Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Samples of work still needed on footnotes

I completed a bit of work at the bottom of the article on footnotes, to provide an example of work still needed: [1]

Remove empty parameters on cite templates; they clutter the text unnecessarily.
Remove quotes from titles; they are wrongly used, and the cite templates insert quotes and italics automatically as needed.
Some of the sources aren't reliable; I indicated a few
Almost none of the publishers are identified; they need to be filled in.
Some of the article titles are incorrect.

See WP:CITET or WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm separating the book references (removing the named refs) for two reasons:

Book sources need page numbers
Some of the statements will need different sources (shouldn't be sourced to biographical sources) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done all I can do; five and a half hours to clean up the worst references I've ever worked on. NOTHING was correct, not formattting, titles, dates, templates, nothing. I left numerous inline questions and all book sources still need page numbers. If folks don't know how to cite sources, it would be preferable to just add an inline [link] and let someone else convert the ref to a full format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok Thanks Sandy. You have actually really helped this article, for if the citations are in good shape, it will be a better candidate for FAC. I'm thankful. All of us Wikipedia Ronald Reagan editors should really start to get to work on the citations; it's going to ba a tough job, but I'm willing to go there! Happyme22 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would point out the biography thing. Biographies aren't generally reliable sources for historical information because they aren't really scrutinized by anyone other than the author and, maybe, the publisher. Works that receive scholarly peer reviews are sometimes assessed by dozens, or more, academics in the field related to the work. Sources like JSTOR, EBSCOhost, and other databases, as well as any decent University library, should have many journals and other peer reviewed works to choose from. IvoShandor 08:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the citation work on this article is proving to be tedious and hard to keep up with. PLEASE, if you don't know how to cite a source, don't add an incorrect footnote; it's much more work to go back and fix them all then it would be to convert the reference myself. If you don't know how to format a reference, please just add the [inline link like this], and let someone else do it.

Book sources need page numbers. language = English is the default and need not be added. Accessdate doesn't need to be repeated in month day and year. Format and work need not be included when empty. Don't add authorlink on Ronald Reagan; this is his article. Don't repeat a book template on every footnote; the biblio for that book is given in References. Just add the page number ! And so on ... I'm fixing these references, but using Reagan's own biographies as sources is not good. It would be helpful if editors adding footnotes would scroll to the bottom of the page to make sure the note is correct; for example, when you leave a space in the title or a hard return, the cite template doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sandy. I'm sorry sbout scewing up the citation templates. I did cut down a few sources from Reagan's autobiography, but the bulk of what the autobiography is used to cite are inline quotes, quoting Reagan on his thoughs, beliefs, and recollections pertaining to a specific subject. The Reagan autobiographical references are rarley used in the article to cite scientific facts. I own a copy of it, and in my free time, I'm filling in the reference tags. I'm on vacation right now, but when I get back to my house, I own copies of a bunch of books on Reagan, including President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination, My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan, and Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio, and I will start filling in the references. I know it's now become that article's main problem, and it's going to be a hard job to fix. --Happyme22 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you would want some help here or not. I have a book by Michael Schaller, Oxford Univ Press (so it is peer reviewed) called Reckoning With Reagan, its pretty good and if there are any open citation needed templates I can search the book for them, if you were interested. : ) IvoShandor 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I only peek in periodically to see if refs need cleaning up; that would be most helpful, Ivo. There is a lot of missing sourcing, and sourcing the article to bios isn't the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove stupid sentence, please!

Hey, sorry, a newbie here! Just wanted to let someone who knows how to edit know that in the assassination attempt part, someone put "he was very smart" between sentences about a bullet and a joke. Probably needs to be removed. Thanks!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.138.116.211 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Balancing his legacy.

I am thinking it would be really good if someone could give a really simple nutshell summing up of the very best and the very worst of what Reagan did, in the "Legacy Section". If someone in 1000 years' time wanted to know what was best and worst about him, what would be a super-fast summary ?

His single most positive legacy was his contribution to the peaceful death of the Soviet Union. (Even if you argue it was going to die anyway, it's still a massive achievement in the history of the world.)

His most negative legacy was moving the USA from being the world's biggest creditor to being the biggest debtor nation. (Even if you argue that the massive military expenditure was worth the cost because it bankrupted the Soviets, the debt is still a massive problem, which will haunt generations to come.)

I would be grateful if someone can synthesize these two rather important points in a neutral way which does justice to this very important man. Tmrussell 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I still think that the legacy section should be a somewhat-long one (see the second peer review from April 6). I do agree, though, that those are the best and worst of Reagan, but I would also add that that the revitalization of the economy was a big one (even with the budget deficits and national debt, inflation went down, taxes went down, unemployment went down, etc.) I'm here if needed. Happyme22 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the lack of criticism in the entire article incredibly disturbing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a wholly impartial encyclopedia, and yet we find the same bias here as in other news sources. Throughout this entire talk section numerous articles of criticism are addressed and none of them are added onto the article. What gives?

Yeah okay, you definitely have a point there. I will try in future to ensure that I include more negatives as well as the positives. The article when considered as a whole is not exactly balanced. To this day, we are still dealing with some extremely serious problems that Reagan created. Some economists think it will be about a century before America can pay off its foreign debt.

SDI – it was significant

The passage dealing with the Strategic Defense Initiative needs some work. This complex and visionary system is summed up in one poorly written sentence:

The program would essentially send missiles into space which could intercept missiles being fired anywhere in or to America.

What about the space-based components? What is meant by "fired anywhere in or to America."? All a bit woolly.

A bigger problem pertains to the described lack of effect of the initiative on the Soviets. In fact, the SDI had rather a large effect on the Soviets despite the technology being decades away. From Professsor John Lewis Gaddis' book "The Cold War"

Reagan was deeply committed to SDI: it was not a bargaining chip to give up in future negotiations. That did not preclude, though, using it as a bluff: The United States was years, even decades, away from developing a missile defense capability, but Reagan's speech [when he first described such a capability] persuaded the increasingly frightened Soviet leaders that this was about to happen. They were convinced, Dobrynin [Soviet ambassador to US] recalled, "that the great technological potential of the United States had scored again and treated Reagan's statement as a real threat." Having exhausted their country by catching up in offensive missiles, they suddenly faced a new round of competition demanding skills they had no hope of mastering.

So, this section...

It is claimed by some of Reagan's more extreme supporters that Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned about SDI, and that it ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War. There is no evidence to support this view. The Soviets knew as well as everyone else that SDI was an idea that was ahead of its time: the technology simply did not exist to implement such a scheme.

... is just plain wrong on the effect of the initiative on the Soviet leadership and completely misses the point about the technology being unavailable. 196.207.40.213 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. Could you please provide a page number citation for the above quote in Gaddis' book, and then we can start working with bits and pieces of the text to make the SDI statement true? I'll be glad to work with you. Happyme22 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the history page, the words "...There is no evidence to support this view. The Soviets knew as well as everyone else that SDI was an idea that was ahead of its time: the technology simply did not exist to implement such a scheme." WAS VANDALISM THAT WAS NOT REVERTED. It was a mistake, and I reverted it. Sorry if it caused any problems. Happyme22 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gaddis quote is from page 227, Penguin books 2007. Thanks. 196.207.40.213 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Fel free to add that quote, or bits and pieces of it, in the SDI paragraph Thanks Again, Happyme22 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

with the top personal tax bracket dropping from 70% to 28% in 7 years

Where did this %70 tax bracket numebr come from? I can;t imagine that ther was ever a time ahere anyone in this country had a %70 income tax.--Dr who1975 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The 70% highest tax bracket in the '70s was actually considerably lower than it had been during WWII and into the '60s, where the highest tax bracket was 91%.

Donald Regan

Hi,

The source of the statement by Donald Regan that would appear to at least partially support the claim made by David Stockman is his memoir, viz: ‘For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington’ by Donald Regan Published by Harcourt, 1988 ISBN-10: 0151639663 ISBN-13: 978-0151639663

The exact quote is:

“In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics”

If you intend to allow the allusion to Regan's statement to stand, it should perhaps be accompanied by a citation referencing the source. I am not yet sure of how to add citations.

I am disappointed that you thought that my edit concerning SDI constituted "vandalism". Wikipedia actively encourages people to contribute to articles. There is not the slightest suggestion that the originator of an article has proprietorial rights over it and is entitled to regard anyone expressing a different point of view as an intruder on their private territory. It is specifically stated in "About Wikipedia" that one of the advantages of having many people allowed to edit is that contentious viewpoints tend to end up being moderated toward a concensus that is more suitable for an encyclopedia. No offense, but I really do think that "vandalism" is not an appropriate description of people attempting to contribute to what is, after all, a public resource. Saying that I "missed the point" is one thing - all part of healthy debate: calling me a vandal, with that word's inherent implications of destructiveness and malice is another thing entirely.

Well, I guess I have ranted and raved long enough over one little word!

