Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Legacy

Ronald Reagan's legacy is mixed? This is quite a stretch. Just look at the page on presidential rankings (both by historians and recent polls). It is obvious that he is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Why try to hide this? When you compare his legacy to that of other presidents, every poll puts him in the top 10 of all time. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What can we say - the man has good PR. <grn>

Kidding aside, the man's legacy is mixed. He did some good things and some bad things. He set some good things into motion, and some bad things as well. There are solid citations on both sides of this issue, and objective neutrality is going to serve us well here.

That goes for the 'scholar' wording, too - scholars makes it sound like they are unimpeachable sources of intellect. When half of the sources calling him Mr. Wonderful are conservative or partisan in nature, its time to re-evaluate how neutral we are being. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's overall legacy is largely mixed. His influence on the country, for better or for worse, is undeniable, however. He is rated somewhat-highly by scholars, but he is rated very highly in public approval ratings of the American public. Happyme22 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not just by scholars. As a controversial president (yeah, I know, but no weaseling was intended), we should stay neutral and avoid the problem noted in my last post. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty absurd if you ask me. Historians aside, Reagan's legacy is one of great popularity. Public polls conisistently put him in the top 10 (and many in the top 5). Every president's legacy is going to be "mixed" (99 out of 100 could be considered "mixed"). However, Reagan's legacy is much less mixed than that of other presidents. Just look at the polls and put your personal opinions aside. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to those living in denial: [[1]] 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm a Reagan fan, but his overall legacy is somewhat mixed. Many say that Iran-Contra screwed us with the Middle Easterners and the Central Americans and lowered our credibility, that not enough was done about AIDS, that the national debt quadrupled, etc. Those are all lasting effects of the Reagan administration, just as economic recovery, restoration of morale, and the near-end to the Cold War are also lasting effects. So there's a mix. My personal opinion is that the good outways the bad, but that's just my opinion. He is ranked very highly in public opinion polls, particularly ones taken more recently. Happyme22 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly the bit about public opinion polls. We can say that. I'd prefer to avoid the nuances of "scholars". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another point, legacy does not mean domestic view only, but international view also. For examples Mao's legacy is widely negative in the west, but he is a hero in China. We need to provide full information regarding international view (i.e. major countries associated with him including China, Russia, Iran etc) for an appropriate coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you name one leader who has a positive legacy not only in his/her own country but also every other foreign country? There are too many countries to try to consider when taking into account a President's legacy. Foreign views from other countries are basically irrelevant to a President's legacy. For example, you can say JFK's legacy is tarnished because countries like Cuba and USSR view him negatively. For this reason, a country's own perception should be the barometer used in a President or Prime Minister's legacy. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This page doesn't include any information on US foreign policy during Reagan's administration concerning Reagan's support, both financially and politically, for corrupt dictators who the US gov't supported in third world Cold War battles. Where is information on Reagan's support for Samuel Doe in Liberia, or his support for the government of El Salvador? Liberia has had brutal civil wars as a result of the US government's assistance to Samuel Doe ($400 milliin between 1980 and 1985)- approximately 100,000 people have died in the ensuing rebel fighting. Why doesn't this page give a more balanced perspective on Reagan's legacy? The moral implications of "winning the Cold War" are mostly overlooked, and the cult of personality surrounding Reagan ignores serious human rights violations that were committed with US support under Reagan's leadership around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.20.182 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you took foreign view into account there would not be one person with a positive legacy. This is fact, not opinion. Reagan's legacy is overwhelmingly positive no matter what barometer you use. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, absolutist statements like that are not conducive to discussion - it is essentially suggesting that we are cretins if we don't share your opinion. I for one don't. While I don't think the worldwide view of RR is necessary, we aren't talking about that - and, frankly - weren't. To refocus, we were discussing the usage imapct of the term scholars as opposed to public polls. Big difference in both impact and meaning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Happyme22 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it beyond strange to judge a president by public opinion. If we used it for Lincoln, we would have to admit that about half the country wanted him killed during most of his presidency. Conversely, F. D. Roosevelt was popular, but many of the people who worship Reagan think FDR did almost irreparable harm to the country.

