretty illuminating as to why it came about.

Never think that because I disagree with you that I don't respect you, Hap. I've always got your back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha same to you! Anytime you're in a tizzy, drop me a line. Anyway, I've removed the two years earlier part from the lead as it is not factually accurate. I do not think it is worth going into any detail in the lead because he was not in office durign the '92 memory lapses. We mentioned it in the Alzheimer's section. Something we might consider adding is this: one of the things Lou Cannon mentioned in his biography on Reagan, Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio, is that one of the first instances of Reagan truly displaying an Alzheimer's effect was when he repeated a toast to Margaret Thatcher verbatim during his 82rd birthday celebration in 1993 (page 284). That could go right before the diagnosis mentioning in the Alzheimer's section as well.

Now that I look at it, Kurtz is already mentioned in the legacy section giving his opinion on Reagan. I'm still not exactly for adding him and Schroeder to the text, because I remember in the '80s when some of the newscasters said "Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder has described the Reagan presidency as having a 'teflon coat' ". I do not remember Kurtz being mentioned at all, although he probably wrote about it in the Washington Post. Happyme22 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) I think the argument you provided re: excluding a notation that he first began expressing symptoms of Alzheimer's prior to his formal diagnosis on the basis that he was no longer is office revisits an earlier argument about whether this article is about Reagan the President, or Reagan the Man. It was cited that he first started demonstrating symptoms of his illness two years prior to formal diagnosis; that he or was notin office at that point would seem to be immaterial to me. Indeed, while it would have been far more notable if they had occurred whilst in office, the article still reads "Ronald Reagan, not "President Ronald Reagan". I recall that you have opined that the man's presidential years were the most important of his life, it was expressed then - as it is now - that his years as president were considered the most important by us. We should look at his illness (or indeed the article itself) not through the lens of his presidency, but rather as a man who just served an important political function and accomplished a number of noteworthy tasks. It seems like the distinction for inclusion might be finer than it is, but I think we need to note when the symptoms first started manifesting.
As a self-described Republican conservative, I am not really surprised that Kurtz wasn't well-known to you. He was considered a friggin' god to those of us on the high school paper. Schroeder might have made the initial connection of 'teflon + Reagan', but Kurtz explored (some would say exploited) it, using it as a means to examine the bizarre response of the public in regards to the numerous scandals that plagued the Administration. As both Schroeder and Kurtz are strongly identified with the nickname (as powerful in con-Reagan Circles as Great Communicator is in pro-Reagan circles), I think it helps explain the climate in which reagan resided while in office. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From the reasoning in the first paragraph of my earlier statement, would you concur that mentioning it is adequate? If you have a preference as to how it should be phrased, I am open to suggestions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think it is too detailed for the lead, but I'd like to see what others think before anything. Happyme22 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

imo the lead looks good as is. theres no reason for "teflon president" or "great communicator" to be in there because they aren't important enough for the lead are just nicknames, their meaning can be described in the article. by contrast "reaganomics" does belong in the lead because it describes a policy that was important to his presidency and is a term that survives his presidency as part of the american lexicon (similiar to, but not quite to the same extent as, "mccarthyism" beloging in the lead on the joseph mccarthy article) SJMNY (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't what we were talking about (the subject was the mentioning that Reagan had displayed symptoms before his formal diagnosis), but I can address that as well.

As per WP:LEAD, the Lead is a summary, or overview of the article - like a trailer, for all you who prefer your metaphors in movie terms. Conversely, if it isn't in the article, it cannot be in the Lead. I asked about the addition of the nicknames because they express the summary of how two groups of people refer to Reagan. I agree with you about reaganomics, though; it was notable, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One more note: the "ability to connect visually" thing was cited with a blog. Happyme22 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment "which was not meant as a compliment" really doesn't do justice to the moniker "the teflon president". I removed the phrase and replaced it with "...which meant that public perceptions of Reagan were not tarnished by the negative aspects of his administration." --STX 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that better. I was never really for the inclusion of "which was not meant as a compliment" because I thought it sounded too premature and it was obvious. Also, I feel it would be good (for balance!) to include a quote by someone on the great communicator nickname. we have one one on teflon president so it would only be right. Happyme22 (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you've put a lot of work in on this, but that opening phrase "Reagan's ability to connect with the American people" cited to Pat Schroder's op-ed in USA Today really needs to be a quote. I expected the cite to substantiate the statement (Gallup polls of the popularity quotient), not be the attribution of a op-ed quote. Something along the lines of "As former Congresswoman Patricia Schroder noted..." Cyclone77 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also expected to see a sourcing of "The Great Communicator" in that same sentence. The phrase was out of the 1984 campaign as I recall (strictly personal memory). Cyclone77 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan worst president?

Ronald Reagan was a bad president he had horrible family values. He took the lives of people in the middle east by giving untrusted people weapons. he cheated on his first wife and wouldn't talk to his kids from that first wife for the longest time. how sad is it that he wouldn't even talk to his grandchildren for the longest time and they didn't even do anything wrong. i personally believe he was only considered a republican because he called himself one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.253.230 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing you are new here; otherwise you would know that this isn't a forum for you to spout your opinions without any sort of citation. We aren't here to maltreat the subject of this article, any more than we are here to offer him respect. We give this article the same amount of respect we would give to an article about Hitler or the Dalai Llama - the source of the neutrality is sourcework. Without it, it constitutes bias and - to be frank - not of much value here. Maybe you were looking for an internet forum so you could gripe about Reagan. There are places to do that. Wikipedia is not one of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan was a good person, and in my opinion, the best president ever. However, wikipedia is not a place to discuss personal opinions.

Minor Edit

The first sentence, in the section Presidency, 1981-1989 states, in part: "During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan pursued policies that reflected his optimism in individual freedom"

I think we should replace the word "optimism" in this sentence with the word "belief". Its more neutral. The rest of the sentence also needs to be made more neutral since its currently presenting arguable claims as facts, but I can't think of a good way to fix that right now. 70.21.103.75 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll fix it. Thanks for contributing. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's role in the Cold War, part II

I'm looking to revive this debate because it was essentially dropped after the senility claims and nickname inclusions were brought up. I aim to insert text along the lines of this, located at my sandbox, but I'm open for any comments/suggestions toward it. I do feel that a mention of Reagan's Cold War role is a must; we included senility claims, something I thought was given too much weight based purely on speculation. This is a much more prominent topic and cannot be glazed over due to the same "spectulation."