Regards, Flonto 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hi. Can someone please correct the citations on footnotes 53, 54, 63, 66, 67, and 150? All the info is in the text, but I'm not so sure I did it right. If someone could fix it, that would be great! Thanks, Happyme22 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Too nice

Needs to pick up more on some of Reagan's negative policies like anything he did with social and economic programs, and obviously a little more neutral than I stated. 164.111.195.232 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Adrian

I agree. Look at this sentence: "but Ronald Reagan recognized the real change in the direction of the Soviet leadership, and Reagan shifted to skillful diplomacy, using his sincerity and charm to personally push Gorbachev further with his reforms."

In my opinion it isn't very encyclopedic describing Reagan as charmful and sincere. 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)~

Suggestions for improving impartiality

Dear Happy,

I thought that it might be helpful if I gave you my suggestions as to how the Wikipedia article on Ronald Reagan might be altered in order to make it more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I have consulted the Wikipedia articles on a number of other controversial modern politicians; including Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Margaret Thatcher and both George Bushes. I have found all of those articles to be (in my opinion) admirably in keeping with the political neutrality required of an encyclopedia entry. In each case, the impartiality in style was such that I was not able to identify the writers of these entries as definite admirers of their subjects – which is the way that it ought to be in a resource such as Wikipedia. The article on Ronald Reagan, however, seems to me to occasionally display a lack of balance and even (slight) hagiographical tendencies. That is fine on a private website: but not on a public resource that aims to be reference work. An encyclopedia must always endeavor to present subjects in as strictly factual a manner as possible. It must be scrupolously neutral with regard to matters such as politics. Lack of said impartiality in Wikipedia is the business of any Wikipedia user.

I have a number of suggestions to offer as to where I feel that impartiality could be improved. There are about a dozen altogether, so to avoid monopolizing a large area of this page, I am going to send these for the consideration of yourself and anyone else who is concerned at a rate of one a week. I am hoping that you will find at least some of them helpful. In each case, I will quote the relevant passage from the text of the article and add my suggestions below in italics.

Below is item No. 1. This one is more about tone than substance. I am sure you would agree, however, that tone matters in an encyclopedia.

“President Reagan's tenure marked a time of economic prosperity for most Americans in the United States. Tax rates were lowered significantly under Reagan, with the top personal tax bracket dropping from 70% to 28% in 7 years,[62] and GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession. Unemployment peaked at over 11 percent in 1982, then dropped steadily, plus inflation significantly decreased.[3] During Reagan's eight years in office, the economy grew at a robust annual rate of 3.8% per year.[3]”

Point of pedantry: The phrase,“most Americans in the United States” would read better as either, “most Americans” or, “most people in the United States”: unless your intention is to contrast Americans in the United States with American expatriates living elsewhere in the World.

Point of impartiality: Even better would be “the majority of Americans”, because this phrase seems to be less dismissive of the situation of that minority of Americans who did not enjoy economic prosperity.

These are great! Please either list all of your suggestions here, or you can post them on my talkpage, but I look forward to seeing what you have to say. Also, remember to sign your messages with four tildes. Happyme22 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Lead

Although I love how we Wikipedia editors were able to come to a concensus on the Lead in this article, I think we could add one more detail: Nancy Reagan. The Reagan's were often described as the closest President and First Lady ever, called "inseperable," and both described not wanting to live without the other. I think it deserves mention in the lead for those reasons, and according to WP:LEAD, every section in the article should try to be mentioned somehow, and "Marriage and children" (especially marriage) was a big part of Reagan's life. All we need to do is add another sentence in the lead, saying maybe: ".....Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and moved to California in the 1930s where he met his wife, Nancy."

Wat do you guys think? Happyme22 04:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Matlock

All those citations of Matlock require a complete reference somewhere. The citations need to be complete, too (that is, no "p. ?", for example). I will also be requesting an opinion about his adequacy as a source. John FitzGerald 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it John, and if I fine the info in another book, I use that one. Happyme22 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Public Opinion Polls

Here's a great site on public opinion poll numbers during the Reagan Years: [2]. Maybe we can start incorporating some of these polls into the article? Happyme22 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

An Endless Catalog of Criticism

OK Happy, you asked for it - now you're gonna git it.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Critics from the left charged that Reagan was unconcerned with income inequality and its effects, abandoning the egalitarian ideals that had come to be standard stated policy goals since the New Deal era.[65]They also stated that the combination of significant tax cuts nd a massive increase in Cold War related defense expenditure caused large budget deficits, [66] and the U.S. trade deficit expanded.[66]”

The expression “the left”, especially when it is applied to anyone who votes Democrat, has a pejorative ring to it. “Critics charged that…” would read as more neutral.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Reagan's efforts to cut welfare and income taxes became common flash points for both critics and supporters. Opponents charged that this primarily benefited the wealthy in America, deriding these policies as "Trickle-down economics".[66] Reagan's former director of the Office of Management and Budget,”

Point of pedantry: The expression, “flash points” should either be hyphenated, viz. “flash-points” or rendered as one word, viz. “flashpoints”.

Point of impartiality: In any economic change, there are winners and there are losers. Some people on welfare suffered a degree of hardship as a result of the Reagan Administration’s cuts to their entitlements. A mere reference to this fact would avoid even the possibility of the reader thinking that this article ignores the plight – or even the existence - of the disadvantaged. But how to work such a reference into the text is a question on its own. Wikipedia articles need to be fairly short and this one has a long story to tell. It is not the place for a detailed examination of the effects of enonomic policies on every social grouping in America. There lies the problem.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“David Stockman, stated that Reagan was deliberately left "out of the loop" by cabinet members, when the true economic decisions were made. He believed that Reagan did not know where he stood on economic policy and said he was forced to coach him prior to speeches and press conferences on what to say.[67] He later characterized the Reagan administration as giving "the greatest free lunch fiscal policy" to Americans through his economic policies.[67] Stockman was fired by Reagan after a disagreement (unrelated to Stockman's claims), and many have speculated that this may have been his way of exacting revenge against the President. Stockman's claims are widely considered to be untrue. [68]

There is a statement by Donald Regan that would appear to at least partially support the claim made by David Stockman. If the article is going to mention ulterior motives on Stockman’s part and stress that he is widely disbelieved, then I think it only fair for the article also to mention that there is other evidence that corrobotates him, even if only to a limited extent. Regan’s statement appears is his memoir, ‘For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington’ by Donald Regan (Harcourt, 1988 ISBN-10: 0151639663 ISBN-13: 978-0151639663):

“In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics”

This book expresses a view of Ronald Reagan that is generally favorable and his claim about Reagan’s lack of involvement with economic matters is much less extreme than Stockman’s. For both of those reasons, I think that Donald Reagan’s critique carries much more weight than Stockman’s and might easily take its place in the article.

It is easy to forget that no president can ever take personal charge of overseeing every single aspect of the running of the country. Because “the buck stops” with the president, we tend to say that “F.D.R. did such-and-such” whether he was the orginator of the policy or not. Perhaps one of Reagan’s greatest strengths was that he knew how to delegate. Political history offers examples of leaders who have appointed highly-qualified people to supervise their economy and then ruined everything by insisting on sitting at their appointee’s shoulder and interfering with their work.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Looking at Reaganomics from a beneficial point of view, many scholars agree that overall Reagan's tax policies and emphasis on deregulation invigorated America's economy.[71] According to the Cato Institute, the American Economy performed better during the Reagan years, than during the pre- and post- Reagan years,[3] and at the end of his administration, the United States was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression".[72]

It is surely an indisputable fact that during the administration of Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, America experienced a considerable economic recession. It has been widely argued that this recession was at least in part the result of the budget decificit built up in the Reagan years. To acknowledge the building up of the fiscal deficit but to fail to mention the role that it may have played in later economic downturn is telling only part of the story. Leaving out important information can be as much an expression of POV as including contentious assertions. I think that the possible role played by the deficit accrued by the Reagan Administration in the economic recession under G.H.W. Bush needs to be mentioned, as long as it made clear that it was one of the possible causes of the recession, and not definitely the whole cause as has sometimes been asserted

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Many critics also charged that the policies did little to actually reduce the availability of drugs or crime on the street, while resulting in a great financial and human cost for American society.[78] Due to this policy, some critics regarded Reagan as indifferent to the needs of poor and minority citizens. Nevertheless, surveys showed that illegal drug use among Americans declined significantly during Reagan's presidency, leading supporters to argue that the policies were successful.[79][73]”

The statement, “surveys show that illegal drug use among Americans declined” seems to assert that the ‘War on Drugs’ was successful, because it implies that all of the available evidence points to this conclusion. Is this your claim? My understanding is that there is also statistical evidence that disagrees with such a conclusion. This passage could avoid being contentious by being changed to, “some surveys show…”, or “many surveys show…”. That would then leave Wikipedia readers to make up their own minds.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Critics objected to his comparison of the Contras, who were responsible for murdering large numbers of women and children, to the Founding Fathers and to the French Resistance, which suggests that he viewed the Sandinistas as Communists who were akin to an occupying power”.

The statement that the Contras “were responsible for murdering large numbers of women and children” is, of course, an edit that I made without first discussing it or even leaving an ‘edit summary’. I was but an ignorant young fellow in those days! If you have intentionally allowed this edit to stand, then I must congratulate you on your fair-mindedness. Many would argue that, in the fight against World communism, we had to reluctantly ally ourselves with people who were anti-communist but who were not necessarily pro-freedom. In exactly the same way, we had to ally ourselves with Stalin’s Russia in order to defeat Hitler’s Germany. But the murder of innocent people can never be excused or overlooked. This is why so many people – by no means all of them liberals - were shocked and disappointed by Reagan’s unqualified hymn of praise for the Contras. I mentioned the murder of women and children because I think it would be quite wrong to ignore such atrocities and treat the whole Contra business as a purely political matter.

