Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Handling of AIDS

Why is there no mention of the AIDS epidemic? Surely, it was a noteworthy event during his presidency. The Reagan administration's handling of the epidemic has been covered by multiple news outlets and scholarly sources over the years. It deserves mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.209.114 (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Edmund Morris is too controversial

the book Dutch by Edmund Morris is too controversial to recommend. Some of his key characters and dialogues are total fabrications, as the reviewers have pointed out. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be is Mr. Morris' method was odd but the material is there and backed by references. To reject his contribution to our understanding or Ronald Reagan does a disservice to the truth. Zedshort (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that lots of fake material is there too, which is why it is seldom recommended in history textbooks or indeed anywhere else. By contrast Morris' 3 volume bio of Teddy Roosevelt is superb and everyone in it really did exist and every anecdote actually happened. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Never heard about "fake material" controversy over the biography. Can you direct me to a good source that critiques the biography in that light? Are you suggesting that he simply made up facts about Reagen, or that the fictional device becomes difficult to separate from the biographical material? Zedshort (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding his screen actors guild presidency into Infobox

Some former presidents of SAG, such as Ed Asner, has the mention officeholder adding President of the SAG. Should we add this into Reagan's Infobox like the simple English Wikipedia about him for example. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Joan Quigley

Why is there no mention of Joan Quigley in the article? Here is an important and very relevant quote from Don Regan regarding her involvement with the Reagans:


"Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise" [[1]]


Shouldn't this information be in the article?? Quoir (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No--iT belongs in the Nancy Reagan article. Its only impact on RR was that Nancy has some days in his schedules changed. see Encyclopedia of Reagan Years Rjensen (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nearsightedness prevented Reagan from serving overseas?

This article claims that Reagan's nearsightedness "excluded" him from serving overseas during World War II. I've spoken with a number of U.S. soldiers who were nearsighted, and who wore glasses, and saw action overseas. The American Optometric Association estimates around 30 percent of the population is nearsighted. I really doubt that, during World War II, a relatively minor condition like nearsightedness really "excluded" anyone from serving overseas, (considering the large percentage of the population who is nearsighted). I believe this article is simply trying to gloss over the uncomfortable fact that Reagan was able to avoid military action overseas during World War II, even though he was reasonably able-bodied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.214.225 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is now according to the source given. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Reagan had a medical qualification which designated him as eligible for military service in a non-combatant slot only. It was a common designation for the time many thousands of men had the same classification, it had nothing to do with Reagan dodging service.Awotter (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

In the 1968 Presidential election, Reagan. who was by then the leader of the Republican Party's conservative wing, had become Richard Nixon's chief rival. In the Nebraska primary on May 14, Nixon won with 70% of the vote to 21% for Reagan and 5% for Rockefeller. While this was a wide margin for Nixon, Reagan remained Nixon's leading challenger. Nixon won the next primary of importance, Oregon, on May 15 with 65% of the vote and won all the following primaries except for California (June 4), where only Reagan appeared on the ballot. Reagan's victory in California gave him a plurality of the nationwide primary vote, but his poor showing in most other state primaries left him far behind Nixon in the actual delegate count. 69.120.0.230 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal life and non-marital relationships

This page should report Reagan's other relationships. His adulterous affair with Patricia Roc as his marriage was ending is relevant. Piper Laurie's claim that he seduced her when she was 18 and he was 39 has been published. Then there is the story of him and Liz Taylor having a relationship as well. Like most presidents, he had a healthy libido and was no saint.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide sources and quote what the sources say so that we can understand whether you are serious or whether you are just trying to push rumors and garbage into the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the material you removed. Obviously, sources aren't required for material on talkpages when there is no WP:BLP issue. If you'd spent a couple of minutes Googling the names in Carpo-Rusyn's comment you could have easily confirmed for yourself that the claims can be sourced. And I do think that you should have taken that step before removing another editor's talkpage comment.     ←   ZScarpia   22:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources then? It's not my job to do research for you or the other editor. Talk pages are not a bulletin board for idle chatter, scandal mongering, or pushing fringe theories. Please help the casual observer to distinguish legitimate suggestions from the usual bunkum. Jehochman Talk 00:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What is definitely not your job is deleting another editor's comments from a talkpage without a very, very good reason. Guidelines about when it may be reasonable to do so are given here. Which reason were you using? I don't see merely having suspicions of indulgence in idle chatter, scandal mongering or pushing a fringe theory about somebody dead listed. Note that it says: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I found a Daily Mail[2] source about the book which makes the allegations -- and when the DM says "But a new book, by ­British film historian Michael Hodgson, makes startling and dramatic new claims about him. If they are to be believed, Nancy might never have become Reagan’s wife, and Reagan might not have survived to enter the White House," expressing doubts as to the veracity of the tale, one would ordinarily think at least three times before adding it to any Wikipedia article <g>. Ditto the DM article about Piper Laurie[3]. The Daily Mail is a reliable source for a great many things, but not for "celebrity gossip" and especially when it expresses doubts about that gossip. Collect (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't always agree with Collect, but this time I do, fully. Wikipedia is not a collection of random gossip. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Moment of silence/ school prayer