The proposed content includes a NPOV first paragraph: it starts by presenting the beliefs of both sides. The first is then presented, followed by what I thought was a nice transition to the second side's argument. The second paragraph is openly POV and is suposed to be - User:LordHarris stated in the above discussion that views from other cold war leaders would help thus it is their POVs being presented here, not that of the author. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure how you intend to integrate whats omn your sandbox, is it to replace part or all of whats currently in the article under the headings "cold war" or "end of the cold war"? if so you are losing alot of information already there. SJMNY (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

think that we should put at the beginning, in box-text format, the pre-existing sentences that Hap wishes to replace, and then we can work on the sandbox version. As it is, the sandbox needs some work before we can include it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to replace anything. The information on the Cold War is great and needs to stay; this is focusing on his cold war legacy and is additional text. Again, I'm not wishing to replace anything with this. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to get grilled for this, but here goes: there should be a mention of Reagan's cold war legacy in the lead. Arcayne: again, I really value your help and Wikipedia friendship, but it appears we are going to disagree again. User:LordHarris, User:Rise Above the Vile, User:Southern Texas, User:Argyriou, User:JCO312 and myself all feel that Reagan had an impact on the end of the cold war; you are the only one that feels he did not have a significant impact. Now, looking at the facts this NPOV article and a Newsweek article entitled "American Dreamer" (which was reprinted in a book I own so I do not have a link to place here) both state, among many other sources, that Reagan had a singificant impact on the end of the cold war. Granted, he merely pursued the correct policies at the correct time, but they worked. Even the fellow leaders during the height of the Cold War - those who worked with Reagan - said he was instrumental in the end of the war and fall of the USSR.

I suppose your argument that Reagan's role is an exaggeration can be supported by this article, which is cited in my proposed addition (not replacement) to the page. It cites Truman's policy of containment as a large factor, as well as the Soviet war with Afghanistan. Those are certainly other factors, but the Reagan factor cannot be ignored. Thus, I propose (and know there is going to be opposition to) the following changes to the lead:

"...The president ordered a massive military buildup in an arms race with the Soviet Union, foregoing the previous strategy of détente. He publicly portrayed the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and supported anti-Communist movements worldwide. He negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals; these actions almost certainly accelerated the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union. Reagan left office in 1989; in 1994 the..."

I removed the "despite his rejection of détente" part, because détente is the keeping of the status quo or "if you don't touch us we won't touch you" and Reagan rejected that. Thus his meetings with Gorbachev did not follow the policy of detente, and it would be contradictory and factually inaccurate to state that. Secondly, I inserted that Reagan's actions almost certainly contributed to the end of the cold war and fall of the USSR. Notice my use of "almost certainly" which is directly quoted from the Jeffrey W. Knopf and Newsweek articles. Thus it encompasses both sides beliefs; you can't tell me that Reagan had no impact!

I would like comments from all editors and would encourage them to also check out the proposed addition located at my sandbox. I'm hoping for this to become a big discussion between a lot of editors, not just myself and Arcayne, because I would like to get a feel for what everyone wants. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have waited a few days before commenting (though intended as simply waiting, work helped a lot - disaster management knows no earthly schedule), as I wanted to hear from others, as well.

I agree that other editors think that Reagan impacted the end of the Cold War; however, to imply that this opinion is accurate simply because others share it is careless and unbalanced. I realize I might be dealing with personal heroes and whatnot, but there are citations both pro and con as to this claim. We are not here to push one or the other, and it absolutely vital that we present the middle view here. It is okay to note that some people feel that Reagan wore a red cape and stopped the Cold War all by his Lonesome (at least, that's how that particular view appears to me), so long as the opposing view is equally and fairly noted as well. This is the heart of neutrality. We treat Reagan no better than Hitler, Jesus, Stalin or the Marquis de Sade. Period. this isn't a hallmark moment for the man. We aren't playing favorites, or at least, we aren't supposed to be. While it is grand that y'all feel that Reagan contributed "greatly" to the end of the Cold War, y'all are not citable; and we all know that there are equally credible voices on both sides of this argument. Our job is to find the middle ground and stay there. Did Reagan have something to do with the ending of the Cold War? Probably. However, commentary or preference as to how much he did is debated. Hotly. It is not in the best interest of the article or Wikipedia to make the call on it. And using one Newsweek article by Knopf to push that agenda seems wholly un-neutral - especially when there are just as many well-written cites that could supplant that belief entirely by stating categorically the lack of input Reagan had in ending the Cold War. Knopf's statements about how he feels reagan "almost certainly" ended the Cold War does not encompass both beliefs - it is not neutral (or even in the same zip code as accurate).

As well, I am not sure who cut the legs out from under the nickname stuff, but I am going to put it all back in, as we had hashed it out quite amicable-like. I have to take some responsibility for missing its whittling, as I haven't been watching the page as carefully as I should have. That will now change. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the rejection of detente shoul;d return to the article, as it is more accurate than the phrasing currently in place. that the man met with Gorbachev was a break in his own policies

First on détente: Reagan did not follow détente and saying "despite his rejection of it" implies that he rejected it, but met with Gorbachev anyway, thus following it. Meeting with Gorbachev was anti-détente and contradictory to the very meaning of the word "détente".

Okay, I was afraid this would come up. Yes, Reagan is a continuous polarizing figure in American politics and culture. But just bceause he is does not mean that all legacy-related arguments have to be immediately dismissed on the grounds of two different opinions. I can cite that Reagan had a great impact on the end of the Cold War - I do not feel that he is the only person that contributed to the end. I suppose you, on the other hand, can cite that he did not have a major role in the end because of Truman's policies and Gorbachev himself. What I'm saying is that Reagan contributed to those, that's why it is written (and quoted) as being "almost certainly".

The argument is similar to one regarding Bill Clinton and the economy. Much credit is given to Bill Clinton for the growth/expansion of the American economy in the 1990s. It could also be argued that nothing would have been accomplished during the Clinton years had it not been for the Republican Congress. Yet, the lead of Bill Clinton's article (a GA) includes that he presidded over the "longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history". Both can be cited.

This is the issue that I'm not going to give up on. I felt that you (Arcayne) were giving too much undue weight to the senility claim and later the nicknames. I still feel that your dislike of Reagan is making its way into this discussion and influencing you over the facts, although you're probably saying that my like of Reagan is influencing me. True, if I did not care for Ronald Reagan I probably wouldn't even be touching the article but I do and I have facts to back up my arguments. Your humorous analogy of Reagan wearing a red cape with an "S" on it not one that I believe to be correct; I do not feel that Reagan was the single driving force behind the end of the cold war, but I do feel that he had a substantial impact by pursuing the correct policies for the time. I have two NPOV articles, one from Knopf and one from Newsweek that back this up, plus many biographies on the man. Yes, Knopf's is NPOV - he examines both the pros and cons of Reagan's stance in the cold war, and concludes that he had an impact, of course not as great as some believe. Just because he's arguing with facts that Reagan contributed to the end of the cold war does not mean that he shows POV.

Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating, only topped by Bill Clinton at 65%. ([11]) In 2001, the rating was reassessed to be 66%. ([12]) He is one of the most popular presidents, in terms of approval ratings, in history and in modern times. The fact that he played a role in the cold war cannot go unnoticed by us.

I find it nessecary to also state Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen in Cold War section (which can also be cited with the Newsweek article) and I'm going to do that pretty soon. I'm trying to incorporate more criticisms of Reagan, because the Newsweek article had both good and bad; you'll see I added about the poor and minority citizens. The cold war legacy issue is one that we cannot neglect, however. Just because there are two different opinions doesn't mean that it has to be dismissed altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the détente thing: Reagan rejected détente as a couse of policy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He wasn't interested in containment. He wanted it gone. Meeting with a Soviet leader to discuss compromises has nothing to do with détente, but it does have quite a bit to do with foregoing his own stated policies on the subject of the Soviet Union.

I think that you missed somewhat my point. I am not complaining about the Knopf quote - I am pointing out that the quote was tailored to make Reagan look as if he had more to do with the end of the Cold War than he did. You even note in your (duplicated) reply on my user talk page that Knopf clearly states that the impact was "of course not as great as some believe" - yet this wasn't part of the possible edit submitted, only the "almost certainly" bit. You can see how this might be interpreted by some that it is glowing endorsement of the red cape scenario. Its that glossing over the negative stuff and trumping up the positive stuff that I am having a problem with. It might even be why I am more willing to argue for the more negative stuff, if only to provide balance. There are folk who have left the page with the (rather unfair) idea that a neutral piece isn't to be had in the article. Granted, some of these contributors are ass-clowns, but some are just normal contributors. I don't think you are consciously downplaying the negative, but some of it seems to be whittled away regardless.

Regarding the approval rating, I think I should point out that in 2001, there was a sitting Republican president and a rather contentious Republican majority in the House. the study you refer to took place after 9-11, so really - how representative is it going to be. I am guessing that in a year or two, Reagan's popularity is going to drop back down again, what with a Democrat president and a Democratic majority. It's a matter of perspective, I think.

And regarding Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen, I think you might want to seriously consider that, as it will open a can of worms that would be truly distracting. It was Carter who initially supported them, gave them guns and training, so the idea of undercutting the Soviets there was all Carter (who actually considered it a war against godlessness). Reagan just continued the program. However, bin Laden got his early training and support almost entirely on Reagan's watch and with Reagan's policies paying for it to happen. Al-Qaeda was started through money siphoned off the financial support for the Afghan war effort. Like I said, an unnecessarily smelly can of worms to open. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was asked to speak my opinion on this discussion, but I've read through it all, and come to the conclusion that I don't fully understand what is being debated. It appears that neither side truly disagrees with the other on Reagan's part in the Cold War. We all agree Reagan had some role in the end of the Cold War, is that correct? But the fullness of his role is impossible to quantify. A single person's role in such a complicated event is almost entirely a matter of opinion. The Cold War legacy (and Reagan's as well) is certainly so diverse, it is unsurprising that the very thought of any action can incite extreme feelings on both ends of the spectrum: from heated anger to glowing admiration.

This is not a math problem with a definitive answer. Certainly we can all find verious sources to support our opinion on such a matter, but just as certainly we could each accuse one another of trumping up or invalidating Reagan's role. And, despite our best wishes, there is no possible way of solidly defining the extent of his role, be it a great extent, or a very little one. No matter how many sources and authors any of us find to back our arguments, it does ultimately come down to "do you think Reagan had a significant role in ending the Cold War?" It does not come down to "Did you know Reagan had a significant role?" or "Did you know Reagan had no significant role?" because the matter will never be able to quantified.

As to what to do about this, I am not sure I can say, since I am still confused about the above debate. Stanselmdoc (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To help you out Stansel: I have proposed an addition to the page which can be found here. I wanted to get opinions on the content and change phrases that editors feel need to be changed. I do ultimately plan on inserting it soon, that's why I would like comments/suggestions on the material. The second part of this discussion involves a reference to Reagan's cold war legacy in the lead. I think it's necessary, frankly, and I've proposed something above, however it has undoubtedly come under fire because of POV concerns and the two different opinions matter. Feel free to comment on both. Happyme22 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that does help. I left a contribution to the Sandbox page as well. Here, I will respond with my opinion on the Cold War legacy in the lead. If we all agree that Reagan had some part to play in the end of the CW, I don't see a problem with adding something like "In his second term Reagan was challenged by a number of administration scandals, notably the Iran-Contra affair; however, he also played a role in ending the Cold War." Thoughts? Stanselmdoc (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to a request for comment. To begin with, for disclosure, I'm a registered Democrat who considers his politics left-of-center. That said, I would support inclusion of a section about Reagan and the Cold War. It's a pivotal part of his presidency, and there's no denying that it came to an end shortly after he left office. Where I would draw the line is at words like "almost certainly." With respect, Happyme22, that strikes me as way to POV. However, you are right to say that similarly to the economic boom of the 90's being attributed to Bill Clinton, the end of the Cold War is often attributed to Reagan. Just back it up with references, and be sure to include that you are reporting on a point of view from secondary sources. That should comply w/ Wikipedia policy. BTW, Happyme22, I find it funny you mentioned Clinton and the economy, because that is usually messed about with on the Clinton article, and was recently as well. So have faith -- this is certainly not something exclusive to Reagan. Indeed, any Wikipedia article with some sort of political aspect is bound to be an editing battleground at some point. SpiderMMB (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So my lead proposal is coming across to most as too POV. That's okay, for this is what discussions are for! How about something like this:

"...The president ordered a massive military buildup in an arms race with the Soviet Union, foregoing the previous strategy of détente. He publicly portrayed the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and supported anti-Communist movements worldwide. He negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals; these actions are considered his contributions to the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union, occuring in 1991. Reagan left office in 1989; in 1994 the..."