However, I am not satisfied with what I wrote. The “large numbers” part of the phrase seems not only superfluous, but seemingly suggestive of the notion that killing innocent people is only wrong if it is done in large numbers. Perhaps “responsible for killing women and children” would make the same point more succintly.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“One of Reagan's more controversial proposals was the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, a defense project.[108] The program would essentially send missiles into space which could intercept missiles being fired anywhere in or to America.[109] Reagan believed this defense shield could make nuclear war impossible,[110] but the unlikelihood that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars," and argue that the technological objective was unattainable.[110] Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned about SDI, and it ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War.”

Here is an example of an incorrect assumption on my part. I took it for granted that because SDI was technologically unachievable, the Soviets could have taken it no more seriously than most people in the West did. The statement of Comrade Dobrynin would appear to contradict that. That puts me in the wrong and only a fool never admits to being wrong.
Nevertheless, a direct reference in the text (not merely via footnote) to Comrade Dobrynin’s actual testimony would give substance to what otherwise looks at first glance like an optimistic claim. Reporting what Dobrynin stated would not only be more persuasive but more neutral - presenting a fact and leaving the reader the liberty of making up his/her own mind about its significance.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Reagan's militant rhetoric inspired dissidents in the Soviet Union, but also startled allies and alarmed critics.[citation needed]"

Citation is indeed needed. We need to know who these “dissidents in the Soviet Union” were and exactly how were they “inspired” by Reagan’s militant pronouncements. The statement needs to be supported by hard evidence. We need to be referred to actual testimony, either from identified dissidents or from people who are able to authoritatively report on the reaction of such dissidents to speeches made by Ronald Reagan. Otherwise, it tends to look as if extravagant claims are being made on behalf of his rhetoric.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Left-wing critics denounced his opposition to Fidel Castro's government in Cuba and complained that he was ignoring human rights in Central America, South America, and South Africa.[112][verification needed]”

Critcism of his opposition to Castro’s regime may have been been confined to “left-wing critics”: but I do not think that it is correct to categorize everyone who expressed concern about human rights in Central America, South America and South Africa as “left-wing”. The idea that only “left-wing” people care about human rights abuses that are committed by right-wing regimes is utterly fallacious. There were plenty of Republican voters who strongly disliked both the racism in South Africa and the brutality of regimes like Guatemala and El Salvador.

Also, I think that putting criticism of the Reagan Administration’s policies toward South Africa in the ‘same basket’ as criticism of their policies toward Latin America fails to distinguish between two very different sets of criticism.

Critics of U.S. Government policy toward Latin America objected to the military aid that was given to tyrannical regimes, which those regimes sometimes then used to harm innocent people. These critics surely had a rational case for their charge of ‘inoring human rights’.

However, to make the same accusation against U.S. Government policy toward South Africa lacks a basis in logic. The U.S. Government did not give military aid to South Africa, and there was a very real limit to the amount of influence that Reagan could have exercised with regard to the South African Government, who were notorious for refusing to listen to anyone. My understanding of U.S. policy toward South Africa during the 1980s was that an effort was made to try to diplomatically encourage reform and racial equality. It was not so much a case of human rights in South Africa being ignored by the U. S. Government – it was more a question of the U.S. Government’s advice being ignored by the South African Government.

I think, therefore, that we need to distinguish between the three sets of critcism.
A possible alternative version could be:

“Left-wingers denounced his opposition to Fidel Castro’s government in Cuba. Other critics expressed concern that he was ignoring human rights in Central America and making insufficient diplomatic effort in pursuit of racial equality in South Africa”.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Many U.S.-Soviet experts and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race,[115] but Ronald Reagan recognized the real change in the direction of the Soviet leadership, and Reagan shifted to skillful diplomacy, using his sincerity and charm to personally push Gorbachev further with his reforms.[116]”

The phrase, “skilfull diplomacy” makes a subjective value judgement as to the quality of Reagan’s diplomacy. “Using his sincerity and charm” asserts that Reagan was both sincere and charming – value judgements again. And, “push Gorbachev to further reforms” implies that Gorbachev was successfully “pushed” – manipulated - by the force of Reagan’s will: which is controversial and which could even be interpreted as demeaning toward Mikhail Gorbachev, whom many people consider to be a great man in his own right.

“Reagan shifted to diplomacy and charm with a view to encouraging Gorbachev to go further in his reforms” would say essentially the same thing, but without introducing any subjective judgements and without appearing to tell the reader what conclusion he/she is expected to come to.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Gorbachev agreed to meet Reagan in four summit conferences around the world: the first, in Geneva, Switzerland, the second in Reykjavík, Iceland, the third, held in Washington, D.C., along with the fourth summit, in Moscow, Russia.[117] Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to look at the prosperous American economy, they would embrace free markets and a free society. Gorbachev, facing severe economic problems at home, was swayed.[118]”

It is not clear from this statement what Reagan is supposed to have said that “swayed” Gorbachev. Is the reader to understand that Gorbachev did not know about the prosperity of the West relative to the Soviet Bloc until Reagan pointed it out to him? Of course, Reagan may have excelled himself in silver-tongued eloquence; he may have argued his case with outstanding skill and conviction: but when his arguments are (necessarily given the limits imposed by the format of Wikipedia) reduced to a one-sentence summary, it gives the impression that Reagan did nothing more than point out the blindingly obvious.
I see that Lou Cannon’s book is cited as the source for the claim that Gorbachev was “swayed”: but the Wikipedia reader is unable to see from that reference the nature or the quality of Cannon’s evidence for drawing such a conclusion. To those unfamiliar the evidence with which Cannon supports his conclusion, the statement that Gorbachev was “swayed” by Reagan looks like an argumentative claim. To carry conviction, I think that Cannon’s evidence – not his mere assertion - that Gorbachev was “swayed” by arguments put to him by Reagan needs to be given in the actual text of the article. Without that, it risks being viewed by readers as unsubstantiated hype.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Speaking at the Berlin Wall, on June 12, 1987, Reagan pushed Gorbachev even further:

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” [119]

The phrase, “pushed Gorbachev even further” once again gives the impression of Reagan controlling Gorbachev like a puppet on a string. Is there any evidence that this particular speech “pushed” Gorbachev in any way? It is a matter of historical record that the gate in question was not opened, and the wall in question not torn down, until half a decade after this speech was delivered. Unless verification can be provided of Gorbachev initiating at least one specific anti-Cold War or pro-liberalization policy in direct response to this specific speech, the phrase, “Reagan pushed Gorbachev” cannot be warranted. In that case, it would be more appropriate to use something along the lines of, “ Reagan challenged Gorbachev to go further in his reforms”. That way, we avoid giving the appearance of making argumentative claims for the influence of the Berlin Wall speech.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And I’m done! (Thank heavens for that!, you say).

Regards,
Flonto 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW Flonto! This has been really a big help, and you can see that I have already implemented a great number of your suggesions, and will continue to do so. If you have any scholarly sources on Reagan, those would be very beneficial to us, and you can help us out by citing claims. Thanks, Happyme22 05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in, I'll address one of the issues:

“Looking at Reaganomics from a beneficial point of view, many scholars agree that overall Reagan's tax policies and emphasis on deregulation invigorated America's economy.[71] According to the Cato Institute, the American Economy performed better during the Reagan years, than during the pre- and post- Reagan years,[3] and at the end of his administration, the United States was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression".[72]

Flonto covered some POV issues with this section but I'll also mention that some of the analysis is very old. Take the Cato piece:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Aside from a strong libertarian slant, the article is from 1996 and thus severely outdated. From 1993 through 2000, for instance (a comparable 8-year period), economic growth was stronger.

Also, economic growth was stronger in the 1960's.

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

Therefore, the statement "American Economy performed better during the Reagan years, than during the pre- and post- Reagan years" is inaccurate. The last sentence is also misleading since this expansion was surpassed by the 90's expansion.

"Looking at Reaganomics from a beneficial point of view, many scholars agree that overall Reagan's tax policies and emphasis on deregulation invigorated America's economy."

While some scholar do agree on that, others attribute economic growth to a large increase in defense spending, demographics, productivity and other factors. Other than a bias of omission, this is still an accurate statement. Many do support "supply-side economics". That might be a better term than "Reaganomics" which to some has negative connotations and Reagan certainly didn't invent supply-side theory.