In Reagan's state of the union address on January 25, 1984, he spoke of the importance of prayer in the schools. Two years earlier Reagan formally proposed a constitutional amendment allowing prayer in schools. Is there a reason there is no mention of this on the page? TM (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the weight given the topic in secondary reliable sources. His religion is cited, and "God" appears a number of times in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The amendment was proposed by Robert Byrd - presidents play no role in constitutional amendments. The issue is how significant Reagan's view on school prayer was. Probably not very much. TFD (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Collect and TFD. Thanks for your response. I am not referring to Reagan's personal religion as much as to his desire that religion, or some form of it, be brought into the schools. In his 1984 state of the union address, Reagan said: "And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land? America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. He is ours..." Also, see the NYT from May 18, 1982 here. Thanks. TM (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You need to show that the statement is significant. Reagan reached out to the Christian Right and presumably said lots of things to appeal to them. Why is this comment important? TFD (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You also would need to show that this was of particular significance. JFK said ""The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi TFD. This isn't a one off statement that could then be categorized as part of Reagan's reaching out to Christian groups. Rather, the issue of prayer/silent prayer/moment of silence, comes up repeatedly throughout Reagan's term in office. Hence, Collect, I'm not sure it can be compared to JFK's statments -- which indeed seems to have been more of a one off statement -- although Kennedy was a Catholic. See also NYT of December 17, 1982 here, which states "President Reagan advocated legalization of school prayer during his election campaign. And while he has concentrated on economic legislation since his election, he has repeatedly expressed his support of such measures." I think the above statements (three separate ones so far) show the significance of the issue to Reagan. Certainly from an encyclopedic/historic point of view, there should be some mention of Regana's openness/desire for some from of prayer/silent prayer or moment of silence at the beginning of each school day. TM (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Your use of the last piece of an article about a New Jersey proposal for "one minute period of silence" is pretty weak for inclusion in an article about Reagan. Collect (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is that? I would argue the opposite. The fact that the NYT, while reporting on a State issue, decided to bring in Reagan's view on the issue, shows of what significance it was to him. Does it not? Specifically their language here that Reagan "repeatedly expressed support for such measures." It is also hard to ignore Reagan's other, above mentioned, citations. Thanks. TM (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
From an historical point of view, I propose adding mention of Reagan's well-documented desire for some form of prayer in the schools. Thanks. TM (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
He did mention it and the RS give it a footnote is all. see this cite/footnote 2 Rjensen (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Rjensen. I have added the information. TM (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

There are three typos where Reagan's surname is spelt as "Regan" (under 'Marriages and children' and in Footnote 63). The article is semi-protected. Beyond my skills to fix it and I don't have time to upgrade right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn50 (talk • contribs)

I fixed them. Thanks for pointing them out. -- Calidum 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Funeral attendees

It should be mentioned that Prince Charles attended the funeral as the representative of Queen Elizabeth, who is the head of state in the UK. Tony Blair is mentioned, as he should be being the prime minister, but the PM is not the head of state. I'd fix it myself but I don't edit here and don't want to step on toes, especially as it's an FA, but I'd like to see this included. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
TDKR Chicago 101, all right then, I included him w/ a BBC reference that lists some of the attendees. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

took a hard line against labor unions

Clearly an error in the article, given the December 23, 1981 address.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=43384

Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening

Was an American Actor and Politician... most of the presidential pages just say "Was the XXth President..." I mean, its not really that important that he was a B actor, first and foremost should be that he was president, that's why people remember him. It should definitely be mentioned, but it seems like a sly jab honestly, this guy has a lot that can be debated or criticized, but frankly, that opening just dosent serve the page well.

Interesting. After looking around I would tend to agree. It should probably more like Eisenhower's intro:
  • Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He was a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; he had responsibility for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45 from the Western Front. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO. He was the last U.S. President to have been born in the 19th century.
That would make Reagan's:
  • Ronald Wilson Reagan was the 40th President of the United States (1981–89). Before his presidency he served as the 33rd Governor of California (1967–75) and was also an actor from the late 1930's to the early 1960's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it as mentioned. Whether it will stick only time will tell. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading GDP growth figure

The growth figure of 7.9% p.a. stated in the introductory paragraph includes inflation, which is misleading especially if not mentioned. It is customary to speak of real GDP growth using deflated (constant dollar) figures, which in this case would give an annual growth of 3.5% (1988 GDP 8,475 bn in 2009 USD, 1980 GDP 6,450 bn in 2009 USD). Bungler91 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate my point: if you use nominal dollars instead of deflated dollars, the GDP growth was even greater under the Carter administration (11.1% growth using nominal dollars, 3.3% using real (deflated) dollars)... thus one should conclude that Reagan presided over a decrease in GDP growth ! Bungler91 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Who funded Reagan's run for governor of California and President of the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.143.31 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

War on Drugs

Main article: War on Drugs

Reagan announced a War on Drugs in 1982, although drug arrests stayed relatively stable or decreased during the first 3 years of his presidency[FBI 1], and the crack epidemic would not become a problem until 2 years later . Though Nixon had previously declared a war on drugs, Reagan advocated more militant policies.[1] 73.157.99.183 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Alexander, Michelle (2010). The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-1595581037.
  1. ^ "Total estimated drug law violation arrests in the United States, 1980-2007". http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/tables/arrtot.cfm. Bureau of Justice Statistics. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Notes: If you look at the crack epidemic page itself, it states the beginning of the crisis as 1984. The previous content, stating that Reagan launched the current drug war in 1982 in response to the increasing crack epidemic, is inconsistent both with the other wikipedia page, and with the actual timeline of the crack crisis, as noted in Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow (2010). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.99.183 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2015‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

remark in 1968 about having been divorced

OK, we have in this Wikipedia article "He is the only US president to have been divorced". I do recall, but have no source available for, a remark he made in 1968 when he was seeking (or at least testing the water regarding) the Republican presidential nomination; he said he thought it was possible for a divorced man to become president. By then, he was married to 2nd wife (Nancy). That nomination ended up going to Richard Nixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation

Watching TV, Channel 23.1 Buffalo, I just heard an announcer say that the guest performer was Ronald Reagan on *Dick Powell's Zane Grey Theater* --- he pronounced Reagan as "Reegan" --- not "Raygan" . This announcer spoke over 50 years ago. Maybe he is right, and the name has been changed. Any thoughts? -r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.214.192.58 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The name can be pronounced both ways but we should use the one normally used for this person, which is what he preferred. Reagan himself mentioned it in his autobiography when he wrote about a discussion with Donald Regan. TFD (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

In the first sentence of § Death: “Reagan died of pneumonia, complicated by Alzheimer's disease at his home …”, please either remove the comma after “pneumonia” or add an appositional comma after “disease.” The phrase “complicated by Alzheimer’s disease” is an appositive, or else it’s saying that the disease was at his home rather than that he died at his home. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

In the right hand column, "Succeeded By: George H. W. Bush" is not a link. All other articles on past presidents have a link so making it easy to scroll through past presidencies successively. Can you guys make this a link too, and as such fix this inconsistency?