It needs work, but it's probably less POV. Happyme22 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further comments on the lead and/or sandbox? If not, I'm going to insert into the lead a version similar to the one above. Happyme22 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Reagan's role in the Cold War aside, the comment in the third paragraph "Reagan's second term was marked by the ending of the Cold War" is plainly, factually incorrect. Especially compare this with wikipedia's Cold War article which states: "The Cold War ... [lasted] from the mid-1940s until the early 1990s.". Reagan's term ended in 1989. Exbuzz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line

According to Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times 'Debunking the Reagan Myth', "By the late 1980s...and the poverty rate had actually risen." This important and most damning fact deserves incorporation. But where in the article should it be placed? And how should it be phrased and reference supported to ensure it is not deleted by the fans? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html Engleham (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: "most damning fact" this seems to betray a pretty heavy negative Point of View. Also, Krugman is a partisan Op Ed commentator. A better reference will have to be found for this fact. I suggest the U.S. Census Bureau. As to where it should go? Probably the Reaganomics section, or the Reaganomics article. Also, in order to provide context, it would be very interesting to have a graph of the poverty rate over the last 50 years.--Paul (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the U.S. Census Bureau poverty rates from 1980 to 1989:

1989 12.8

1988 13.0

1987 13.5

1986 13.6

1985 14.0

1984 14.4

1983 15.2

1982 15.0

1981 14.0

1980 13.0

Krugman appears to be mistaken. And here's an interesting graph: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2006.--Paul (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying those most interesting statistics. They do indeed appear to contradict Krugman's assertion. Engleham (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Both should be included, as counterpoints to each other. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How? Krugman asserted something that, according to government monetary figures, is false. What's there to include? That a New York Times op-ed columnist (and that's putting it nicely) claimed the poverty rates rose and government figures proved it to be incorrect? That seems pretty pointless. Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed, theres nothing to include here, OpEds are often bad sources. SJMNY (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these facts should be put on Krugman's page. (Okay, just kidding).--Paul (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Epidemic

I've just removed this section from the article. Though well-written, it needs citation, and notability in relation to the Reagan article needs to be discussed. though Reagan did not create AIDS or evilly wish it to spread to and kill off the gay community (after all, Reagan was an actor), his inaction and silence for six years (for whatever reason) allowed a public health crisis to expand exponentially. The information removed is boxed below. It needs citation and consensus as to tone and notability to be reintroduced to the article.

Although AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981, it was only in October 1987 that President Reagan publicly spoke about the epidemic. By the end of that year 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. How could this happen? How could Reagan not say anything? Do anything?

The Reagan administration’s reaction to AIDS is complex and goes far beyond Reagan’s refusal to speak out about the epidemic. A great deal of his power base was born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a reactionary social agenda that included a virulent, demonizing homophobia. In the media, people like Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God and that the gay rights movement had to be stopped. In the Republican Party, zealous right-wingers, such as Representative William Dannenmeyer (CA) and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), hammered home this same message. In the Reagan White House, people such as Secretary of Education William Bennett and Gary Bauer, his chief domestic advisor, worked to enact it in the Administration’s policies.

In practical terms this meant AIDS research was chronically underfunded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute for Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982, the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS, but $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease. At that point over 1,000 of the 2,000 AIDS cases reported resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire’s Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First off I see a lot of POV issues with it (bolded):

Although AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981, it was only in October 1987 that President Reagan publicly spoke about the epidemic. By the end of that year 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. How could this happen? How could Reagan not say anything? Do anything?

The Reagan administration’s reaction to AIDS is complex and goes far beyond Reagan’s refusal to speak out about the epidemic. A great deal of his power base was born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a reactionary social agenda that included a virulent, demonizing homophobia. In the media, people like Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God and that the gay rights movement had to be stopped. In the Republican Party, zealous right-wingers, such as Representative William Dannenmeyer (CA) and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), hammered home this same message. In the Reagan White House, people such as Secretary of Education William Bennett and Gary Bauer, his chief domestic advisor, worked to enact it in the Administration’s policies.

In practical terms this meant AIDS research was chronically underfunded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute for Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982, the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS, but $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease. At that point over 1,000 of the 2,000 AIDS cases reported resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire’s Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.

The AIDS issue is already covered in a paragraph in the "Second Term" section, as well as in the Reagan presidency article. Could the one paragraph be expanded? Well, I suppose because it only mentions Rock Husdon (?). I'd include how much the admin funded it and lack thereof (with cites of course). --Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy, I didn't mean to imply that with citations it would pop right back in, as I am aware of the POV issues it has. I am say, however, that it needs citation and rewrite before we can even consider including it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To all editors: Reagan TFA

To all editors: Please watch for vandalism and revert any in the next 24 hours that this article is featured on the main page. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No controversy section?

Just to let me know: how come there's no open controversy for such a debated topic? I mean, outside USA Reagan is not seen as some sort of super-hero, on the contrary; there's some link to the Reagan administration scandals, but I fear someone liked to shot it in the main page a true patriotism. There are lots of similar page, like the one on the current Pope, but that's a tad too much... --3YE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.98.67 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITICISM, the criticisms of Reagan are incorporated throughout the article. It is poor writing style, and not recommended by the MOS, to group them altogether in one section at the bottom. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, take the time to actually read an article. We aren't here to chew your food for you and spit it out into a tv dinner segregated tray. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating

...ranks highly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating.

Really? He's being compared to all of 'em? Who's comparing him to James Madison, or Andrew Jackson, or Teddy Roosevelt? What are the sources? I'm skeptical that Jackson's contemporaries had enough clairvoyance to compare Old Hickory with Reagan, and equally skeptical that Reagan's contemporaries knew all that much about Jackson. I urge editors to remove this unsourced, irrelevant claim. (I'd be bold, but you have enough trouble with the article being featured.) -- OtherDave (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in terms of approval rating: there's this rating of presidents from February 2007; There's this from The Boston Globe which says Ronald Reagan's approval rating has jumped to from 64% to 73% in his post presidential years; There's this from C-Span and this from CBS.

In terms of historians rating the presidents, there's this study from 130 history professors, The Wall Street Journal, NBC, and The Federalist Society. There's this as well (see page six for a graph). There's no doubt Reagan is up there. Happyme22 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No criticism section?

No explicit criticism section? Is wikipedia inflicting self-censorship on a altar of fake 'quality'? Since when is legitimate criticism and scholarship 'low quality'? Isn't it actually the opposite? --Leladax (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRITICISM; in well-written articles, criticism and controversy is supposed to be woven seamlessly throughout the article, rather than separated into a POV fork/section, as it is in this article. I am not aware of featured articles with criticism sections, unless it is, for example, criticism/reviews of literary or artistic work. Also, this question was asked two sections above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Sandy put it a lot better than I would have - I would have invited you to perform a physical impossibility. Thank goodness for Sandy's diplomacy.