Gmb92 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Another important point here is that a number of the citations for the gushing claims made in this article come from seriously biased sources, such as op-eds (no matter where they're published, by definition, they're opinion) and conservative think-tanks such as CATO. If we're going to agree that claims should be sourced - so that they are not simply opinion - then we should agree that they should come from non-partisan sources, or at least those published under the rules of journalism or history, and not opinion or political advocacy. At least we can agree that claims made in wiki articles ought not be "bolstered" by articles written by Reagan Administration officials (such as Martin Anderson), who have obvious conflicts of interest.Info999 03:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your concerns of which I too share (yes, I do share those concerns), and I am currently working on fixing them, along with some other people. You can help out also, if you wish. Happyme22 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Policies vs Goals/Results

Before we get another you're-damaging-the-legacy-of-my-hero diatribe, this is a matter of fact, not a political disagreement. It was a goal of the Reagan economic policies to attempt to, among other things, reduce inflation. Actually reducing inflation cannot be a policy - no more than reducing crime, reducing drug use, reducing homelessness, reducing violence, reducing teen pregnancy, reducing the number of abortions, reducing federal deficits, or reducing the national debt can be policies (coincidentally - or perhaps not :) - none of these ills were reduced during the Reagan administration). They can be goals, attempted through changes in policy. If a goal is to increase the savings rate, there are several policies that can be adopted in order to influence the savings rate (changes in monetary policy is one example); however, "increasing the savings rate" cannot be a policy. If reducing inflation was simply a matter of stating it as a policy, all presidents would simply state it as policy, and then inflation would be reduced. Ditto for countless other ills. This is, of course, ridiculous. Info999 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reductions in inflation during the Reagan years were significant. It should go somewhere in the lead along with the rest of the economy sentence. Happyme22 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you only look narrowly at the years 1980 to 1983, inflation rates did decrease dramatically (from 13.58% in 1980 to 3.22% in 1983). However, the inflation rates of '74-'75 and '78-'81 were historical abberations, over two times the inflation rate of most years between 1947 and 1978 (heck, even between 1947 and 2006). If you look at the inflation rate between 1947 and 2006 (with some exceptions, including 1948, 1951 and the '70s mentioned above), no year saw an inflation rate higher than 6%, and most years during that period it was significantly less. In fact, the inflation rate during the Reagan years was actually a bit higher than average post-WWII, not counting those exceptions already noted. In other words, one explanation was that inflation returned to just above its post-war historical average after 1980, following the political and economic upheavals and missteps of the 1970s. The inflation rate didn't even go to any record lows during the Reagan administration, which might have been something to note. And this doesn't even get into the question of linking any particular policy or policies of the Reagan administration as the actual cause of the return to the historical average that occurred during the Reagan years. My point is that this is a lot more complicated than the pundits would have you believe, and from the sources you've been citing, the pundits are those who are interested only in burnishing the Reagan legacy, which doesn't belong on wiki. I don't agree that it should be included in the lead; if at all, the fact of the return to the average might belong in the body. Info999 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not out to promote and glorify the Reagan Legacy, although I do like Reagan, (there is a difference) but even as you yourself stated in the above paragraph, "inflation rates did decrease dramatically (from 13.58% in 1980 to 3.22% in 1983)" means that the phrase "reductions in inflation" is correct, because comparing it to the late '70s and the Carter years, inflation went down. Now maybe, as you said above, it is more complicated than that. Maybe we could say "reductions in inflation from an ecomic recession" somehow. What do you think? Happyme22 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that it was much more significant that inflation increased during Nixon/Ford/Carter than it was that inflation returned to its historical average during Reagan. And look at when the decreases occurred: from 1980 to 1981 and huge drop - not at all attributable to Reagan, since he only took office in January of 1981, and from 1981 to 1982 - barely attributable to Reagan, since his budgets and policies had had no time to have any appreciable effect. Granted, the drop from 1982 to 1983 was about 50%, and occurred after Reagan's policies had had time to have an effect; this assumes, however, that they were in fact responsible for the decrease in inflation. I think the best that you can say is that the rates of inflation that were extraordinarily high during the 1970s returned to their historical post-WWII average during the time Reagan was in office. Everything else - including, in my opinion, making it part of the lead - is POV.Info999 22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Does anyone think that the lead should be shortened? I mean all the info in it is great, but it's a little long..... --Happyme22 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs: Astrology

Given that the Reagans were reportedly scheduling White House events by "favorable" astrological signs throughout the 1980s, the Reagan Wikiarticle needs to address this Reagan pre-occupation with star worshipping.

Also, is there any verifiable self-statement of Ronald Reagan's religious faith to support the non-NPOV statement by previous that Reagan was indeed a "Christian"? I think that is relatively safe to assume that Ronald Reagan may have actually ventured into a few stables during his long lifetime and career as a western cowboy/army cavalryofficer, but that does not necessarily make Ronald Reagan out to be a "horse"...4.88.55.227 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for your claims? Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with astrology during his presidecy; Nancy Reagan, the First Lady did. She consulted her astrologer, not the president, and it's mentioned throughly in her article. And why are we questioning the fact that Ronald Reagan was a Christian? He went to Bel-Air Presbyeterian Church--what else would he be? Happyme22 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Time Magazine, quoting insider's insider Donald Regan? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html More importantly, here is another example of The Keeper of the Reagan Flame zealously inserting all manner of praise for Reagan (no matter how thin and biased the "source") and scrupulously elminating the slightest hint of negativity. If we must source something as proven and well-known as the Reagan's (both of them) reliance on astrology to dictate the President's schedule, why shouldn't you have to source the quality of his religious adherence? I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not Reagan attended church services; I think the user was looking for facts to establish how well-defined his supposed religious adherence was. This is something that conservatives question liberals on all the time, but when someone asks an innocent, neutral question, look at the response they receive!Info999 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As it was reported often as how he took a break for an afternoon prayer, and with all the Christian rhetoric he used, I'm baffled anyone would doubt this! He had an intensely personal faith, and dozens of people have attested to it. He didn't stick it out their as much as Bush II has, but he certainly had it in loads. I can even remember Tip O'Neil commenting on it. // FrankB 10:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More Protection

{{editprotected}} Last two updates by user Kmart56258 are vandalism, with references to Ronald Reagan being the devil. Tseeba 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. CMummert · talk 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs Political Philosophy section

This is article is sorely lacking a section discussing Reagan's political philosophy. Compare to the Thomas Jefferson article which as a "Political philosophy" section. What he did is important but so is his philosophy. He was pretty well-read in classical liberal economics and philosophy. The freedom philosophy was what was driving him. After school special 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good point. The one thing that made him so well liked was his deep convictions and sincerity. He might be wrong about something, but you always knew where he was coming from. // FrankB 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Critisim of Reagan?

Perhaps someone could add his critism? or something like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.178.2.1 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

There's plenty of criticism of President Reagan in the article. Take this large section from the "'Reaganomics' and the economy" section:

Critics charged that Reagan was unconcerned with income inequality and its effects, abandoning the egalitarian ideals that had come to be standard stated policy goals since the New Deal era. They also stated that the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense expenditure caused large budget deficits, and the U.S. trade deficit expanded.

Reagan's efforts to cut welfare and income taxes became common flashpoints for both critics and supporters. Opponents charged that this primarily benefited the wealthy in America, deriding these policies as "Trickle-down economics". Reagan's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman, stated that Reagan was deliberately left "out of the loop" by cabinet members, when the true economic decisions were made. He believed that Reagan did not know where he stood on economic policy and said he was forced to coach him prior to speeches and press conferences on what to say.[69] He later characterized the Reagan administration as giving "the greatest free lunch fiscal policy" to Americans through his economic policies.

There's more....Happyme22 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed phrase again

re: Ronald Reagan/Archive 6#Legacy

for the record, the disputed "phrase" of this section is bolded below.: Maybe some of you regular contributors to this article can help Konstable out:

...

Reagan's supporters, and even many who are not, believe that much of America's success today can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, including a more efficient and more prosperous economy, r e f name="Cato Institute"/><r e f>{{cite book | last = Appleby| first = Joyce| coauthors=Alan Brinkley, James M. McPherson | title = The American Journey| publisher = Glencoe/McGraw-Hill| date = 2003| location = Woodland Hills, California| pages = 924| id = 0078241294 }} /r e f> a peaceful end to the Cold War, a world safer from the threat of nuclear war, hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a ...