75.152.126.178 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:OVERLINKING, George H. W. Bush was VP under Reagan and is linked two lines above in the infobox. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

GCB?

Should Reagan have the GCB post numerals added onto his name as is done in other wikiboxes for those awarded postnumerals? 67.234.193.116 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Aidsgate

Why is not about how Reagan ignored AIDS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.74.106 (talk • contribs)

This page is about Ronald Reagan in general. Unless this is very significant it's not something that really belongs on Ronald's main biography page. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A page about this specific issue exists here: Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS David Rush (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina crucial to Reagan running in 1980

Rob Christensen of the News & Observer has said more than once that Reagan's 1976 victory in North Carolina was crucial to his decision to run in 1980. He actually suggests that one victory changed history here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

it marks the end of a losing streak -- and the start of a winning streak in primaries against Ford. But in terms of changing issues or strategy it had little impact on Reagan. Rjensen (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't agree with Mr. Christensen that without this victory there might have been no 1980 race?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
it's all pure speculation made years later & not based on any specific evidence. Note: if he had won before NC he probably would be the 1976 nominee. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many minor events that had they happened differently might have altered the course of events. TFD (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I checked with Hayward (2009) Mann (2009) and H.W. Brands (2013)--They all emphatically state that Reagan would have continued the campaign regardless of the outcome in North Carolina. That is, they reject the idea that Reagan was on the verge of dropping out. Jim Mann (2009): " Reagan angrily refused to consider dropping out." Mieczkowski (2005) says ". Ford's campaign grew confident of a victory in North Carolina, the next primary, and even cut back on advertising there." Ron Nessen (1978) says "The president's (Ford's) supporters meanwhile launched a heavy-handed effort to pressure Reagan to drop out of the race." Renée Schwartzberg (1991) says "Reagan was obstinate. The more he was pressed to quit, the more he insisted he would not." Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay. So I can't even include it as Christensen's minority view, obviously.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
All right, this is big. This article appeared after Nancy Reagan's death. If you accept as a source Reagan’s Revolution by Craig Shirley, this point of view would certainly qualify at least for the article about the campaign, even if it was a mere minority view. “Had Reagan lost North Carolina … his revolutionary challenge to Ford, along with his political career, would have ended unceremoniously.”— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with Billy Graham

I see there's nothing in the article or in the Talk page archive (at least as far as the search function is concerned) about Reagan's long-term friendship with Christian evangelist Billy Graham. Although reports of Graham's influence on Reagan's thinking and career seem to come more from Graham and Mrs. Reagan than from Reagan himself, it seems there might be at least something here worthy of inclusion in the article. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reagonomics and the economy, neutrality

This section ignores a great deal of economic context, including the end of oil crisis of 1979, and makes tendentious choices on which statistics to report, for example percentage of GDP, which shows very small differences. For criticism, only a weasel-worded brief mention about debt.--Louiedog (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit taking place 10 days after my addition of my above comment and the POV tag:
Removed old tag. Cannot tag-bomb an FA based on one line of vague, unsourced criticism with no specific suggestions for improvement. There is no ongoing discussion on talk, nor any new consensus to suggest that the FAC was less than thorough.
The issues remain. Please bring concerns to the talk page before reverting the tag. Thanks.--Louiedog (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
You have one sentence of vague, unsourced criticism, which you have neglected to expand on in your latest post of 600 characters. It's simply not true that the article contains no criticism of Reagan's economic policies save for "a weasel-worded brief mention about debt;" I almost wonder if we are both looking at the same page. Notwithstanding your objections, I looked the section over and concluded that it appears to meet the standard of quality one would expect for an FA, and certainly doesn't seem to be either pro-Reagan or against him. (Moreover, the section is about as detailed as it could possibly be for the purposes of a biography.) As we're the only ones paying attention, and you haven't suggested any concrete changes, there is simply no basis for permanently tagging an FA merely because you don't like it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The passage in question: Reaganomics was the subject of debate with supporters pointing to improvements in certain key economic indicators as evidence of success, and critics pointing to large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt.
This in the only criticism in the section and it is weasel worded, saying simply, "critics [who?] pointing to large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt". Again, remarks to to place economic results in context. The oil crisis just ended and the national debt tripled. These things warrant mention.--Louiedog (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The sentence in question is now sourced: Peter B. Levy (1996). Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years. ABC-CLIO. pp. 305–6.. Keep in mind this is a biographical article not an economics one. Loodog wants other topics mentioned but he fails to provide his RS. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Lifting from the Reaganomics article:
The national debt raised from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[1] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[2] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[3]
Another source talks a lot about the interplay of the economy and the availability of cheap oil.--Louiedog (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
--Louiedog (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Why won't the audio work?!

I clicked it a brazillion times, yet nothing happened. AydenBisesto (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

Before I criticize, let me say that this entry is very well developed and documented! The third paragraph of the lede seems to me to use charged language (incl. "only months after the end of his term") and pairings of dates to suggest a simple cause-and-effect: Reagan's speech brought the wall down and his presidency caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Shouldn't "only months" at least be changed to "five months"? ("Only" is not a neutral term. It minimizes the amount that follows it.) The idea of cause-and-effect is certainly problematic, as addressed in at least some detail in a later section of the entry. I know it's not possible to put everything in the lede, but these entries strive for neutrality. Jk180 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jk180: Sorry that you've been kept waiting for two months, but yes, it would be best to change this. It doesn't take anything away from the article in terms of quality, and it does seems a bit less POV. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Early life images

Is there a way to reorganize or remove one of the images on Reagan's early life section? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reagan's disapproval for January 20, 1989 is blank

Reagan's disapproval for January 20, 1989 is blank.

It should be 36%.

I'd do it myself, but I can't edit Semi-protected articles yet.


Thanks, Cnon20 (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Cnon20

Cnon20, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll do the edit if you provide me with a source I can cite. Alternatively, perhaps I can cite this[4] source, use its data (63% approval, 29% disapproval), and use the dates December 27-29, 1988, describing the time period as nearing the end of Reagan's presidency.
  1. ^ "Historical Debt Outstanding". U.S. Treasury Department. Retrieved September 8, 2010.
  2. ^ "Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink". The Washington Post. 2004-06-09. Retrieved May 25, 2007.
  3. ^ Cannon, Lou (2001) p. 128
  4. ^ Woolley, John; Peters, Gerhard. "Presidential Job Approval". Pesidency.ucsb.edu. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
Kekki1978 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Let's please do Kekki1978's suggestion because according to the chart, the 64% was the Retrospective average.