Criticism has to conform to the wiki format. That means reliably-sourced, reliably-cited work that's notable. You will note that the rest of the article is heavily cited, especially on those matters of contention. If you think something is needed, tell us what it is. even better, roll up your sleeves and find the sources yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting (in agreement with the above) that this article is hardly a hagiography or lacking in criticisms. It even mentions "administration scandals, notably the Iran-Contra affair" in the intro. The "Legacy" section also covers the debate over his legacy from both sides quite well. --Delirium (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way: I want to find criticism in a separate section for fast reference. I am not allowed by your logic. Blindly posting policy is not an argument. And by the way, criticism isn't the same with controversy. --Leladax (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you want a POV magnet, fork, split rather than a well written article? One person's criticism is another person's praise; who defines criticism? All aspects are woven together in a well written article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you READ through the article, use your comprehension and context skills, and determine the criticisms that you can pull from that? Do you you want Wikipedia to write your term paper, or outline your talking points for you? 209.173.211.254 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)shane

The absence of a criticism-centric section is not indicative of censorship; it's merely in keeping with WP policies on biographies. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think I am to blame for a bit ' the Snippy that's entered this section. Sandy is right (and has done so more politely than I): the article is indeed well-written (if I can brag, somewhat) - so well, in fact, that a better overall picture has been constructed of the subject (by no means ideal, but that's another argument) wherein criticism and praise can be viewed side by side, rather than broken into sections of pro and con. I largely defend the choices made for the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the hypocrisy of a main argument used and re-used here amusing. "If you want a criticism section, read the whole of it". How rude since it's in fact illogical. How about you read through a criticism section and then incorporate it to a logic you like. There is no layout that`is "best", the most that matters is information; if it's included and the structure is concise that's fine; and don't try to say "your" structure is "better" because that's only an opinion and I don't think my opinion on it is better for you, I know you may find better another structure. For others a criticism section may be a more concise structure element. By the way, you love quoting the rules, here's one: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules --Leladax (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha - nice try. Ignore all rules doesn't work here, because a rule does help us improve this article and that rule is WP:CRITICISM. According to that page, "Explicitly calling such statements 'criticism' in the text of the article without any serious reason to do so can result in a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." That's exactly the case here. Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)#

Your fanaticism hurts wikipedia. --131.227.208.46 (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I always hesitate to get in the middle of a fight, but I can already see this getting petty.

If WP:Ignore all rules is a rule, then don't we have to ignore it sometimes too? Yes. The rule states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Leladax, these people aren't trying to suppress criticism on Ronald Reagan, they've just implemented it throughout the article. This is one of the ways to do it on Wikipedia.

Vandalism is the only thing that hurts Wikipedia. Any good-faith edit is simply an attempt to help- so calm down. Especially you, Mr. IP-address, you're getting a touch too personal. We've all got our opinions, and we're all fanatics about something.

Now, Leladax, don't go accusing people of hypocrisy unless you have explicit proof of it (sorry, you don't here), since they're following WP:Criticism.

However! WP:Criticism is "an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." WP:Criticism isn't a rule, or a guideline. It's an opinion!

Therefore, each article needs to work out its own way of implementing criticism (whichever way works best), and this one has done it. That doesn't mean criticism sections are wrong, or that they can't be used somewhere else! It just means that they aren't used here. So please, quit the time-wasting bickering and just contribute to the actual article. Thank you!(ApJ (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

I truly don't even know why we are having this debate. Editor after editor has repeatedly stated that a seperate criticism section is a bad idea. First there's WP:CRITICISM, there's also the third FAC, which failed, largely because of sources and problems, including a criticism section (see the fourth oppose down). That even says "per Jimbo", meaning User:Jimbo Wales recommend getting rid of criticism sections as well. Forking off the criticism is a bad idea. Happyme22 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Iran/Contra section

A minor edit. The ICJ ruling was that it was illegal for the US to attack Nicaragua in the way it had been doing, not that it was illegal for the US to sell arms to Iran (Iran wasn't even mentioned.) See the Wikipedia Article Nicaragua_v._United_States. I'm going to change it. Steve3742 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you find a few very strong citations to back up that statement, and offer them here first. I suggest this not because you have to pass muster (so to speak) but instead to give everyone a heads up, and ensure that the edit is protected by others once it is introduced. Using the discussion page as a forum of consensus prevents edit-warring. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead summary

The statement that Reagan was relected after surviving an assassination attempt and ordering a "controversial military action in Grenada" in the opening summary makes connections not supported within the article itself. In what way are either of these connected to the reelection as opposed to a myriad of other issues, nearly all more recent than the 1981 assassination attempt? In what manner is the invasion of Grenada controversial? The unanswered deletion of the request for documentation of this disjointed assertion because "no citations in the lead" if true is handy, to say the least, for any POV, and undocumented, that's exactly what the claim is.--Buckboard 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your confusion - the sentence in question could stand to be improved, and information as to why the invasion was controversial (take a look at the Invasion of Grenada) article; maybe you can create a statement to add to the article that notes why it was controversial). If you want, we can work out here how to best fix it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the obscene language in the opening paragraphs?

cunt licker etc. - what have these words got to do in an article concerning ronald reagan? i don't agree much with his policies, nor do i respect him very much, but that's below wikipedian standards.

Sent a protection request. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism that was reverted. One user has been blocked, the other warned. Protection is very rarely given to Todays featured article. Woody (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but considering the onslaught of IP-vandalism which surfaced since this article appeared on the front page, semiprotection may be warranted at least for the next few days. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would concur w/Soco here. Why waste our collective time fixing what some 12-year-old (or some nut with the restraint of such) when we can prevent all but the "established" editor Bag o' Crazy™? Let's send the request. If necessary, post a link to the request here, so we can all weigh in. Maybe a bunch of editors saying, 'hey, lend a hand' might do the trick. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I denied the request on WP:RFPP. We don't usually protect the TFA as laid out at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. In essence, we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yet if we block new users from using our most prominent article, then we would be giving out the wrong impression. There are enough people watching this page to revert quickly, I see a maximum of 3 minutes between reverts. Woody (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) I asked him to reconsider here. Dealing with reasoned complaints is a lot less time-consuming than dealing with drive-by a-nonsense - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Scandals vs controversies

I just have a question. Reading over this today, I jumped over to President Clinton's page and noticed a difference. Why are things described as "Scandals" on Reagan's page, but as "Controversies" on Clinton's page. Isn't this a double standard? Paul1967 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Scandal is defined as:

1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.

2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.

3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.

whereas controversy is defined as:

1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

2. contention, strife, or argument.

The matters concerning Reagan are considered scandals as they were actual, proven misdeeds. As well, they were often interconnected. With Clinton, all but the lying under oath about his adulterous affair with Lewinsky was never proven - ergo, no misdeeds concerning Whitewater, Vince Foster or the plot to assassinate the Jedi (;) ). Considering that a great many men tend to lie about adultery (part of the practice of adultery), the crime of lying about it seems somehow less severe than committing treason or violating Congressional sanctions about interfering with other countries (in direct violation of the Church Commission results). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Clinton should be scandals as well, but that's not for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is preferred on Wikipedia, to keep neutrality. The word scandal implies something one way or another, a controversy does not.

A scandal, according to Wikipedia, is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both.

A controversy, according to Wikipedia, is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.

A scandal doesn't have to be based on facts, either.