Sequence: I'd added 5-6 pics and was fighting the Wikimarkup HTML's rendering viewing in four browsers, and balancing all that with zoom in and out. He made the edit deleting the phrase, which was IIRC flagged by a {{fact}} w/o and date. So I put it back as it read well, and per the below. So now he's throwing this snit, despite lacking justification in my opinion of a good reason to delete same. (Fact tags without a day date are fairly poor vehicles. They need to be sequentially numbered and initialed and so forth so all can discuss them clearly. In any event. Good luck with him... he seems to have some pov contrary to My Life's experience! // FrankB 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase again because it did not seem to me that the person reverting me was in any way informed on the issue. The person who reverted me was referred to "winning" the Cold War, as absurd as the concept of "winning" a Cold War is, the statement that I removed had nothing to do with it in the first place - which is what I said in my comments anticipating such confusion. The single supporter that is referred to by the person who reverted me claimed that Reagan made communism collapse, which is not at all the same as the Soviet Union. Even then one supporter is not enough to blanketly claim "supporters claim" without citation. If you know anything about the real collapse of the Soviet Union it becomes very hard to imagine how Reagan could have anything to do with it at all - that was Yeltsin's doing. Again end of the Cold War is not the same as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" and are two different issues. But that's besides the point, no citation -> no phrase per Wikipedia's official policy WP:V.--Konstable 08:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

At the age of 53 I assure you I am very well informed of the Reagan years, and the fact that you can't read the quote by his biographer at the beginning of that section, or haven't heard or seen the claim made in the vast multitudes of sources is absolutely amazing. More to the point, the issue is addressed all over the body of the article, so removing it from Legacy is idiotic by itself. Clearly your neither a US cit or over 35 or don't pay much attention to political coverage and controversial talk programs. Even the liberal media over here like CNN and MSNBC as well as NPR commentators are more than willing to concede he dealt death blows to the soviets. Chances are if it hadn't been for RRR rattling the saber, the hard liners would have stayed in power instead of us having M. Gorbachev come to power and we'd never seen those little matters he called glasnost and perestroika... I could go on and on. You're so far out to lunch it scares me to think you think you have a clue on this. In the meanwhile, kindly stop creating edit conflicts while I'm playing with the multiple perils of the way graphics elements render on four browsers. I've been at this for well over eight hours straight which is 7.9+ more than I figured on, and their are open edits waiting to close. At my age all nighters are tough on the body and soul. But for the record, you're clueless if you even question THAT point. Fortunately ignorance is curable. So go read a Reagan biography and leave this article to those who know something of the rich history he gave us. // FrankB 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bottom line -- The USSR couldn't begin to spend a tithe of what it would take to keep up with the US outlays on defense and so forth. Hell, we're even subsidizing the dissolution of their nuclear missiles even today. By challenging the "Evil Empire" at every turn, he caused an internal change... they had to deal with the rest of the world and couldn't continue the old guns over workers policies. Too many people had learned too much about the differences between east and west, and the people were very very restless. Pandora's box was opened, and there was no going back. If you doubt that, consider the parallel effect in China... who's making most everything these days and why? By desiring western goods and technology, they have to take much of the culture and cultural outlooks as well. So no tanks, the wall came down, the Eastern Block Citizens all kept clamoring for free elections, and the communists were booted out.
  
  For my part, I don't call that a collapse, but a demonstration of how the world works. Might only goes so far, then things rebound. 'Nuff said. // FrankB 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, I have no interest in getting into arguments over what happened, that could go on forever and would produce no results. But Wikipedia has a very nice policy Verifiability not truth and let's just stick to that. I removed the unverified statement, and I have no opposition to anyone re-inserting it as long as it is properly attributed - and one guy saying that Reagan hastened the collapse of communism is most definitely not enough attribution.--Konstable 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. I've never cared for the lack of due process in lots of things around here. As you can see from what was ready above, (I had to fix a template, made another answer, etc.) taking out such a widely held view without due process is what disturbs me. You didn't cite a section on this talk for example which had a consensus for that removal. So if you want to lawyer, think on that. One could even say you're "Zeal" to remove such conventional views is borderline WP:POINT (more dispicable lawyering). Still, RRR's legacy is safe from what you and those like you can do. I've no doubt whatever he'll be discussed for centuries--for the phrase you disagree with. Sigh. // FrankB 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fabartus, I cannot imagine what I said to you that prompted such a response, but you need to calm down. I don't need consensus for removal of policy-violating material that I believe to be wrong, and no "consensus" to keep it can be achieved unless you change Wikipedia's policy to allow unsourced criticism - but as it is one of the founding principles of the whole project I think you will have no luck. I have not accused you of anything, so I don't see why you need to resort to screaming in big bold letters accusing me of vandalism on my user talk page. Regarding edit conflicts, you very well know that I did not cause them intentionally and that this is a side affect of having a wiki that anyone can edit at any time. I've been here a long time, I've worked on many articles and I'm a former administrator - I know how Wikipedia works, don't try to teach me. If you want to respond, respond in calm civil manner and respond here.--Konstable 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Eternal Flame

The amount of effort that it takes to keep this page honest, accurate and sourced is overwhelming. The Keepers of the Flame are motivated and willing to cross any line - especially wikipedia rules and regulations - to puff up the image of their hero. Discussions and debates resolve an issue, only to have unbelievably partisan editors like HappyMe change things to suit their fancy. On top of the POV problems, the effort to educate these partisans in basic political science, economics, etc., to say nothing of the proper use of standard written English, is ultimately not worth it. Understanding the difference between a policy and a goal; understanding that "increases in defense spending" were political moves, not part of "Reaganomics" (and ultimately devastating to the US economy due to the deficits they produced and the debt with which they saddled us); these are fundamentals that the Reagan folks can't or won't accept. The partisans can have this article; it's clear to anyone with half a brain that it's nowhere near being NPOV and way outside the boundaries of wiki policy. I'm taking it off my watch list. Info999 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECT '''Insert text'''

Would you please stop taking shots at me?!?!?!?! I am trying to be neutral; I am not changing anything to "suit my fancy!" In the book Ronald Reagan by Kenneth Walsh, published in 1997, page 95, it says that the goals of Reaganomics were to:

cut taxes
raise defense spending
deregulate

So Mr. Walsh is wrong because you say so? No! I am telling the truth, according to this book, as well as the others in the References section of the page. So we're are not supposed to listen to their descriptions of Reaganomics because you don't agree with what's being said?!?!?! When you say that the increases in defense spending were "ultimately devastating to the US economy due to the deficits they produced and the debt with which they saddled us"--you're going to tell me thats fair?!?!? That's your one sided opinion, so don't tell me that I'm the only one who's "slanted", which is not true. Happyme22 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Mr. Walsh, and have never made a comment about him, much less said that he was wrong. But, as your hero said in 1980: "there you go again" - misrepresenting the facts and what I've said. And, I really think you must be joking when you claim that since you point to a book - any book, no matter its author, publisher, content, reliability in the world, or slant - you are telling "the truth." That's naiive, and sad, if you really think and act that way. Or perhaps you're young, which while it may be a reason, it is not an excuse. It's not my opinion that Reagan's deficits were devastating to the economy; that is the generally understood history of the time. Under Reagan, we went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation...that's not simply an isolated, neutral fact of the Reagan years. Those and other decisions had consequences, and many of them were devastatingly negative. The soaring deficit and the unstoppable debt from 1981-1989 were horrible results of Reagan's "policy" that you could lower taxes and raise spending because you could simply borrow it, saddling the next and following generations with the responsibility of paying (much more) for his programs. That isn't a partisan opinion; it's fact. Those facts forced us to make bad choices that we otherwise would not have had to make had Reagan paid for his spending increases the honest way. But even though you claim that I am slanted, I didn't write that in the actual article, I wrote it in the discussion. You fail to notice that I don't include "slanted" items either way in the articles, and you fail to notice the difference between the article and the discussion. You are not prepared to back up your claims with significant, credible sources, and you are reckless in both your article edits and in your discussions. You spend an inordinate amount of time editing this article and related ones so that it has become an inappropriately long shrine, not a wiki article. And it's not worth my time and effort. Info999 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't really care what you have to say about me, and my edits, because I am free to do what I want. In case you didn't know, I have been awarded two barnstars for my edits to this page, so I'm not too bad..... Happyme22 04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, make that three barnstars--I was just awarded another one today. Happyme22 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how persons of a certain political persuasion can claim partisanship of others, without recognizing their own. For example, the stagflation of the Carter years were especially devastating and debilitating for the poor and unskilled, whereas under RRR, the economy zoom climbed (airplane maneuver) and by mid-83, the "National Malaise" was totally turned around and we all had confidence in the economy again.

Was that great for the long run debt picture? Probably not, but it was certainly great to the working joe by the mid-eighties. Moreover, last I looked the Democrats had both houses the whole three (four?, five?) decades before and the one starting his administration through the end. Yet they never seem to recollect the huge debt their administrations ran up in the Vietnam War era.

Since money bills originate in the house and the administrations budget is merely a formal request sans legal requirement that it be implemented as received, Info999 and his like minded ilk seem bound and determined to ignore that inconvienient constitutional truism... and spin things so as to blame RRR and so forth. For my part, I shudder to think what would have happened had things gone on as they did under Carter-Mondale, and really glad they didn't. // FrankB 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long

This article is way too long. It's over 110KB, which is something like 3.5 times longer than the recommended size. What's more, with the templates, it's even worse - it took forever to load on my 300Mhz computer (built circa 1858). This is mostly a problem, though, because it takes a long time to read - an encyclopedia article is meant to be short and precise - any extra materials should be put into subarticles. The Evil Spartan 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to see comparable articles on comparable world figures before suggesting this. Try Kings and Queens and other heads of state like Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, King George III... but do it on a library computer not stuck three generations of technology later. This is NOT a dead tree encyclopedia, and that guideline is for general articles like chemical elements or units of measurement. Not Battles (Battle of Jutland), or other in depth articles. Sorry. // FrankB 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I bypassed the tagging. This is nearing FA finals, and it was unhelpful. Place such down low anyway, NOT IN YOUR FACE. It makes us look unprofessional. // FrankB