The facts are, Reagan was extremely lucky to be president when the USSR self destructed. And any prosperity he brought on is highly suspect since he, by his own economic theory, achieved it by spending trillions of future tax dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.143.3 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

67.128.143.3 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Michael Layton 2009-01-23

I agree. I know some people that idealize the man, but in my family and circle of friends he is not considered a great president, if not poor due to taxation and spending actions.24.21.10.30 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter insofar as the article is concerned. "Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense of humor

Reagan described the Contras as 'the moral equivalent of the French Resistance', they were his personal crusade yet The Catholic Institute for International Relations summarized Contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."

Guatemala in 1983-4 under Rios Montt was a pariah state shunned by the world community. Some 200,000 Guatemalans died in this period and Rios Montt is wanted for crimes against humanity in Spain yet Ronnie said that: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice." And he continued to supply Guatemala with millions of dollars worth of military aid to continue the slaughter

Both of these facts may be found on Rios Montt and Contra pages.

Yeah, good old Ron was just hilarious.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...And the useful point in that is....what, precisely? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Reagan was a convicted war criminal and the greatest mass-murderer of the 1980s. The article give no hint of this.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. Your ultra-left leanings are showing, Smokey. Maybe tuck it back in, please. Do you have reliable, notable sources calling him this? Frankly, there are liberal, frothy-mouthed blogs that have been calling every President since Adams this sort of thing, usually by the one getting their ass handed to them. Keep the liberal rant to a minimum; the intolerance of claptrap goes both ways. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the court judgement against the USA when Reagan was President Nicaragua v. United States Not a mention of this in the article of course. Maybe your ultra-right leanings are showing Arcayne, or are you simply ignorant? SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither. I consider myself fabulously tolerant - a year ago, I might have shredded your arguments with harsh dismissal and a derisive laugh. Consider yourself lucky that I've learned restraint; I'm only addressing your arguments, and I will caution you - once again - to focus your attention on the edits, and not the editor. Your blood pressure and your ability to edit in Wikipedia will benefit greatly.

While I think that something about the International Court should be included, perhaps you could suggest where, precisely, such information should go? Now the ball is in your court: you've been chasing the car long enough and now you've caught it. Now what? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another request

Can someone please add to the Early Political Career section that: Ronald Reagan applied to be a member of the American Communist Party in 1938 but was refused as a friend said "They thought he was a feather brain - a flake who couldn't be trusted with a political opinion for more than 20 minutes". (Ironic for several reasons! - Reported in "The Sun" newspaper on 1/1/09 and printed in the factual book "Napoleon's Haemorrhoids" by Phil Mason) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley.Wise (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well we would need more details than that, such as the page number of the book, a link to the article, an exact quote, etc. Provided we get that, the proposed material would have to be evaluated for overall relevance. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one of the many, many links for that statement. I have checked via the university library, and it appears to be a credible story. It might be difficult to quote the newspaper itself, as I could only access the specific story using the university's resources. I think it would be helpful in understanding both the man, and how many folk underestimated him. Getting turned down for a club would make me really hate that club, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one (the same source, but quoted from a different address). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You should not use book reviews as sources, when the book itself is available. It's based on Howard Fast's second-hand story of something that happened 60 years before, and might even have begun as a joke. The book itself is semi-fictional. Of course the story might be true, but I think it needs a stronger source. By the way, here's more information on the story from Slate http://www.slate.com/id/36155/ The Four Deuces (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortieth -vs- 40th

Hey folks, can we please keep it at fortieth in the opening content? That's how it's done for all the other US Presidential biography articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

there is a typo in this article

On the second line, it states: "thirdy-third Governor of California ". The correct word would be "thirty", not thirdy. Please correct this obvious mistake. Thank you.