In my opinion, "controversy" is a better term to use because it is neutral. (ApJ (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

ah, I thought Paul was just pointing out the double standard. The Reagan "scandal" article is labeled "scandal" even though it includes what are "controversies" by Clinton standards, while Clinton's are labeled controversies, even when they include "scandals". Double standard needs to be sorted out in both places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I say we get to it! ;) (ApJ (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Not so fast, my pally. Not that I happen to agree with your definitions, but could I ask you to provide a link to them? Utilizing the term 'controversy' is inaccurate, esp. when both my and your definition of scandal indeed accurately defines the events described as such within the article. That some of the scandals arising out of the Reagan Administration were in fact real events (sidestepping your definition for the moment) that were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be scandals. Perhaps the passage of time and subsequent investigation is the necessary distance between controversy and scandal, but I don't think so. As controversy is not an accurate (or neutral) term to describe the events thusly classified as scandals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not I, said the little red chicken. On political articles, I only revert vandalism and clean up MOS and citations. I guess perjury isn't a scandal :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

depends on the results if the perjury. If someone is lying about cheating on his wife, it isn't quite the same thing as lying to circumvent the will of Congress, now is it?

It should also be pointed out that numerous references and citations used in the article refer to the incidents as scandals, not controversies. It isn't the work of some 'vast, left-wing conspiracy'. It's been cited without complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, my pally. Not that I happen to agree with your definitions, but could I ask you to provide a link to them?

Scandal, controversy. "According to Wikipedia . . ."

Utilizing the term 'controversy' is inaccurate, esp. when both my and your definition of scandal indeed accurately defines the events described as such within the article.

Not true. "Scandal" implies there was purposeful wrong-doing involved, "controversy" means there was a disagreement (about whatever subject) between two parties. Controversy is easily the more neutral.

Which Reagan "scandals" were proven? Forgive me, I'm not here to add knowledge about Reagan's administration, I'm here to learn more and to help keep vandals out.

Also, the Clinton adultery scandal is indeed a scandal, yet it is said by Wikipedia to be a controversy (and rightly so). Why? Because that neutrally describes it. All scandals are controversies, but not all controversies are scandals. (ApJ (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

ApJ, you shouldn't cite what Wiki considers a scandal or controversy to the Wiki article, which is not a reliable source or a policy/guideline page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

this is why i used Dictionary.com as an external definition source. I think the user is somewhat new, but his heart is in the right place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so Wikipedia's definition of those words is wrong? Well, alright, but there's always the guideline page Wikipedia:Controversial articles.

I am indeed new, and still learning the rules and regulations. But it seems to me that scandal is one of those words that just implies too darn much, and it also seems to me that Wikipedia agrees. I could be wrong, however. (ApJ (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

The problem with using a Wiki article definition (as opposed to a policy or guideline page) is that anyone can edit Wiki articles, and what's there now might not be there five minutes from now :-) Wiki is not a reliable source. Guideline pages are theoretically more stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes sense.

My basic point is, scandal is a word usually used when someone does something provably wrong (not saying that that's right, but in my experience that's how it is). However, many people disagree over whether or not Reagan's actions with, for example, the Soviet Union, were right or wrong. If its a proven crime or misdeed, it's a scandal. If otherwise, it is a controversial issue, is it not? Therefore, would this not be a controversy, because it is debated and not provably wrong? (ApJ (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

And your basic definition is accurate. Reagan's administration was proven guilty of wrongdoing, as per the Iran-Contra Hearings. Several of his people did time or lost their jobs because of it. There were other scandals,a nd other people lost their jobs, but Iran-Contra is especially significant because it out and out broke the law. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, every Reagan "controversy" is included in the Reagan "scandal" article (which needs to be separated and retitled), while Clinton "scandals" are labeled "controversy". Inconsistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm... was it actually Reagan that did it, or others in his administration (or both)? That is definitely a scandal, you are right (again, I don't know a whole lot about Reagan besides the Cold War stuff they teach us in school). If the administration was convicted of wrong-doing on the Iran-Contra subject, it is by definition a scandal.(ApJ (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Clinton was proven guilty of perjury when he admitted it in front of the whole world. Don't try to minimalize what Clinton did to explain the irregularities between this page and his. The real discussion needs to occur on the Bill Clinton article as to why "controversy" is used instead of the proper "scandal". --STX 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberals have controversies; conservatives have scandals. I get it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.211.254 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment like that only makes your argument look bad. Please stick to facts, and contribute. Thank you. (ApJ (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Go to the Clinton pages. Everything he has done that could be considered a "scandal" is titled as a controversy. The Whitewater Controversy page even opens with a line stating is as a scandal. Perjery is a scandal, having FBI files in the White House is a scandal, firing the entire Travel Office is a scandal, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.211.254 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ApostleJoe is correct, anon user 209. This ain't the place to uncork the ranty about Clinton. The comparison offered is different in scale and scope, and - put simply - is not apt. Objectively, bitching about the replacement of the White House china is a controversy. Blowing off Congress aren't quite in the same category as lying to Congress about getting blown. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon, even if you're correct (lying to Congress is and was a scandal), this article isn't the place for it. Clinton's article needs to be fixed, and the Reagan "scandal" article needs to be separated, retitled, etc. If Iran-Contra is a "scandal", everything else in that article is a controversy by Clinton standards. Those issues need to be taken up on those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And I imagine you will find us there, discussing these matters there as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So do we move the Reagan administration scandals page to Reagan administration controversies, or what? Happyme22 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If Iran-Contra already has an article, I'm unclear why everything else is rolled into a "scandal" article, particularly if Clinton is treated differently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there were more scandals than Iran Contra, but none as significant. I don't even think anyone cares about the others, but they have to be mentioned (if only in a single paragraph on the scandals page) because they did occur. The scandals article needs a complete rewrite, however, and the Iran Contra article could use a lot of work.

But Clinton and Reagan should not be treated differently even though the Clinton admin dealt with far more scandals than the Reagan admin did. But they have to be consistent and it should be one or the other: scandals or controversies. Maybe it's best to bring the issue up on Clinton's talk page? Or at least provide a link to this discussion from there? --Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I just took a closer look. Of course, depending on what standard we're using (Clinton or Reagan), Arcayne indicates we use "scandal" when people were convicted. So one section of the Reagan "scandal" article (maybe two, is he responsible for what people did after his term?) would need to be moved out of that article, and then the inconsistency with Clinton issues being called "controversy" has to be taken up elsewhere. I'm aware there are still people who argue that lying to Congress isn't a scandal. <shrug> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the wording I used was proven, not 'convicted'. Were that the case, The Great Communicator might have ended his career as the Great Jailbird. ;)

Haha - Ronnie sure didn't lie to Congress.... But again, is it best to bring up the issue on Clinton's so we can decide which should be used? Happyme22 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

True, Reagan didn't lie to Congress...about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. About other things, well, that's debatable. :0 - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Off the mainpage; I'm checking out now. My best to all :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that by using the word "scandal" we have stirred up some controversy... :P

Scandal should be used when someone is convicted of something, or looks guilty of some sort of wrong-doing. A controversy should be used in the sense of "controversial action" or "controversial statement", meaning that while people don't agree about the issue, it isn't a crime/misdeed or supposed crime/misdeed.(ApJ (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

WOW, I didn't think I would stir up so much "controversy" on my first Wikipost. :P

I would agree with the position that a scandal is a proven crime. The Iran Contra was proven, the perjury was proven, the FBI files being pulled were proven.