Date Event Approval (%) Disapproval (%) March 30, 1981 Shot by Hinckley 73 19 January 22, 1983 High unemployment 42 54 April 26, 1986 Libya bombing 70 26 February 26, 1987 Iran–Contra affair 44 51 January 20, 1989 End of presidency 64 n/a Career average 57 39 July 30, 2001 (Retrospective)[370] 64 27


Cnon20 (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Cnon20

Cnon20, done. Good catch. Kekki1978 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks, Kekki1978, that's much better! I've always wanted to make this the best, and now it is, thanks to you!


Cnon20 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Cnon20

" in 1994 Reagan disclosed his diagnosis with Alzheimer's disease earlier that year, appearing publicly for the last time at the funeral of Richard Nixon;" Shouldn't this be footnoted with a citation? If not, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.144.162 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Gay Beefcake Modeling

Shouldn't there be some mention of his short but prolific career as a 'Beefcake" model for the underground gay press during the late 1930's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:4001:4c20:910e:b76e:54a1:c7df (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox full dates for SAG presidency

Does anybody know the full dates for his presidency of the Screen Actors' Guild? Given consistency, the full MDY dates should be included. Google is to no avail.--Neve–selbert 02:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. I found the dates based on the reports in contemporary newspaper articles. I added the month and day, as well as the references.
Billmckern (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, Billmckern.--Neve–selbert 20:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Confusing use of the word "decline"

Can someone take the time to redo this sentence?

During Reagan's administration, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.4%, with the rate reaching highs of 10.8% in 1982 and 10.4% in 1983, averaging 7.5% over the eight years, and real GDP growth averaged 3.4% with a high of 8.6% in 1983, while nominal GDP growth averaged 7.4%, and peaked at 12.2% in 1982.[138][139][140] Where the subject is political and naturally controversial, the characterisation of "decline" with numbers that don't creates the impression the section is biased.

GDP should be broken into a separate sentence for comprehension and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.74.26 (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

Remove: He is the only U.S. president to have been divorced

110.74.207.42 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done I have not deleted it, but changed it from "only U.S. president to be divorced" to "first U.S. president to be divorced"
You have not explained your request, or cited an reliable source, but I assume you are referring to Trump. Trump will not be president until 20 January 2017 - so the original statement appears correct until then. By changing it to "first" the statement is correct now, and will remain correct after next January. - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

The article states that Reagan was the first president to survive being shot in an assassination attempt, and the source cited says the same, but what about Teddy Roosevelt? (The source even mentions the attempt on Roosevelt...) Is the idea that Roosevelt's gunshot wound contributed to his death seven years later? I just don't think this statement should be here. -Michellecornelison (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that it says "first serving president" would implicitly exclude Teddy as his assassination attempt was during the 1912 campaign rather than while he was in office. Though I agree, I'm not entirely sure the distinction is meaningful when defined that narrowly. It seems more like the answer to a trivia question than an actual relevant detail. G Shay (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes you are right. I didn't notice the "serving" in there, and I also forgot that Teddy got shot after his presidency. I thought it was when he was campaigning for his second term. Yeah I don't think the detail is doing anyone much good in there, but it isn't wrong, so we can just leave it be. -Michellecornelison (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There were two assassination attempts on Gerald Ford. For one of them the gun didn't go off. He survived anyway. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about whether Reagan is a statesman in the lead section

The consensus is to refer to Ronald Reagan as "an American politician", not "an American statesman". Editors supported "politician" per WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NPOV since "statesman" is a subjective term, while "politician" is an objective term. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead section refer to the president as "an American politician" or as "an American statesman"? Should, as JackofOz has stated, we source Reagan's being a statesman, or should we forgo a citation given the examples at John Adams and Mikhail Gorbachev?--Nevé–selbert 23:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

See my thoughts here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as Presidents personally campaigned (i.e. did politicking) for their office, since the late 19th century. I'd stick with using "American politician" for this article. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician -- as the WP:COMMONTERM, how it is by far more commonly said. I think the m-w definition "a usually wise, skilled, and respected government leader" fits, but Google says 'American politician' is see FAR more commonly with 'politician' than 'statesman' (11 Million:365 thousand, about 30:1 ratio). I think that may be as he is remembered for the political accomplishments and changing of Republican party so leadership and visionary in politician sense. It may also be the connotation of statesman meaning a long effort at the national level, whereas for all his impact he was at the national level for only 8 years. In contrast, George H. W. Bush is more closer in frequency said 'statesman' outside, (either 663:151 or 750:685 - tangles with which Bush...) due I think to his service to the nation being lifelong and his association to diplomacy. Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician. Per WP:Lead the lead is a summary of the article, and there are no statesman descriptions in the article. The word statesman is subjective, if over the years, Reagan is regarded as a statesman by historians, then the contents can be updated and statesman added to the lead. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering, is there a reason we cannot put "Politician, statesman, and actor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyman99 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician - as per all of the ideas explained above. Frankly, 'statesman' is as overused a term as 'hero'. I am very aware that the Cult of Reagan would name him savior of the human race if they could, and I think that statesman covers a wider range of activities that transcend the simple holding of office, and frequently, follow their term in governmental. office. There are very good (imo) arguments for naming Jimmy Carter a statesman; most of his accomplishments cam after his term as president. I know statesmen, sir - and Reagan was no statesman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with you, but it's not about whether you or I or anyone thinks Reagan was or was not a statesman. It's about what reliable sources say about it. That, plus, given the inherent subjectivity of this label, whether or not Wikipedia thinks it's a good idea to add this description to subjects' biographies. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw a section at (I think) WP:V, wherein someone was proposing that because we live in an age when creating fluff sources that turn the subject of said articles into giants of men that perhaps we needed to consider more closely the neutrality of the sources. I think a valid point can be made that we should arrive at a storng consensus for whatever sources we consider to call Reagan a statesman. After all, as previously noted, it wouldn't be above some sources to out Reagan as secretly being Batman, 007 and Moses all rolled into one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician Reagan was a career politician and statesman is a POV term. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician, per WP:NPOV. "Politician and actor" is fine, and accurate. "Politician, statesman, and actor" would be redundant as well as PoV, in the same way as "doctor and physician", "writer and novelist", "athlete and runner", etc. (all statesmen are politicians by definition).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician Reagan could be as easily described as an economic vandal, mediocre actor, and dementia-disabled bumbler, as he might be regarded as a 'statesman'. It's all opinion. However, the rules here matter more than any actual reality, so if someone has referred to him as a statesman somewhere in print/online (and it's not a Trump/4chan/alt.right bot/fake news site), you might reference that he has been called a statesman by X. It occurs to me that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesman doesn't really help; that page needs to be given some love by someone with a bent for political science (and the sources to make a good start). Invited to comment here by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Why would we need an article on "statesman"? It is a rather trivial term. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Why are we having this vote? Because 'statesman' is such a trivial term, I suppose. Maybe because it is a sub-speciality in political science. Maybe because only ignorant people think that what doesn't interest them personally is 'trivial'. Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician (and actor). I'm piling on to agree with other editors that "statesman" is POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I don't see wikt:Statesman as a loaded word in violation of WP:NPOV, but I don't see any particular reason to include it either. Most of the sources I can find specifically referring to Ronald Reagan as a "statesman" are from non-reliable sources like the Heritage Foundation. No strong opinions either way. AlexEng(TALK) 22:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician - Per WP:COMMONTERM and extensive arguments noted above. Meatsgains (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Statesman and Politician - I've changed my view on this. WP:COMMONTERM does not apply here, as this is not an article name or section headline. Meanwhile, MOS:OPENPARA has an entirely relevant example, in the case of François Mitterrand:

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (French: [fʁɑ̃swa mɔʁis mitɛˈʁɑ̃]; 26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was a French statesman, who served as President of France from 1981 until 1995.

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow this example. AlexEng(TALK) 02:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Statesman Politician has the sense of focusing on party operations, running many campaigns for many offices. and statesman has the sense of making high government policy. He's the latter. Compare Ike and Nixon: Ike very low on "political operations" and Nixon very high. Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician. We should be going by what reliable sources say. I don't see many sources that call Reagan a "statesman." CatPath (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician, as the term 'statesman' is more of a POV term, and he really hasn't been mentioned as a statesman in RSs. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 05:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do you say statesman is a POV term? AlexEng(TALK) 18:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The question is irrelevant. It's not whether it's POV or not, it's whether he's widely called that in RS. Churchill, FDR, Mandela et al are widely called "statesmen"; Reagan is demonstrably not. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that's a good point. To me, the distinction between "politician" and "statesman" is more or less meaningless, but I'm not interested in looking for RS specifically calling Reagan a statesman, so this is where I drop it. AlexEng(TALK) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician, which is not to say that statesman cannot be added, if it is shown a significant % of sources use that term. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician, as that is what the sources seem to use. "Statesman" also carries with it a peacockish connotation that I dislike, at least in the usage I have seen. Vanamonde (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician per MOS:TIES. Statesman is not commonly used in American English, certainly not as often as American politician. The language in this article should follow American English, per the MOS. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician: 'statesman' is a subjective term while 'politican' is objective. Ebonelm (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician "statesman" offers value judgment, "politician" does not LavaBaron (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Politician - accurate, supported by the sources, and non-peacockish. The alternate suggested term is none of those things. Neutralitytalk 04:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CatPaths revert

A user named @CatPath: reverted my edit on this page on the grounds that

  1. Noting that Reagan performed lower than most presidents and giving a source for that w.r.t. GDP growth was somehow "original research", since, and this is not a joke, "the source does not make this comparison". To the contrary, the source lists all performances in a graph. What is your definition of a comparison????
  2. Claiming that my edit asserted "a connection to Reagan's economic policy", which I did not do.
  3. That it was somehow not neutral. To the contrary, it was a statement of facts. That's always neutral.