Indeed, it was obvious. I've made the correction. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Give that person fiddy sense. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Support for Reagan's 1980 Presidential Campaign

he was born on feb.6,1911
As political grand strategy, Nixon shifted his Republican party's basis to appeal less to liberals and more to conservatives, especially the southern conservatives of the 1960's. Often, these southern conservatives were in the forefront to oppose the many civil rights legislation passed during the 1960's. Although these southern conservatives had traditionally voted as Democrats, many southern conservatives felt alienated from the Democrat Party because of the Democrats strong emphasis on civil rights and desegregation, especially the civil rights of black Amercians. When Mississippi's black delegation to the Democrat National convention was seated in place of the white delegation, Richard Nixon and members of the GOP pursued as their Republican Party's basis a value system that would appeal to southern conservatives. During the 1980's, these southern conservatives became known as "Reagan's Democrats" because these southern conservatives voted solidly for the Republican Party, thus making the Solid South the conservative basis for the Republican Party. 125.162.168.156 (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

During the last years of his Presidency it was obvious he had Alzheimer's disease or atleast to other people somthing was not qquite right in his head.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Controversy surrounding that is covered in the "Alzheimer's disease" section in the post-presidency. Happyme22 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

World Court Judgement

I added a line at the end of Iran-Contra section about this. It's only a reference to another Wiki page so should be uncontroversial enough I would have thought. The page is:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please find a different reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You might refer to the statements that the judges voted on, but the summary you provided was overly simplistic and misleading. Please see WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, try to be a little more polite; Smokey's unpleasantness aside, it is in everyone's best interest to try to be engagingly polite - it makes editing (and) life so much easier.It isn't an indictment of you, Evb-wiki; just a reminder to try and avoid taking the hook in a baited conversation.

That aside, simply reverting out the wiki link sidesteps the main point that SC was making; to whit, that the US (largely in abstentia, since the US bailed on the proceedings when they saw which way the wind was blowing) had been found culpable in the events surrounding the Nicaraguan part of Iran-Contra. That fact is both inarguable and inescapable. Simply reverting it out because it links to a wiki article seems, well, lazy. I went to the article, found the relevant link, and added it. Further, I noted the parent article at the top of the section. True, Smokey Cat has been here long enough to know how to do this himself (or at the very least, ask for help), but laziness on his part doesn't excuse laziness on ours - any more than we are excepted from politeness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a see impoliteness or unpleasantness. Nevertheless, the simplistic claim that the U.S. was found guilty had more flaws than just poor sourcing. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was mistaken, then, about the perception. I don't really consider the Int'l Court to be simplistic; they made a judgment based upon a preponderance of the available evidence (which the US repeatedly tried to conceal or refused to reveal). If you wish to address the flaws in the judgment, your first step would consist of finding RS that counter this, and add it to the article germane to the subject - say, the one that was initially reverted out. Regardless of whether Reagan knew or not (and quite bluntly, one would have to have sustained traumatic brain injury to think anything else), actions conducted under the aegis of his Administration policy reflect on the man as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the court's ruling is complex and multifaceted, involving many counts and allegations, and the single statement purporting to summarize the judgment is simplistic and a bit misleading. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But for the purposes of this article's subject, this is the only part of that judgment that we need is that which reflects upon the subject's decisions made while acting as CiC. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

SmokeyCat & Arcayne, what do you think of this: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Authors/Nairn_Reagan_DNinterview.html ? Stars4change (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WARNING:KHOMEINI mentioned as predecesor

If this page is protected, it is not protected well enough. At the bottom under Political Offices, Honorary Titles, Khomeini is mentioned as his predecessor. Seems very unlikely to me.AdeleivdVelden (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Khomeini was Reagan's predecessor for Time's Man of the Year. No problem there. Happyme22 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, interesting to learn this.AdeleivdVelden (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what Wikipedia is for! :) --Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This FA article is too large

It might be FA, but at over 150kb, it is too large. I am not going to add a template onto the page, but I suggest that more of the "Presidency" section should be delegated to the sub-pages.--Spellage (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall kb count is not how we measure how large articles are. We do that by readable prose. As it stands, this article is at 62kb readable prose, so it is 2kb over the recommended level. I'll see what I can do in the next few days, but this should not be a major concern. Thanks for your interest, though. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also added Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents#How to deal with a separate "Presidency" article in an attempt to promote greater uniformity between the POTUS articles for the those of the past, say, 50 years. I realize that not all presidencies should have the same shape, but I think that having a separate "Presidency" article (and greater structural and style uniformity) between these articles would be helpful to the reader who wants to compare/contrast the recent POTUS'es. For me, the most striking difference at the moment is this article and Gerald Ford which is a has more Presidency information in the intro than in the corresponding section. Some one did that factoring in late November. Rather than simply do a FAR on the Ford article (for which is might now be demoted), I would hope that we could get these two FA's to converge. I recently created Presidency of Jimmy Carter, but the JEC article is not even GA. In the case of GRF, the criticism about the redundancy was valid:

20:02, 29 November 2008 Levineps (Talk | contribs) (81,143 bytes) (→Presidency, 1974–77: pretty much redundant from the Presidency of Gerald Ford article) (undo)

Again, my goal is increased uniformity in structure and style.--Spellage (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the USS Stark

http://books.google.com/books?id=mVav0T_cugoC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=reagan+stark+plane&source=web&ots=dcNUqdAFyN&sig=O7fInZEsO3_-xohOr3rAkV6Iw_o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA49,M1 is a nice link to the USS Stark incident. The Iraqis attacked the ship and their explanation was "full of holes" according to the book. President Reagan did nothing. In fact, he mistakenly called the USS Stark "the plane" in a show of senility.

Shouldn't the USS Stark deserve a sentence or two since it was a significant event in Reagan's presidency? Chergles (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, referencing the source you provided above, "President Reagan did nothing" is not a completely accurate statement without proper context. I quote from the source above: "As President Reagan saw it, the planned actions in the Gulf were ultimately to ensure that there would never again be an energy shortage of the kind seen in the 1970s. Improving relations with 'our moderate Arab friends' was essential to national interests as long as America depended on foreign oil. An American withdrawl in the wake of the Stark attack would have disasterous diplomatic consequences." So, in Reagan's mind, keeping up good diplomatic relations was of utmost importance, thus he did nothing truly significant to counter the attack.

In this article, the section on Reagan's presidency is simply a summary of other articles, incuding Domestic policy of the Reagan administration and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration. If you want to add something about it, I'd add it in the foreign article (but remember to keep it neutral -- not that I'm implying you would do otherwise). Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tax record

I am mystified. The article strongly indicates, from the start, that Reagan was a major tax cutter, and cut taxes across the board. Isn't this a fairly biased, mythological view? It's always been my understanding that after his major 1981 cut (which benefited primarily billionaires) he raised taxes every single year of his presidency (placing that burden mostly on the middle class). Sorry, I can't edit - I don't have the detailed knowledge or references - but I would love to see someone who knows what they are talking about either correct the impression the article gives, or if I am wrong, provide an explanation of where this view comes from and why it is wrong. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.36.205 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You aren't mystified, you are confused, as your parenthetical comment "(which benefited primarily billionaires)" unfortunately shows. Here is a quote for you: "The top marginal tax rate for individuals was reduced from 70 percent in 1980 to less than 35 percent a decade later, median-income taxpayers saw their marginal tax rates reduced by a third, and millions of low income individuals no longer paid any individual income tax.... The decade ended with personal income tax rates much lower than they were when the decade began and with fewer opportunities for individuals to reduce tax liabilities by creative accounting or by investments that have large tax advantages but few economic profits." This is from an NBER paper worth reading: American Economic Policy in the 1980s, a Personal View, Martin Feldstein. Here is more... U.S. Treasury Department History of the U.S. Tax system. Also Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families from the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. You are also mistaken about "he raised taxes every single year of his presidency" (not true), and "placing that burden mostly on the middle class" (it was mostly business tax increases). Read the NBER paper.--Paul (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Section added without sources

I removed this section

In 1960 Reagan engineered "The Great Giveaway". Members of SAG went on strike over residuals from movies shown on TV. As SAG president, the contract he negotiated with MCA prevented the actors from receiving any payment when their films were shown on television. Only films made after 1960 would pay residuals from TV use. This was a boon for MCA since it bought the Paramount film library in the previous year and now didn't have to share any of it sales to TV with the actors. The head of MCA was Lew Wasserman; Wasserman was also Reagan's agent.