However, did Hillary hire Craig Livingston? That is controversial. "This might be a good example because there actually wasn't any crime in hiring him. It was just not the brightest thing in the world."

I noticed that the Clinton page has been changed to say Scandals.

Another thought, we have the Reagan "Administration Scandals". I am not sure like the idea of having a separate page for overall administration problems. Many of the Clinton scandals/controversies (6) have their own pages, while the Reagan ones are almost just footnotes. Only the Iran Contra has its own page. There has to be more too them.

I also think that only scandals/controversies that the presidents were directly involved in should be on their page. Have the admin scandals listed and linked. This would cut down some on the length of their pages.

Paul1967 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think there were very many controversies/scandals in the Reagan White House other than Iran-Contra, and that was more the doing of these guys. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, it involved Reagan, just like former President Clinton's affair involved Hillary.

Before yesterday I had never known Reagan had even had any dealings with Iran... but I'd also never learned in school that Bill Clinton had an affair while in the White House. Sure seems like a lot of people don't teach all the history these days. (ApJ (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Lol, Thank God that Wikipedia is here to supplement our educational gaps. Lotsa smart folks here, even if they are politically bent. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Name in infobox

Isn't the standard project style to put the common name in the infobox (same as the title of the article) and the full name in the lede? Given that, shouldn't the infobox simply read "Ronald Reagan?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Take a gander at the articles for other US presidents. You will note that the infobox gives their full names, whereas the article name uses the most common usage of that name. It is the reason why Eminem's article is names such, and not by his full (actual) name of Marshall Bruce Mathers III, and why James_Earl_Jones uses his full name - it is what they are commonly identified as. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Homelessness

Why isn't there anything here, or at least in the "Presidency of Ronald Reagan" and "Reagan administration scandals" articles, on the homelessness issue? His presidency is widely criticized for its economic and social welfare/hospital policies that are widely alleged to be responsible for the way the rate of homelessness boomed during his terms. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. Happyme22 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not. The word "homeless" doesn't appear in the articles "Ronald Reagan", "Presidency of Ronald Reagan", or "Reagan administration scandals". -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent opportunity to seek out some solid citations speaking to the impact of Reaganomics on homelessness. I am sure there is stuff out there. Go forth and research, Avatar. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not that confident in my ability to make a good contribution of that type. There definately are the sources, though. The widespread nature of this topic makes me suspicious that its inclusion to something as high profile as a featured article or a major spinoff to a featured arcle has been supressed by certain editors and I'd be wasting my time. It's so famous a criticism that just a couple nights ago, Jon Stewart joked that "the house that Reagan built" is a structure started from the top, and supported by a foundation of the homeless. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect in saying that this article is protected by "certain editors" (and I'm guessing you mean me). Jon Stewart, a comedian, is hardly a reliable source a well. Dig up some facts on homelessness and it can go with all the negative stuff about Reaganomics. --Happyme22 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, being a comedian doesn't mean they cannot be reliable. It would be like saying that former actors cannot be honest. ;)

Seriously though, Avatar, there is enough recrimination in the topic without you suggesting that editors suppress info. Sport, do you think that I would even let that happen? Ask anyone here: I am a f***in' tiger when it comes to ensuring that the article stays neutral, and I take as much offense that Hap is a shill for the Right as he does. Knock it off.

Ahem, moving on: if you are not confident about your ability to put citations into a written format, maybe you can just gather the citations about the subject and place them here, and we can assemble them. Remember though, that blogs, and overt partisan hackery is not reliable. You might find yourself putting statements together from those citations yourself. Contribute in the way you can. If you want something about homelessness mentioned in the article, you need to make the effort to see that its included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly never called Stewart a source, I was just stating an example for how notable and persistent this criticism was. But Hap assumes I mean him, and so do you, so... ya'll said it, not me. Just a couple days ago, an edit about proxy wars in Central America was reverted as uncited, but the very existence of the Iran-Contra scandal makes it self-evident, and Iran-Contra is well-cited. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be unaware of this, but nothing is self-evident in Wikipedia. Citations are required for everything. I welcome you to find some reliable ones and put them here in the discussion page. I'll help you fix them into paragraphs and work with you so you learn how it works and all, if you want. But you need to do the work, not cast aspersions who don't doit for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Er... if you know anything about Iran-Contra, which you do if you read the sources (or other material covering it), it can fairly be described as the administration contributing to proxy wars. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that. If the sources don't use the words exactly, well, that's comperable to a copyvio issue 'cause a proxy war is the same damn thing. I understand your point regarding me needing to contribute if I want the homelessness issue included, and I haven't argued on that subject for some time. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) With respect, it is not our job to evaluate the reasonableness or level of couth on the part of our readership. We do not chew the food for them; we present the best possible, reliably cited information and allow them to make up their own minds. Wikipedia articles are not persuasion pieces. We are not trying to convince anyone of anything (except, perhaps, that our subject is interesting enough to write about), and we shouldn't try.
I am glad that you understood my point about contributing, and I look forward to seeing what you can pull together. As I think homelessness rose during his presidency (or at least, perception about homelessness rose during that period due in part to Mitch Snyder), it's a worthwhile subject to at least explore for notability. Remember though - Reagan wasn't Dah Debbil. Nor was he 'Christ Returning to the Ranch'. Comments about him tend to go further when they avoid these extreme viewpoints. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cold war image

Okay so User:Halgin inserted a cover of The Economist magazine with "The mean who beat communism" as the title and Arcayne removed it suposedly per WP:WEIGHT. I'm not so sure that's a great claim to remove it by, but let's discuss the image in context to the section here. I'm neutral on its inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it allows for undue weight to be placed on the contention that Reagan was the grand poobah behind the end of the Cold War. I mean, next to a picture of Reagan is the title "The Man Who Beat Communism". I am thinking that a picture is worth a thousand words, and this one supplies undue weight to the pro-poobah argument. There are tons of images in the article already, and the text allows for an objective view of both viewpoints. An image that lends more weight to one side of a contended position than the other is not balanced, and is therefore undue weight. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing I liked about it was its striking ability to relate to the section. But it only presented one side's view; here lies the problem. I searched the Time magazine archives for any other potential covers having to do with Reagan and the Cold War, provided they can be uploaded to Wikipedia under the fair use magazine guideline. Some options: Visiting Moscow, First meeting with Gorby, or Beginning talks with Gorby.