- And I've put it back. Just becuase other articles are too long is not a good reason. That's where the tag is supposed to go. In any case, I am looking at it now from a library computer, and it's still too long. There are good reasons that Wikipedia:Article size exists. As for other articles, George W. Bush is 83KB, George H. W. Bush is 62KB, Margaret Thatcher is 80KB and Bill Clinton is 82KB. What's more, of the three articles you mentioned, 2 were under 60KB, not nearly as long as this one, and the only one that was close was the one on Queen Elizabeth, at 100KB (still less than this one). The Evil Spartan 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get so involved in this discussion, but Gerald Ford, a Featured Article (FA), is 102 KB, and Featured Artciles are considered to be Wikipedia's best. Now, I agree, Reagan's should be condensed, and the sections I am working on are "The Cold War" and "'Reaganomics' and the economy". I do not think that the article should be drastically cut, however, because, although it's long, it's very factual, and facts are what encyclopedia's are all about. Just thought I'd add that..... --Happyme22 01:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan's article is now down to 107 KB, which is still high, but I'm cutting less important facts. Happyme22 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now down to 105 KB, only two higher than that of Gerald Ford's, a FA. Happyme22 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that all these articles are too long for all the said reasons above. While I realize this is an encyclopedia, it's probably best to put a lot of the facts into subarticles, as encyclopedias are meant to a) give information, and b) provide it precisely enough in a good summary. If we wish to have a ton of information, we can always go into the subarticle or check out a book on the man. I hope this isn't too unclear; but when I try to read information on this guy, my eyes are glazing over, as I can't find a thing. Hope I'm not being too rude. The Evil Spartan 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that you're being rude, and your argument is very truthful and convincing. I still think, however, that the tag should be removed because of the Gerald Ford article being 103 KB and the Ronald Reagan one being 104. Ford's was assessed by editors and found to be one of Wikipedia's best, and even though its pretty long, it's one of the very best Wiki articles. Reagan's can be too. And about the subsections thing, many of the current sections are already in greater articles and are considered subsections themselves (i.e. "The Cold War" and "Reaganomics"). Both of the sections are relatively short, however, plus they are two (and "End of the Cold War" makes three) main parts of Reagan's presidency. I will go through the sections again and remove and rephrase sentences when I find the time to. Thanks a lot for your constructive criticism! Happyme22 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Religious beliefs and philosophy" section

This section really lays it on pretty thick as far as glorifying Reagan. (I notice that the article on Jimmy Carter has no such section, even though Carter was a man of faith who regularly taught Sunday School----whereas Reagan didn't even regularly attend church services as president). What is most offensive in this section, though, is the sentence that Reagan was "appalled by discrimination." Oh really? The fact is, he was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights acts of the 1960s which aimed to halt discrimination against African-Americans. If people like Reagan had it their way, blacks would still be second-class citizens, oppressed by Jim Crow laws and living as sharecroppers.

Great! So add the section to Jimmy Carter's page. You are completley correct-Carter was very religious, and his faith inspired him, but that has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. Do you have a citation to back up your bold claims? We've cited the "Religious beliefs" section, so for such bold claims, do you have a citation? Happyme22 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan had an intense personal faith that was attested to by many people. He took daily afternoon prayer periods to reflect with his God. Attending church is a sine qua non -- irrelevant! This is not the middle ages, and FAITH is a matter from within, not a matter of demonstration to the neighborhood. The Puritan's are two centuries back, not extant today.

One does not have to believe in affirmative actions to be non-predjudiced and unbiased. Those who believe so, are the one's exhibiting biases. As a constituant of Ted Kennedy and observing his lip services to such "buzzwords" (as your complaint about RRR) for 30+ adult years, I'll take a non-hypocrite and man of genuine belief and principle any day over such politicians like him and Tip O'Neil. Double that for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who opine and moan, but are notoriously missing when there is no headline in it for them. Where the heck were they in New Orleans? I took six months to aid the relief efforts there, but for a few appearances (and not holding the locals culpable!) they were MIA. You need to broaden your information inputs to a wider variety of sources. // FrankB 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone add information to this section about his economic philosophy? I think that's more important that his religion. I'm not talking about what he did. I'm talking about the philosophy behind the economic changes he pushed for. He was a student of the classical economists. After school special 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Odds and Ends

Note: {{TOCnestright}} is a derivative (simpler to apply, so survived a TFD) of {{TOCright}}, which requires a parameter command to release text to float, as nestright does automatically.

With the complexity of this article, I strongly recommend the TOC high and centered like the first screen shot. See for example FA: Battle of Jutland and the templates's links here for other uses, but it's precedented.

A "Presidential Moment" picture I think should start immediately following the Infobox regardless of TOC considerations, especially if the TOC is put back into standard position pushing the mass of the first section down and below it--otherwise a huge (screenful plus) of unprofessional looking whitespace is created with nothing... absolutely nothing to the rightside of the screen.
The other alternative is to keep the intro to a single paragraph above BOTH the info box and 1st section ("Overview" works nice as a title there... <g>) -- that technique would allow the infobox and TOC to share the same length and screen as does the first screenshot.

The problem with that is the meat of the introduction, the summary is a screenpage plus down.
The intro is far too short -- it's not a good summary of the article per the MOS.
1. a) because it should cover a most of the points like the affirmative action opposition, welfare, etc... all the sub-sections now extant as an intro.
2. b) It will help some of the layout problems up top. (See top Screenshot) Putting a pic under the Infobox is strongly recommended. Happyme seems to want all the pics chronologically ordered, and while in principle that makes sense, the young person we are "opening" the text with is after all going to grow into one of the most influential and important world figures of the century (and millenia, I have no doubt).

I have to object, because we worked very hard on the lead to get it to how it is now. Per WP:LEAD, I believe that almost all sections are somehow mentioned in the lead, and that's what it says to do. We had some very long discussions about it, so if you still object, let me know. I would also like to bring up the point that Gerald Ford, a Featured Article, has a much shorter lead, only covering his presidency. If you still object, let me know. Happyme22 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the intro needs to be more of a summary whether the TOC is nested right as I just left it in a new trial, or left to float to what some call standard position.
I think this 06:33,_12_May_2007_by_Happyme22 screenshot needs a airing. Happyme22 said something that leads me to think this jagged margin behaviour on the left is desired??? To me it looks unprofessional. // FrankB 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How I about I help and just make this easier by removing one of the pictures in the "Reaganomics and the economy" section (i.e. the one of the Reagan's waving from Air Force One), and the slightly move down the ones of President Reagan in the Oval Office, and President and Nancy Reagan waiting at the White House. I think that would help, because I agree--those pictures do look slightly unprofessional, and removing one would probably be good. I have to disagree, however, with placing a picture of Reagan and Nancy giving a speech by the Statue of Liberty in the "Early life" section, because it's not in chronolgical order by date, and it goes from childhood to President, and the next picture is one of him as an actor--I don't think that works out either. Take Gerald Ford--his is a FA, and his is what I tried to model Reagan's after, photo wise. It doesn't have a pic of him as President after the infobox, because there is one of him in the infbox as President. Again, I don't think it's wise to do that. Thoughts? Happyme22 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Happyme22! Just to clarify, I agree that for the most part, it's nice in a biography that pictures and article flow go chronologically, provided the introduction is strong enough. OTOH, I dont' think it mandantory in any way that all pics be strictly chronologically arranged. (Unless you've moved it or removed it, your pic with RRR-MG at that first summit is in his second term, but its placement where you had it makes ample sense to include as an introduction to the cold war segment. So there is precedent within your own mind as it were.) My key point is RRR had an awful lot of "memorable" historical moments that are good copy, as they say in the magazine trade, and I feel that such a historic moment ought to appear high up after the info box. Further, his administration had such historic impact (All those former Democrats who have switched ever since for starters!) that I think adding in a gallery of others down the bottom, or perhaps inbetween his terms (a double row, I'm thinking--believe that would be ten pics, give or take) would be appropriate. In any event, you go girl! Good job regardless. Cheers! // FrankB 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm a guy, but hey Fabartus! I'm sorry for saying that the pics are all in chronological order, which they aren't, but they correspond greatly to the section that they are in. My mistake.

Although your argument is very convincing, I still think that a pic of President Reagan in the "Early life" section (or at least under the infobox) is not needed for three reasons. (1.)- Looking at Gerald Ford's article (a Featured Article, there isn't a pic of him as President under the infobox, as well as Margaret Thatcher, FDR, or Tony Blair, to name a few, all of which happen to be Featured Articles. (2.)- There is already a pic of Ronald Reagan as President in the infobox, which is being used as the main picture of the article. (3.)- I remember reading in WP:LEAD about the fact that you don't want to show the reader everything about the article in the lead, because then what's the point of the article? Although this arugment is the weakest of the three, I think that adding an image of Reagan as President might discourage readers from reading on, because they know about Reagan now, and they know what he looks like.......what else is there?