It needs citations and seems a bit one-sided. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked the editor who put it in to give us some page numbers, but he has not yet responded. Happyme22 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I have put the source in the footnotes? I listed it in the References section; it is the book by Dan Moldea. There is a more in-depth coverage of it in, "Reagan, the Hollywood Years" by Marc Elliot; pgs. 292-300. It has reactions to the deal from Bob Hope, and Mickey Rooney. Those pages can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8291767/TV-Residuals-From-1952-to-the-1960-SAG-Strike-and-Beyond-From-Reagan-The-Hollywood-Years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tighelander (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Check sources given

source #141 (added 5-25-07) has an error on the site, may be others abound

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.197.166 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion

Renowned British academic and political commentator, Professor Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University, has a very interesting hour-long lecture overviewing Reagan's presidency available on the web: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=824 It seems that this would be a very good addition to the external links here. (I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reagan's first term and KAL 007

I've tried to put up something about the shootdown of KAL 007 and Reagan and have had it taken down. I really don't know why - whether it is the content or perhaps it's thought not important. Surely, the shootdown of KAL 007 was a major event and surely Reagan's involvement is worthy of note. I hesitate to put something up in the article again without some kind of feedback.I would want to put something in the first term section like this " Reagan's first term also saw the downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 on Sept. 1, 1983 by the Soviets just west of Sakhalin Island. This act which Reagan would term "massacre" contributed to both the escalation of tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, and galvanizing resolve for NATO's deployment of Pershing ll and cruise missiles in West Germany, just 6-10 minutes away from Moscow."

Is that objectionable (granted the need for some editing) and cause for deletion?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted it was due to its' odd placement more than anything else. Underneath the section header "First term", the paragraphs only contain mentions of his 1981 inauguration. I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are many level four heading subsections underneath the heading first term; they are all also part of the first term section, and one of those headings is entitled "Escalation of the Cold War." In that section, you will read: "After Soviet fighters downed Korean Air Lines Flight 007 on September 1, 1983, carrying 269 people including U.S. congressman Larry McDonald, Reagan labeled the act a "massacre" and declared that the Soviets had turned "against the world and the moral precepts which guide human relations among people everywhere."[127] The Reagan administration responded to the incident by suspending all Soviet passenger air service to the United States, and dropped several agreements being negotiated with the Soviets, wounding them financially.[127]"

Does that help? Sorry for any confusion. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

More than enough. I'm totally embarrassed. Thanks, Happyme22Bert Schlossberg (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to be embarrassed at all, my friend. Just a little clarification was all that was needed! Keep up the good work on the KAL 007 article :) --Happyme22 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alzheimer's as early as 1988

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

This has been discussed before. See the article's section Ronald Reagan#Alzheimer's disease for more information. Happyme22 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kings Row

I'm building up a little the section on his film career, to deal with the 1942 film Kings Row. With all due respect, I think that the significance of this film from a film history standpoint, as a landmark in Reagan's career as an actor, is not given sufficient weight. So I've added a few lines with appropriate references and I'm also adding an image from the film. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that what I added was removed by now two editors without discussion. Indeed, there is now a caption that states facts not in the article (re the brief revival of his career), due to removal of the sourced material that I provided.

The article gives, I think, short shrift to the significance of the 1942 film Kings Row to RR's career. In his own words, which inexplicably is not in this article, the film "made him a star." However, since he was drafted two months after release of the film, his career was interrupted, and when he returned he did not return to star status.

As a matter of fact, without the text that I added, this article gives the false impression that he was always a B-movie actor. Not so. He became a star, however briefly, because of Kings Row.

This is clearly notable information that belongs in this summary article. My source is an established work on Hollywood, Otto Friedrich's City of Nets, which has a Google Books link that can be easily accessed.

More generally, I think that this article does not give proper weight to Reagan's film career, and tends to be a bit more dismissive than the facts warrant. Among other things, he was not relegated just to B movies. Warner Brothers did not have a B-movie division.

I realize this has been a contentious article for reasons of politics, so I can understand the defensiveness and resistance to change. I am just approaching this from a film history standpoint, which is clearly relevant to Reagan's career, as indeed he was a significant Hollywood actor. I'll admit that what I originally added went into too much detail, which I have pared down, and trimmed further.