Apparently, CatPath was kidding me. It was funny. Now stop disrupting Wikipedia. Thanks. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The material isn't in the body, so it shouldn't be in the lead. This is an FA, and you will need a strong consensus to justify such a stark departure from the norm of how every other Presidential biography is written.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
What "stark departure" are you talking about? And the argument on the body of the article is absurd as well (just read up what the lead section is originally designed for). I really have no time debating nonsense. Sorry. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to provide a concise summary of the body. I have no idea what you mean by "just read up what the lead section is originally designed for." Look at a few other Presidential biographies first to see the model for how this article's lead should look.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Mathmensch, here's the entire sentence that includes the text you're trying to add: "Over his two terms, his economic policies saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4%, and an average annual growth of real GDP of 3.4%, underperforming every Democrat president since World War II except Barack Obama." With this edit, you are clearly asserting that the GDP is tied to Reagan's economic policies. However, the source states explicitly that the underperformance of the economy during Republican administrations is not due to their fiscal or monetary (i.e., economic) policy. You are also being selective in your interpretation of the graph by ignoring data points that run counter to your claim. The graph provides separate GDP numbers for each of Reagan's two terms as president. It appears that you selected the number from Reagan's first term, the lower of the GDP figures, to make your misleading comparison. You ignored Reagan's second term, during which GDP growth outperformed the Carter years and Clinton's first term (and Obama's first term). It doesn't matter anyway - in their explanation of the graph, the authors do not single out Reagan to compare with the other presidents, and neither should this wikipedia article. CatPath (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me first make clear that your intentions and attitudes are totally transparent to me, if not to others. You falsely assert that I was the one making the connection between GDP growth and economic policy. This has been there before, and remains there. Good point! I will immediately implement your criticism and remove the connection to his economic policies, as the Princeton economist justified. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
And just for the record, since you "didn't understand" it: I evaluated the average of the presidency, not of any term, as clearly indicated by the sentence. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No, let me make it clear. You are the one who added the line, "underperforming every Democrat president since World War II except Barack Obama."([4]) Therefore, you are the one who linked the "underperforming" GDP growth under Reagan to his economic policies. You also ignored the last sentence in my previous response. Please see WP:UNDUE. You state that your edit is a statement of fact. Based on the graph in question, it is also a statement of fact that GDP growth under Reagan was at least a percentage point higher than under any president that followed him except for Clinton. Again, neither your statement nor mine should go in the article because the authors of the study did not make these conclusions. CatPath (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely with CatPath. Mathmensch is engaged in cherrypicking and original research, and comments like "your intentions and attitudes are totally transparent to me" are best taken as mere projection. This is an FA, and the lead should reflect the body; Presidential biographies typically do not make these kinds of comparisons. (Where does Barack Obama mention the historically weak recovery he has presided over?) Finally, Mathmensch's proposed edit may not even be accurate: Most of the sources I've seen suggest that GDP growth was higher under Reagan than Carter. For example, the New York Times lists annual GDP growth as 3.5% under Reagan versus 3.2% under Carter, whereas U.S. News & World Report gives average quarterly growth rates of 3.64% under Reagan compared to 3.32% under Carter. One would need to really dive into the numbers to see which sources/methods most accurately reflect reality. Yet contesting a few decimal points ignores the larger issue—namely, the obvious downward trend in GDP growth over the last several decades, which our elites assure us is simply the new normal for developed countries, and hence not really a political issue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Except that Barack Obama, the black one, managed to restore GDP growth from the Bush downturn to +3.3% a year the last quarter. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Everything I see is that over his 8 years only four quarters were over 3%, 3rd quarter of 2009 and 2010 with 3.4% and first quarters of 2014 and 2015 at 3.3%. Over all his annual GDP growth per year peaked around 2.6% in 2015. So the 3.3% listed is one of the peaks in a quarter during his 8 years while actual average per quarter was significantly less. So looks WP:UNDUE as well as WP:CHERRYPICKING PackMecEng (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
We discuss this article, not the Obama article (the talk page comments need not conform the policies you mentioned). --Mathmensch (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about your comment on Obama's GDP growth. What you mentioned was misleading and I was listing why. Also while those policies are meant for article space, I bring them up because you are purposing to put things in the article that would violate those policies. Not because they necessarily apply to this BLP talk page. I will say though that this is looking to be getting off topic. As the questions have not been answered on why it should be reinserted into the article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting a new indentation, so that people on small screens can follow up.
The reason why I think it should be in the article is this: People should know how economical statistics compare between presidents. Isn't that true? Because then they can make an informed decision on how to vote. For instance, Democrats regularly perform better when it comes to the economy, although the Princeton economist does not positively affirm the existence of a cause-effect relation between their economic policy and this performance (although he doesn't say that there isn't any either). (Although as far as I'm aware, nobody has asked why it should be included; rather, people argued against it.)
Now what I mentioned was not misleading, and it's profoundly mean to say that. I merely try to explain stuff. I'm trying to help, and so are all the other scientists. But most people don't understand that. Now have fun using
  • your refrigerator
  • your modern health technology and effective drugs
  • your car (BTW I can't afford one)
  • your iPhone (BTW I can't afford one)
and go on bully the scientists who are much more competent than you are, instead of having respect. --Mathmensch (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

Ronald Reagan was appointed Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) for his help during the falklands war. This means his name should be put as Ronald Reagan G. C. B..

Here is a link with the information and feel free to contact me for more:[1] Christopher Hopwood (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-14/news/mn-2281_1_knighthood-british-empire-queen-s-warning
Please see the fourth paragraph at Ronald Reagan#Honors.--Nevé–selbert 23:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality?

There is a tag for neutrality in the "Reaganomics" and the economy section which has been there since March 2016. Where is the discussion about this? Was there ever one, and if so, what became of it? Seems every sentence in that section is well sourced. Unless there is more than just passing opinion to challenge the idea of a neutral account we should remove the tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

AIDS

It seems that there are nothing but accomplishments and raises here. But given that the CDC fought a long battle with him over AIDS and that it is the epidemic of the 20th century, wouldn't it be prudent to at least acknowledge that he ignored it, or if not AIDS, at least be balanced and list some faults so it doesn't come across as pure propaganda? (2601:243:203:8446:5460:5930:586:40B2 (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC))

i think it would be pretty ridiculous to stated listing everything he didn't take up and champion. just my two cents... Blahtherr (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Honors - UCLA Medical Center

The article fails to mention Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (which is its official name) [1] being named after him in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.137.167 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_UCLA_Medical_Center

Honors - Knight Grand Cross of the Bath

The article mentions just two US Presidents have received an honorary GCB, Reagan and George H.W. Bush, with citation. I have qualified the description to say they received it since election to office as POTUS (though I query the timing of Bush's award, as his page gives just the year he received it, 1993, when in January that year he formally left office after defeat in the 1992 presidential elections). Dwight D Eishenhower had also received the GCB after WWII as an allied general, before election, though a date is lacking in his Wikipedia article.Cloptonson (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of flags and insignias from multiple info boxes

User Huberthof has been getting around these past couple of days with his newly created account, and seems to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles, mostly those of American military people. This users cites a guideline about flags in infoboxes (which btw says nothing about insignia), but ignores the fact that every guideline stipulates "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Famous military people are such exceptions. Other editors have taken exception to this apparent mission to remove flags and insignia, mostly from the articles of prominent Americans, as evidenced on Huberthoff's Talk page. Imo, we should return these items to the infoboxes. Some of these articles, like George Washington Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant have had these items when they were approved for GA and FA status, with no issues all of this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2017

Change this source link back from:

To:

121.67.207.207 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't see why we could change the https to an http link. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Democrat years

Thanks @Jehochman:. “Lifelong” has a particular meaning, and I just don’t see that it applies here. If he’d died within a couple of years of switching then ok. In this case it’s “his whole life long, except the second half of his life”.