Adding pics in a gallery is a good idea, but all the pics about Reagan are on the Ronald Reagan article on Wiki Commons. Providing a link to that (which we have done) allows readers to visit the Commons site and view all of the pics of Reagan. Is that good? Happyme22 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RR & NR Relationship

The recent cuts to this section do not, in my view, represent an improvement. Accurately citing the subjects' own statements regarding their relationship seems to be our NPOV obligation; if those statements strike some as "syrupy," biased, or somehow inaccurate, then let's have factual (and verifiable) citations explaining how the Reagans' views of their own marriage were mistaken. DagnyB 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From the very start of their marriage, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were "soul mates." He often called her "Mommy" and she called him "Ronnie."[28] This deep relationship was with the Reagans throughout all of their married life. While President and First Lady, the Reagans frequently displayed their affection for each other in public, and in private. [31] Even when the President was debilitated by Alzheimer's Disease, Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are."[30] President Reagan's death in June 2004 ended what Charlton Heston called "the greatest love affair in the history of the American Presidency."[30]

The problem with the above is not that it is not cited, but that it contains weasel-words, and sly affirmations on the part of the author(s) of the article. Here is a revised version:

"Ronald and Nancy Reagan had what was to many observers a close relationship throughout their whole lives. [cite] [cite] [cite]"

Do we need to know that Reagan called Nancy "mommy"? Opinions? Pablosecca 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DagnyB, on the grounds that the Reagan's marriage was very, very close, and that should be mentioned in thorough detail. If you ask anyone who covered the Reagan's in the White House, or was friends with them, you will get an answer stating how they commonly wanted to "not live without the other", and Reagan described in his autobiography that he "can't imagine life without her [Nancy]." They weren't just "close", but very close.

Also, Pat Nixon's article talks about how she and Richard didn't always get along, and about how their relationship was somewhat turbulent (according to some), but it does so with detail, and I think that's what's needed here.

You also say there are "syrupy" words being used to desribe their marriage--I'm going to go through it phrase by phrase:

From the very start of their marriage, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were "soul mates." [ok, a little weasley, and could possibly use another phrase]. He often called her "Mommy" and she called him "Ronnie."[should be mentioned-this goes along with their playful realtionship] This deep relationship was with the Reagans throughout all of their married life. [True statement, consult their autobiographies for more] While President and First Lady, the Reagans frequently displayed their affection for each other in public, and in private. [Ask news reprters, or look at casual pictures--there's rarley one where they aren't together] Even when the President was debilitated by Alzheimer's Disease, Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are."[Should be mentioned, because there were news reports saying that the only person Reagan recognized was Nancy, because they were so close before] President Reagan's death in June 2004 ended what Charlton Heston called "the greatest love affair in the history of the American Presidency."[Should be mentioned]

Again, I really only think that the soulmates line could be changed, and maybe we could even use your phrase: "Ronald and Nancy Reagan had what was to many observers a close relationship throughout their whole lives. [cite] [cite] [cite]" in it's place. Happyme22 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that you have to get sources that say what you want to say, unless you're simply stating facts (like "the White house is painted white.") If you say, "they were soul mates", that's an interpretation, and while it may be "likely" that they were, whatever that means, you have to cite someone who says what you say.

the CURRENT version:

Ronald and Nancy Reagan had a very close relationship throughout their whole lives [it's POV].[28] He often called her "Mommy" and she called him "Ronnie."[this adds nothing and violates WP:TONE ]While President and First Lady, the Reagans frequently displayed their affection for each other in public, and in private. [This sentences needs to be clipped] Even when the President was debilitated by Alzheimer's Disease, Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are."[This can be be used, but in a different way] President Reagan's death in June 2004 ended what Charlton Heston called "the greatest love affair in the history of the American Presidency."[Charlton Heston has no relevance to this matter]

REVISION:

Observers described Ronald and Nancy Reagan's relationship as real and intimate. [ref] While President and First Lady, the Reagans were reported to frequently display their affection for each other. [ref] In 1998, while her husband was severely affected by Alzheimer's disease, Nancy Reagan told Vanity Fair, "Our relationship is very special. We were very much in love and still are. When I say my life began with Ronnie, well, it's true. It did. I can't imagine life without him." [ref]

A few misleading statements in the Cold War section

The End of the Cold War

The beginning of this section states:

"By the late years of the Cold War, Moscow had built up a military which surpassed that of the United States.[116]In the past, the United States had relied on its qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but with Soviet technological advances in the 1980s, the gap between the two nations was narrowed. With the military buildup came large budget deficits, and as a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe."

This is a little misleading, considering that the Soviet Union spent less on defense as a percentage of their GNP in 1985 than they did in 1980, during the apparent spike of Cold War tensions (1). A more significant upswing in military spending didn't begin until Gorbachev entered the picture, which was a possible concession for him to win military backing at home. Soviet budget deficits had more to do with a sharp economic slowdown, which began in the 1970's. (1)

The opening paragraph in the Cold War section states:

"Reagan escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union, leaving behind the policy of détente used by his predecessors Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. The Reagan Administration implemented a new policy..."

Actually, it was Carter who officially ended Détente by increasing defense spending and providing aid to anti-Soviet elements after their invasion of Afghanistan in the latter part of his term (2)(3)(4)(5). This should be incorporated into this statement. Reagan did more substantially step up support for the Mujahideen.

Another questionable statement:

"Reagan's militant rhetoric inspired dissidents in the Soviet Union,"

What is the source for this? There were also inspired dissidents well before Reagan took office. There is a cause effect uncertainty here. Growing structural problems also inspired dissidents within the Soviet Union, perhaps to a much greater degree than any western militant rhetoric.

Sources for the above are:

1. Soviet Defense Spending: A History of CIA Estimates, 1950-1990 Firth and Noren pp 127-130

Soviet Defense Spending as a percentage of GNP: 1978: 14.4 1979: 15.0 1980: 15.3 1981: 14.9 1982: 14.8 1983: 14.6 1984: 14.7 1985: 14.9 1986: 14.9 1987: 15.7 2. Westad, O. A., The Fall of Detente: Soviet-American Relations During the Carter Years, 1997 3. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=12594 4. http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf 5. http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/pddirectives/pd18.pdf Gmb92 07:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But according to that same Wilson Center page, it was the Carter Admin. who started the support for the Muhajadeen. I quote: "In mid-1979, the Carter administration began to provide non-lethal aid to the Afghan resistance movement. The Reagan administration would inherit an active program of covert military aid to the Mujahadeen that had begun in December 1979 (though some suggest that a U.S.-funded arms pipeline was in place as early as August 1979—an assertion repudiated by some of the CIA officials present). Over the next two years, under the leadership of CIA Director William Casey, aid developed into a sophisticated coalition effort to train the Mujahadeen resistance fighters, provide them with Czech and East German arms, and fund the whole operation." So, yes the Reagan Admin. continued the support for the fighters, but Carter started it.

As for Jimmy Carter ending Détente, after looking through those sites you posted, I didn't find anywhere that Carter ended Détente, but rather kept it going by not taking a stong stand against the Soviets and/or pushing then to the bargaining table, like Reagan did. Although there is some evidence to suggest that Carter ended détente, I would say that the majority of the credit goes to Ronald Reagan. Carter’s policy was "borders on appeasement." (see here), and I do not have time to go through the long PDF files that you cited. Here I even quote from the Détente page on Wikipedia: "Détente began to unravel in 1979 due to a series of events. The Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis embarrassed the United States and led much of the American public to believe their nation had lost its international power and prestige. The Soviets invasion of Afghanistan to shore up a struggling allied regime led to harsh criticisms in the west and a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics, which were to be held in Moscow." So it seems that détente was ended, but not by Jimmy Carter.

--Happyme22 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't assert that Carter didn't start the assistance to the Afghan fighters. In fact, I pointed out above that he did indeed start the assistance. Also, it seems that you've selectively quoted from the Wikipedia entry. The sentence immediately following the last one quoted is: "American President Jimmy Carter boosted the U.S. defense budget and began financially aiding the President of Pakistan General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq heavily, who would in turn subsidize the anti-Soviet Mujahideen fighters in the region." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tente#End_of_D.C3.A9tente The pdf sources are not very long but I should have quoted the relevant sections. Pages 7 and 8 of the CBO link show the defense budget, which began to climb during the latter half of Carter's administration. Here are the amounts in real terms (inflation adjusted): http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html The budget laid out in 1981 by Carter's administration also indicated a sharp increase. "It should be noted that part of the increase for FY 1981 resulted from supplemental appropriations obtained by the Reagan administration, but nevertheless the Carter administration by this time had departed substantially from its early emphasis on curtailing the DoD budget. Its proposals for FY 1982, submitted in January 1981, called for significant real growth over the TOA for FY 1981." http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/brown.htm The reason for these increases? Source #5 above covers that on page 3. It was a move to counter-balance Soviet power. The definition of Detente is: A relaxing or easing, as of tension between rivals. A policy toward a rival nation or bloc characterized by increased diplomatic, commercial, and cultural contact and a desire to reduce tensions, as through negotiation or talks. http://www.answers.com/topic/d-tente Therefore, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter's support for the Afghan resistance and increasing of defense budgets to counter-balance the Soviet threat signalled an end to Detente. The sentence "Reagan escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union, leaving behind the policy of détente used by his predecessors Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter" should therefore be rephrased. Reagan did not end Detente but he continued with an escalation of this policy established prior to his presidency. Gmb92 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