Having provided the requested evidence for inclusion, I will now reinstate this material. Please do not revert without discussion. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your rationale is that if you take just his film career, you'd have never heard of him. His political career is why there's a wikipedia page on him, therefore the film credits aren't really that important. It made him a star, ok, but since he went straight to the army and he didn't capitalize on it, it's not really that relevant. Soxwon (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're overlooking the significance of Kings Row from the standpoint of Reagan's overall life. This is an article on Reagan the man, not Reagan the politician. He was a film actor for a crucial period of his life, and there can be no serious dispute that Kings Row was a crucial role in that crucial period. Reagan himself recognized the significance of this film for his life and career by taking a line from that movie and making it the title of his autobiography. Thankfully that much of my added text appears not to be in dispute.

The film caption on the movie, which mentions it briefly boosted his career, has no context if this text is removed.

I'm a bit startled at the emphatic resistance to inclusion of a grand total of three uncontroversial, uninflammatory, well-sourced sentences that give added weight and balance to this biography, and whose significance is really indisputable. I'll add back in one last time, but if there are continued reversions I'll wait to see if there is more discussion and, if necessary, I'll take it to RFC. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me chime in on this. Stetsonharry, the reason why your getting opposition is because that was a big addition which clearly violated WP:WEIGHT and WP:SS. Of course articles change, but this one has been fairly stationary over the last, well, six months or so (maybe more), not experiencing any major additions or changes. In a section on his film career, which is very general and mentions only a few of his movies, four or five sentences on King's Row was definitely in violation of WP:WEIGHT.

I am going to go through the article over the next few days and cut some parts of certain sections per WP:SS to hopefully free up some space and expand the film career. Up until 1966, he was only known for being an actor, a profession which no doubt shaped his style of governing and many of his personal views.

So how about this: we can keep the reduced version for now and, after I give the article a full runthrough over the next few days, we can see where that takes us -- but I cannot promise to add back anymore detail on King's Row. I do plan on slightly expanding the film career section once the clean up happens. I would also recommend adding all kinds of detailed information about his films to Ronald Reagan filmography. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what we're discussing, it is the following:

Reagan called Kings Row the film that "made me a star."[25] However, he was unable to capitalize on his success because he was drafted into the U.S. Army two months after its release. He never regained star status.[25]

I'm not clear what your position is on these three sentences that are apparently in dispute. I cut back substantially on the size of the text on Kings Row as originally entered, and it is now at a point that I think is proportional to its significance in RR's career. I fail to see a WEIGHT or summary-writing issue in three sentences explaining that the film, according to Reagan among others, made him a movie star. If you wish to remove the sentences I'll not revert you, but I will bring this to dispute resolution to get a broader range of opinions on this issue. I would suggest that you wait to see if there is more discussion here before removing.

That being said, I'd glad to help on this section more generally, not just on the KR issue. Also I think that assitstance from Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers would be wise. As I said previously, I'm troubled by the implication that Reagan was just a "B-movie actor" when he was a bit more than that, particularly because of his performance in Kings Row.Stetsonharry (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just have a couple comments about this. This is clearly quite a good article and tries and succeeds quite well overall in trying to address a lifetime of work that is so varied yet relevant. Having said that, however, Soxwon, I completely disagree with your assessment that with only Reagan's film career, he would not have had a Wikipedia article. In fact, that's quite wrong, his film and television career would have made him notable alone, even if not in the stratosphere of contemporaries that remained in films. It is important and relevant as the catalyst for his presidency of SAG, which was yet another step to his political career. I would certainly hope that the editors who have done such a good job on the article to date would be open to assistance from editors who are involved with and have knowledge of an important aspect of the life of this man and not just relegate to the filmography article or state that you'll try to work it in when you redo the article. I respect that editors want to retain the quality of a featured article, but I'd also urge you not to discount the viewpoint of others in regard to the article. With all respect, keep in mind WP:OWN and be open to actually discussing this aspect of Reagan's career with other editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wildhartlivie. I just added a reference from Lou Cannon's 2005 book and made a fix. The article said that the acclaim of Reagan's performance in the film was "not universal." As best as I can tell, the only negative review was from Bosley Crowther of the NY Times, who liked nothing about the movie. While the previous wording was literally correct, it struck me as not totally fair or precise. I hope that the addition of a few more words, in the interest of clarity, is acceptable. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While I still think it's WP:UNDUE, I think that it would be best to let other editors read and comment on it. What say you Happy? Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the Crowther sentence or the other three? If the former, I'd not object to simply saying that it is viewed as his best film, and ending the sentence there (thought with the Cannon reference retained). If the latter, I think that a better explanation is needed as to how these three sentences could possibly shift the neutrality of this article in a negative way. As Wildhartlivie said, I think that contributions to this article need to be addressed substantively and not in a dismissive fashion. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the entry is fine. Given that it's short and well documented, I don't see this as a problem with WP:UNDUE.Mattnad (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have cleaned up much of the article and have attempted to provide some better focuses in the "Second term" of the presidency section by removing much of the Challenger section (placing it in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration). I'll continue to make some changes. It doesn't flow as nicely as I would like it to, though.... Does anyone want to take a whack at it and help out?