The word “lifelong” is here used as a proxy for “commitment” and/or “consistency”, and to suggest how great a turnabout this was. The former is implied by the mere telling of the fact he was a Democrat (or it wouldn’t be noteworthy). Re the latter it’s not unknown for politicians to change their stripe - Churchill crossed the floor twice! As a general intensifier it is a problem for NPOV.

Bottom line: he wasn’t a lifelong Democrat, so we can’t say that he was.

I have no problem with your re-wording otherwise, except insofar as it accommodates “lifelong”. I hope my tweaking to remove that satisfies, cheers! Captainllama (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfair statement on Reagan getting two full terms since Eisenhower

"He was the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower to serve two full terms, after a succession of five prior presidents failed to do so."

That is rather unfair as it is hardly Kennedy's fault that he got bullets in his head.

Surely there is a better way to word that statement.122.108.156.100 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is. (Fourth paragraph). Captainllama (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
How is it unfair its just a fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmYisroelChai (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

@Leopheard and Viewmont Viking: please discuss the change here, and don't edit war. I've reverted it, as this is new material and there are obvious issues with it. Most blatantly, it's spelled "Reagan" and not "Regan"; there's also possibly WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there are neutral PoV issues all over this article. For instance, the Iran-Contra affair section treads very lightly when it comes to Reagan's admissions and blame by the Congressional Inquiry. Furthermore, the fairness doctrine repeal has very real and current implications on the media and First Amendment as a whole, yet every time this is added, it is removed in questionable circumstances, presumably in order to paint Reagan in as much of a positive light as possible, which is clearly against the guidelines of Wikipedia leopheard (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed someone tried to add something about the Fairness Doctrine (in the legacy section). I don't have a dog in that fight but my thoughts: I frankly don't see how that is really relevant at this point. With the advent of the internet, the death of the print media, and the proliferation of all the cable channels.....would the Fairness Doctrine even be enforceable at this point? Even when it was in place, I don't recall too many saying the media was fair. (Myself included.) Because the fact is: the networks had a lot of discretion as to when/where/how it was enforced.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobody asked how enforceable it is at this point? I think you're missing the point of the conversation. It's like saying "Oh well the Iran-Contra affair isn't a big deal now I don't think". If it was a debated topic either then or now (which it was/is), then it needs including as a notable action Reagan took during his term. We can't have this selective/rose tinted history of Reagan because it suits certain people leopheard (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
When you put in this statement on the Fairness Doctrine (in the main article), you put it into the "Legacy" section of the article. You also said in a previous comment on this thread: "[the Fairness Doctrine's] repeal has very real and current implications on the media". So obviously how enforceable/relevant it is (at this point) is something you think is important. If that is the case, then I was providing perspective as to how relevant/important it really is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The Fairness Doctrine was anything but so I don't see why removing his repeal of it puts Reagan in a more positive light by having it in would put him in a more positive light as it was a very good thing and very pro 1st amendment to repeal it. AmYisroelChai (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
it was to fairness what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to democracy AmYisroelChai (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If you're talking about whether something is a "good thing" or not, then that's entirely subjective and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. We need to be neutral which is what this is all about. We need to cover both sides, not just make this a masturbatory fantasy about good ol' Ronnie God Bless His Cotton Socks leopheard (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


AIDS Section

The AIDS section of this is highly misleading and not particularly balanced. It says:

"The Reagan administration largely ignored the AIDS crisis, which began to unfold in the United States in 1981, the same year Reagan took office. AIDS research was chronically underfunded during Reagan's administration, and requests for more funding by doctors at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were routinely denied. By the end of the first 12 months of the epidemic, when more than 1,000 people had died of AIDS in the U.S., the CDC had spent less than $1 million on AIDS research."

So why does the funding quote stop after the first year? By the end of Reagan's admin, funding was over a billion annually. It also omits the fact that virtually no one (left or right) considered this any sort of "crisis" early on. Note the fact that neither Walter Mondale or Ferraro brought this up in the debates in 1984.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the figures don't seem to be correct either. The CDC couldn't have spent $9 million during the first 12 months following the Legionnaires' outbreak. According to the book AIDS and Contemporary History (p. 188), the CDC spent $162,000 in fiscal year 1976 to fight Legionnaires' disease, not $9 million. Also, "research spending" falls mostly under the NIH, which the AIDS section omits completely. In fiscal year 1982, NIH spent $3.4 million on AIDS, and the CDC spent $2 million, whereas nothing was spent by the NIH on Legionnaires' in FY1976. That's a total of $5.4 million spent on AIDS in fiscal year 1982, much more than what was spent on Legionnaire's disease in FY1976. The article cited to support the $9 million figure for Legionionnaire's disease is an opinion piece and should not be deemed a reliable source. CatPath (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Reading the foward.com source more carefully, it claims, "Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease." The source is talking about spending on Legionnaire's disease in 1981-1982, not 1976, which the AIDS section implies. Even so, CDC spending on Legionnaires' in FY1982 was $1.1 million, far less than the $9 million stated in the AIDS section. CatPath (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and cleaned up the AIDS section. I largely kept what was there but added the alternative pov on this subject. (And deliniated opinion from fact.) If anyone has any objections, let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps starting it with "According to critics,..." is unacceptable. Maybe "Some believe.." would be better. Please address it here so we don't start a edit war.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. The problem with "according to critics" or "some believe" is that they are both weasel words. If you want to introduce specific commentary by notable writers, that is the way to do it. E.g. Reagan's response to the AIDS crisis came under fire by public health expert Maddie McMedicine[20]."--Louiedog (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the article (prior to my edit) just took it for granted that the "crisis" was "ignored". Perhaps I should specifically mention activist organizations like ACT UP as being among the critics.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that the AIDS section was rewritten, but the numbers showing spending for Legionnaires are still off, by a huge margin. The CDC spent only $162,000 on Legionnaires in 1976, not $9 million. Also, the CDC may have spent only $1 million during the first year of the AIDS epidemic, but the NIH spent an additional $3.355 million in the first full fiscal year of the AIDS epidemic; this latter figure is ignored by the cited opinion article: [5]). For spending numbers for the first 7 years of each epidemic, please see Table 1 in this academic source (pdf file): [6]. In fact, if you read p. 192 of the linked chapter and look at the graph on p. 193, the authors present evidence that "spending on AIDS outstripped Legionnaires' research in overall magnitude and acceleration of spending over time" and that "the only parallel to the striking growth in funds for a single disease was the sharp rise in cancer funds after enactment of the 1971 National Cancer Act." CatPath (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@CatPath: Ok, I went ahead and removed the Legionnaires comparison completely. I also clarified the source of some of the criticism of the administrations's AIDS policy. Hopefully that captures everyone's pov and leaves the article better off. Let me know if there are any objections.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