- Fact: Yes Carter slapped the Soviets in the face with some moderate support for the Muj, but it was token, and he was responding to political pressure from the right, and in particular, one RRR. Things went from bad to worse though with the hostage crises, so then he decided to quit.
- Fact: Carter's increase to defense was miniscule in comparison. It was primarily to offset the abhorant state of readiness that had developed in the Fleet and Air Force, and you can't call it an increase as he cut so damn deeply. One or two years of up trend is not a net gain after sawing off a leg. Short translation: Defense had been cut so badly ships couldn't leave port for want of needed repair parts. Ditto the air forces. Even unit readiness and training was on the ropes. I was on ACTDUTRA during those years, and things were bad.
- Fact: Reagan's rehetoric inspired people behind the iron curtain. Concurrently, information channels had become something of a deluge instead of a trickle. The end result was great desire for improvements in the standard of living, and increased civil unrest across the Soviet Empire. That was further encourage by Pope John Paul and Reagan, so revise someone else's history. That was what happened and in the news month by month. // FrankB 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I see now that Jimmy Carter slowed détente, but he didn't leave it behind and end it. He started up "relations" with other countries, thereby halting détente, but Reagan was he one who ended it and met with Gorbachev and the Soviets. After you presented those facts Gmb92, I do agree now that the sentence should be rephrased, something which I have just done. Happyme22 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Slowed detente" is not accurate. This implies that the policy was still moving towards the detente side when it fact it was being reversed. From the Wilson Center source: "The Reagan administration would inherit an active program of covert military aid to the Mujahadeen that had begun in December 1979 (though some suggest that a U.S.-funded arms pipeline was in place as early as August 1979—an assertion repudiated by some of the CIA officials present). Over the next two years, under the leadership of CIA Director William Casey, aid developed into a sophisticated coalition effort to train the Mujahadeen resistance fighters, provide them with Czech and East German arms, and fund the whole operation." Other countries were brought on board in 1980: "In 1980, the government of Saudi Arabia decided to share the costs of this operation equally with the United States. In its full range of activities, the coalition included the intelligence services of the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and China." Combined with the increase in the military budget in 1979, 1980 and slated for 1981 for the purpose of counter-balancing perceived Soviet power, it is clear that detente was being reversed. What happened from 1981 to 1985 was an acceleration of the reversal. I see that the new line reads: "Reagan escalated the Cold War and began diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, going against the policy of détente used by many of his predecessors" There are two ambiguous parts of this sentence. First, "diplomatic relations" or "meeting with the Soviets" doesn't have much to do with Detente. Previous administrations during Detente used various forms of diplomacy (SALT for instance). Second, some brief background information in the opening to this section seems prudent rather than vaguely stating "used by many of his predecessors". How about something like: "Reagan escalated the Cold War, accelerating a reversal from the policy of detente which began in 1979 following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan." The Wilson Center link could be used as a source. Gmb92 04:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will use that phrase instead. Nice working with you. --Happyme22 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago

Reagan was from Dixon, which isn't close to Chicago, how is the article in the scope of WP Chicago? That tag doesn't belong here. IvoShandor 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completly, and wonder why that tag was even placed here. Can anyone remove it, or does it have to be a member of Wiki Chicago? Happyme22 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can remove it if the consensus here is it should be removed, Reagan's connection to Chicago is fleeting at best, worked there some (millions upon millions of people have) and his family lived there briefly when he was young I believe. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? IvoShandor 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was added by a bot, probably by mistake as it was adding to categories, I am just going to remove it. IvoShandor 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please do so. Happyme22 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Whatever, it looks like WP Chicago does whatever they want, what do I care. IvoShandor 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning I got a message from one of their users which said, I added the tag back see edit summary, I apparently don't garner enough respect to be told directly why it was added back. IvoShandor 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And I just noticed the "Low" importance of Reagan to the project, completely misleading to anyone who just happens upon the page knowing little or nothing about Reagan and/or WikiProjects. Obviously Reagan was one of the most important figures of the late 20th Century, how this garners a low importance by any definition is beyond me. IvoShandor 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am said user. The following link will help explain the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} low importance tag: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Priority_Scale. Low and mid importance do not mean the article is low importance. Michael Jordan has a low importance tag from the Baseball WP. Barack Obama has a mid importance tag from the Hawaii WP. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. keep in mind project banner tags are for editors not readers. In particular they are for project members. The people who they are intended for are not confused. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My assessment that you were rude was premature, for that I apologize, however I would note that the large majority of Wikipedia users are readers only and that regardless of the fact that editors are not confused readers do, and are often encouraged, to address issues on the talk page, the tag could very well be very confusing to readers. Regardless I don't agree that it belongs here but I won't remove it anymore. People can discuss it here if they'd like I am not vested either way so whatever happens happens, I really only watch this page for vandals because of its importance as a historical topic. IvoShandor 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My method is to assume readers read the article and more serious users and editors venture to the talk page. Admittedly, even really experienced editors who have not been involved in page assessments are confused on the meaning of priority scale ratings. Furthermore, there is always debate on what is significant enough to be low importance. For example, right now Muhammad Ali has a lot of info about statements in Chicago newspapers. This is not sufficient for me to tag his article. However, I have heard that has owned property in Kenwood District. If I can also confirm he once lived here, it might raise his significance to WP:WPChi because persons interested in Historic District properties would have a special Chicago interest in him. I appreciate your consideration in our efforts to tag even low importance articles to our project. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Strategic Defense Initiative

"Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned about SDI, and it ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War."

This is a POV stated as fact. The source for this is an op-ed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5147745/site/newsweek/

Some other views on this topic from scholars:

http://www.armscontrol.ru/START/publications/uhler1.htm

http://www.csis.org/ruseura/commentary/

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/schell

The sentence should be rephrased to something like:

"Proponents of SDI believe it played a major role in ending the Cold War."

Gmb92 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

public infrastructure investment: a hidden part of Reaganomics

It is my understanding that Reagan also embarked on one of, if not THE Largest investments in public infrastructure. Some economists believe that the massive public spending was a major cause of the era's rapid economic growth, perhaps eclipsing the effect of the tax cuts. Subject to verification and citations, mention of the infrastructure investment should be added along with it's importance as competing explanation for the era's growth. While questioning the popular belief in tax cuts as a critical and major economic stimulus may seem akin to heresy, there is plenty of research and argument about the true role of tax policy in the economy. I also find the absence of any reference to the (discredited by some)Laffer Curve to be a great embarrassment. The Laffer Curve was an important part of the PR campaign for his policies. Surely Reagan's seminal importance to the renaissance of conservative politics and his accomplishments do not evaporate under a more nuanced examination of history.Topremodeler 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well do you have a citation to back up your claims? Happyme22 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look very impartial

"Reagan fired 11,359 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored his order to return to work, one of the biggest setbacks to the power of organized labor in many years."

Anyone else agree?

I removed it. It appears that it was added by a new user not familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies. Happyme22 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro problems

I still have MANY problems with the beginning of this article, particularly with this statement. "...bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide." Like what???!!!??? I remember death squads in El Salvador and Guatamala. BUT I guess that only the winners write history. Wonder what will be said about the current administration and president, will everyone be gushing over him too? This article's one-sided, pro Reagan stance factual articles are meant to be objective, I guess WIKI rules don't apply for this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evan1980 (talk • contribs).

Could you please calm down a little, it is hard to discuss with someone who is putting many question marks and uses capitals. I have removed some of your statements that violated our civility policy. Please point out more specific problems in a calmer way.--Konstable 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for an alteration

The second paragraph of the 'End of the Cold War' section has the following sentence:
“Many U.S.-Soviet experts and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race,[115] but Ronald Reagan recognized the real change in the direction of the Soviet leadership, and Reagan shifted to skillful diplomacy, using his sincerity and charm to personally push Gorbachev further with his reforms.[116]”

The phrase, “skilfull diplomacy” is POV in that it makes a subjective value judgement as to the quality of Reagan’s diplomacy. “Using his sincerity and charm” asserts that Reagan was both sincere and charming – value judgements again. And, “push Gorbachev to further reforms” implies that Gorbachev was successfully “pushed” – manipulated - by the force of Reagan’s will: which is controversial and which could even be interpreted as demeaning toward Mikhail Gorbachev, whom many people consider to be a great man in his own right.

I think that the following alteration would say essentially the same thing, but without introducing any subjective judgements and without appearing to tell the reader to what conclusion he/she is expected to come:

“Many U.S.-Soviet experts and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race,[115] but Ronald Reagan recognized the real change in the direction of the Soviet leadership, and he shifted to diplomacy and charm with a view to encouraging Gorbachev to go further in his reforms.[116]”

I therefore propose to make this alteration. Can users please register any support for or objection to such a change?
Regards,
Flonto 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but I would change "with a view to encouraging" to "with a goal" OR "with a view to encourage." Happyme22 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "charm" is pretty subjective as well as suspect. I'd leave it as "diplomacy". Gmb92 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made the change, leaving "charm" out also.--Konstable 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mental hospitals

I've often read that Reagan forced tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of mental patients out of hospital (those who were considered "unthreatening"). Is this true, and shouldn't this be covered in the article? Even if it may be exaggerated, it certainly crops up a lot. MadMaxDog 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well do you have a citation for it? Happyme22 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Reagans

I have written a chapter-by-chapter summary of the TV miniseries The Reagans which contrary to what some might think, actually paints RR and NR both in a very favorable light (although it doesn't do so for conservatism or the Republican party). Lycurgus 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)