The caption of the Economist image could be changed to present a more neutral POV of the image, which could possibly work as well. Perhaps something like "The June 12, 2004 issue of The Economist featuring Reagan and titled "the man who beat communism". How much Reagan actually contributed to the fall of communism is debatable, however." Or we could go for option three and forget all the potential images, leaving it be. I think the detailed, two paragraph expansion provides room for a potential image, though. Thoughts? --Happyme22 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced that the undue weight of the Economist cover cannot be undone with a reworked caption. However, I do think that the third image you suggested might be objective enough to use in the Cold War subsection of Legacy. It displays a willingness to talk that wasn't really there all that often in earlier years. However, you have something of a mountain to climb geting fair use permission to use the cover. Good luck. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your position. President Ronald Reagan contributed to the end of the Cold War and to the fall of communism. Being the issue just after he dies it talk to his legacy and shows that the level this magazine beleives. If many believe it has undue weight in the article I will not put it back. Would talking about it and providing a link to it, provide undue weight? I'm not sure the Time covers talk to the legacy since he is still president. How about photo of the part of Berlin Wall at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library or one of Reagan in Berlin after the wall came down? That would talk to the cold war legacy with a more Neutral point of view. (Halgin (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)).

Good point about the Time covers. I still think because The Economist is strikingly relative to what is being talked about in the section, and therefore is one of the rare magazine covers that does qualify for fair use, a change in the caption to include both arguments would be the best. Halgin, if you can obtain an image of Reagan in Berlin after the fall of the wall that satisfies the image criteria, please do so because that too sounds like a good option. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Best I can do is a Screenshot of a San Diego Union-Tribune web page with a copy of an aritlce of about Presidenct Reagan's Legacy. The aritlce is dated the day after he died, shows him tearing down the Berlin Wall in the 1990s. [[13]](Halgin (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)).

(←dent) Sorry, we cannot use it. WP is not a soapbox, and we don't advertise for newspapers. If you were able to get licensing for the image itself, there might not have been a problem (provided it met FU criteria). This image as is not usable. I will be removing it forthwith. And Halgin, Reagan's contribution to the fall of Soviet Communism is hotly debated, though not so prettily with glossy magazine covers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in a request to add a photo of the part of Berlin Wall at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on 9 February 2008. That would talk to the cold war legacy with a more neutral point of view. Nobody said anything, so I try to put it. However, it was removed. (Halgin (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)).

Halgin, thank you so much for your efforts to try and locate a photo, but I think that for now no image is best. A picture of former Reagan at the Berlin Wall chiseling away would be the best, but the only photos seem to be owned by the AP, thus violating Wikipedia's image use policy. And the Reagan Library Berlin Wall photo is interesting, but not very representative of anything specific. I agree with Arcayne on that one: it is probably better in the Reagan Library article. Happyme22 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagonomics - inflation

There is no mention about one of the achievments of the Reagan era - runaway inflation was contained. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is, in the Reaganomics section ("Reaganomics produced 16 million jobs and inflation significantly decreased.") Is that what you were referring to? Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. But I think the second part of the sentence part should be expanded with inflation statistics. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it could be expanded, and we could use some of that space to point out how the middle class shrank into the lower class, whilst the upper class was protected from taxation. I think its a balancing act, noting what to mention so as to remain objectively neutral. Out of all the things contentious about the Reagan presidency, I think the success/failure of his economics policies come in second (after that whole to-do about treason and lying to subverting Congress and all) in how hotly they are contended. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Persons of the Year 1976-2000

My latest edits, for those interested, were designed to clean up the footers, and convert the time persons of the year from a manual box to one that is templated. if you require a line by line documentation of what i have done, feel free to ask. --emerson7 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of these were already pointed out on your talk page.

1. Do not remove the featured article tag

2. Take the time to consider the categories you are shifting around. Was Reagan a player on the Chicago Cubs? Was the Time's Man of the Year four years in a row? Should there even be a category called "American ranchers?" I get that you are trying to clean things up, but some of that could include throwing some stuff out, and not just rearranging the clutter.

3. Do we really need succession boxes for his charitable positions held? I think its a bit much.

4. When you are reverted, you bring it to the discussion page, and talk about why those edits should be included, or at least ask why they were reverted. Someone who just re-adds an unchanged edit without discussion comes across like someone who doesn't care to discuss their edits. That tends to rub me - and others - the wrong way.

Btw, you are at your 3RR limit for the day.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

look, i can't be bothered with your paranoid pedantics...do whatever the hell you like. i'm done with it. --emerson7 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, Arcayne just pointed out what really happened in that one revison. I get that your intentions were good, but by moving the template boxes and other things, extra space that can be used just becomes wasted. It was also a bit odd that the FA temp was moved down; what difference does it make? Thank you for taking the time to create your Time Man of the Year template, but please be respectful of others when they disagree with or misunderstand one of your edits. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I've been cleaning out the crufty stuff from the categories. There appears to be some contention about a few of them:

• Category:American ranchers - Reagan doesn't qualify as a rancher of note. Look at some of the other fellows in this cat. Most had a lot of cattle, and made their livelihood from them. This doesn't describe Reagan.
• Category:Chicago Cubs - announcing for the Cubs is not the same thing as being a Chicago Cub. Th only other reason is if they had been announcing for the Cubs for so long that they were notably connected to them, like Harry Caray.
• Category:Shooting Victims - um, and millions of others. I know the fellow was a bit more well-known than a lot of folk, but it seems more prudent to list Reagan under: Category:Assassination_attempts. In fact, the article by this name is already there.
• Category:Americans of Scottish descent & Category:English Americans - if these are cruft-magnets, I don't know what is. There are literally millions of notable people who fit this bill. I consider the categories as useless as those Americans with Green Eyes; it has no bearing on who the person was.

I stand by the removal of these cats, as non-pertinent to an understanding of the subject of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well like it or not, Reagan fits in all of them. They all have something to do with his life. If you have a problem with the categories themselves (which you seem to have with the Americans of Scottish and English descent) take it up somewhere else. And I don't mean to be rude; all I'm saying is that Reagan does fit into them. Since assassination attempts is there, I agree that it would be the better one to categorize this page in, so shooting victims can go. Chicago Cubs I'm both ways on: true, he was not a player, but it was his job for part of his life. Happyme22 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the more I think about it, the more I say "they're just categories". I guess the non specific ones are just wasting space.-- Happyme22 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Davis Reagan?

It seems a little odd to list his wives in the infobox as Jane Wyman and "Nancy Davis Reagan". True that was her name after she married him, but I had to go and look at her page to find out if he really did marry someone who already shared his last name. Surely it is more usual to put the name of the person before their marriage? Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry about your confusion. I'll change it. Happyme22 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)