External Lnks

This is a quote from a bot it conflicts with THIS page that it says is breaking the rule about the foundation link, this could affect thousands of pages like this one and should be put to rest, and is it right to include the facebook page as an external link on a page like this https://www.facebook.com/RonaldReagan/
"other pages are wrong too (for Ronald Reagan, see Ronald_Reagan_Presidential_Library, I think that is where the official link belongs (and is duplicated), not on Ronald Reagan as an 'official site' "

50.254.21.213 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Lionelt this was promoted 10 years ago. The article has changed a lot since then; I don't believe these cites are there due to a consensus (one use a bare url youtube link..) I don't see that these are specifically controversial that they require an inline citation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like it was yesterday ;-) Ok, delete them no objection from me. – Lionel(talk) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Commendable?

Reagan's early opposition to racial discrimination is described as "commendable" (in the section on his early life). I totally agree - it was exceptionally commendable, given the era and the area in which he was living. But it's still a value judgement, and therefore unencyclopaedic. Can anyone find a reference for his attitude being described as "commendable"? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


Did the Reagan administration continue to support regime in Guatemala even during worse periods of genocide?

Ronald Reagan’s genocidal secret: A true story of right-wing impunity in Guatemala, Salon, Miles Culpepper, 2015.

' . . . In the early 1980s, Ríos Montt presided over the most ruthless and violent military regime of the Guatemalan Civil War. This distinction is no small feat, given the brevity of his time in office (16 months) and the competition . . . . . Of the roughly 200,000 deaths that occurred during the war, researchers estimate that 86,000 took place during Ríos Montt’s savage counterinsurgency campaign in the Maya majority Altiplano of Guatemala. . . '

' . . . the Reagan Administration still managed to support Ríos Montt by applying pressure to international lending agencies to help the military government manage its foreign currency reserve crisis, and by reaching out to a growing grassroots network of Cold War hardliners in the Christian Right. They also still managed to bump up “economic development” assistance provided by USAID. . . '

I'd like at least a second reference.
Our article currently states, "backed anti-communist leaders accused of severe human rights violations." If we can credibly say more, we should. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
At the time there was a real question of how big the body count was and who was actually responsible. That question still continues today because Montt's (2013) conviction was overturned and his re-trial is suspended (last I heard). It was kind of par for the course in the Cold War.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Putting any information on this page that even hints at painting Reagan in a negative light will be removed within 10 minutes or so. This is such a biased article, Republican supporters cannot ever have anything bad said about Reagan. You'd think the words high treason would be in the Iran-Contra section, but nope leopheard (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The conversation is starting to drift a bit but I'd have to say I wouldn't put Iran-Contra in the "treason" category either. Not only was no one charged with it, it really didn't come close to the legal definition of it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In genocide, the debate will often be how much was the government asking the military to do vs. how much the military just did on their own? And while genocide is sometimes done fast and deliberatively, it is often a tragedy in slow motion. And with Montt himself, there's all kinds of reasons why a case may not go forward.

On the question of positive or negative regarding Reagan, all we can do is go right down the line with our references trying to neither overstate nor understate. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Did Reagan Finance Genocide in Guatemala?, ABC News, Santiago Wills, May 14, 2013.

' . . . The army was targeting the Ixil and other indigenous groups, killing them indiscriminately, whether they had helped the guerrillas or not. . . '

Genocide Treaty ratified with Reagan's support (although with reservations about perpetrators being tried by ICJ)

Genocide (Revised Edition): Modern Crimes against Humanity, Brendan January, Twenty-First Century Books (Lerner Publishing), 2007, Ch. 4 "from nuremberg to the killing fields of cambodia [lower case as in original],", page 69.
' . . . Ultimately, he visited the cemetery [in Bitburg, Germany] and a concentration camp, despite protests.
'Then there was another development. Suddenly the White House grew very interested in the genocide convention. Though previous presidents had spoken in favor of the genocide treaty in principal, it was Reagan who provided the necessary support to get it passed. . . '

This book is saying, due to criticism by Soviets of hypocrisy, and due to criticism over Reagan's 1985 visit to Bitburg, he successfully helped to push for Senate ratification, although apparently with written reservations against American citizens being accused of genocide from being tried in the International Court of Justice.
I would like to get at least one more source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

LATER EDIT: And Lionel below is quite correct in pointing out that this source says conservatives were worried about American citizens being potentially tried by international courts, and not that Pres. Reagan necessarily shared this same concern. This source simply does not say one way or the other regarding Reagan himself. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/05/opinion/reagan-signs-bill-ratifying-un-genocide-pact.html

That source does not say that Reagan had reservations. It said that "conservatives" were concerned about Americans being prosecuted. And this concern about Americans being prosecuted is standard US policy. In one form or another this has been American policy since at least World War I. During the World Wars American military commanders were reticent to place American troops under foreign command. Frequently troops stationed in occupied countries or serving in Allied nations were not subject to local jurisdictions only US laws. Maintaining sovereignty of American servicemen and citizens has been a recurring feature in American policy. – Lionel(talk) 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right. The above book is saying U.S. conservatives had these concerns. And we can also include the part, with a source or two, about this being long-standing U.S. policy all the way back to World War I. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
With the sheer number of international issues that came across Reagan's desk I am not convinced that this relatively minor item merits inclusion in this article per WP:DUE. I think it would be better WP:DUE in this article Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration.– Lionel(talk) 23:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. The eventual ratification of the Genocide Convention, per the above source, received a push from Reagan's visit to the ceremony in Bitburg. Plus, I think genocide is a pretty important topic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan/Archive_18&oldid=1137163198"