As for Kings Row and other films, we can probably add some more detail about other notable rolls. I've got a couple books which focus a lot on his acting, so I'll pull those out and see what I can do. It can't be too long, but some additions would probably do justice to the section. I would really love to start up an article on his acting career.... Maybe move Ronald Reagan filmography to Film career of Ronald Reagan (keep the filmography list in there) and then add all kinds of detailed accounts of his movies.

Just to recap: Anyone who can help out with structuring the second term section -- feel free to take a whack at it. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think an article on his acting career would be a good idea. Can you please clarify the remainder of your post? What are you suggesting in terms of how the film section should be expanded? Stetsonharry (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is ample precedent for this, eg Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the Eisenhower case, such an article allows use of specialized templates such as {{Infobox Military Person}}. In the same way that Eisenhower's politics cannot be properly understood without knowledge of his career in the military, it is difficult if not impossible to understand Reagan the "great communicator" politician without understanding Reagan the actor. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's a reasonably good analogy. There's quite a wealth of source material out there, including an intriguing exchange of memoranda quoted verbatim in Behlmer's Inside Warner Brothers, describing his departure from Warners. He was by 1941 one of the top male stars in Hollywood, and had apparently quite a meteoric rise. Clearly this can't be detailed in the main article, but belongs in the fork you describe. Still, the main article needs to give a succinct but balanced picture of his Hollywood career, and I trust the "three Kings Row sentences" seem no longer to be at issue. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Savings and Loan crisis

There is a line in here about the S&L crisis: "The administration's stance toward the Savings and Loan industry contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis", which reads as fact, but is backed up by a citation to this article which seems to be an opinion piece. The article lumps Reagan and Congress together in their desired to deregulate the S&Ls with two acts in Congress. In 1980 and 1982. The parts of the deregulation the author dislikes comes mainly from the 1980 legislation when Carter was President. Even if the article continues to mention Reagan's intervention in the S&L crisis, I would argue that at least the sentence describing it should be re-written to not read as a simple fact, and the citation should come from a news source, not an opinion piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstRepublic (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Speech in Berlin

This site: [[2]] has the Reagan's speech in Berlin, claiming for the end of the Berlin wall.Agre22 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cold War

Recently, User:Rorrenigol made this edit, which has resulted in disagreement. The addition included:

"...but at least one author has expressed the opinion that Regan only rushed the end-game of a strategy going back to George Marshall, unnecessarily risking a higher chance of violence breaking out.

It is referenced to davidbrin.com, the personal website of David Brin, a NASA scientist. I removed it on account of it being the opinion of one person (as the edit makes this known) and because the ideas Mr. Brin was espousing are not widespread beliefs. The paragraph a bunch of us editors hammered out many months ago highlights a NPOV, near universal belief ("That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed"), followed immediately by another NPOV belief ("but the extent of this role is continuously debated"), then finishes by saying how Reagan contributed ("Many believe that Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev played a significant part in ending the War."). Adding these thoughts by Mr. Brin 1.) unnecessarily shift the paragraph from NPOV highlighting facts into one of opinion and; 2.) thus places too much undue weight on one side's argument, straying from remaining neutral.

These thoughts by Mr. Brin, who appears to be a scientist, not a historian, are some which I have never heard of before. Reagan unnecessarily rushing a strategy going back to George Marshall -- what?!? There was never a strategy drawn up by Marshall in the 1940s, set in stone, and followed by every leader since then. The strategy changed with nearly every leader... look at Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon with detente, then Reagan with confrontation, and finally negotiation and peace.

Arcayne my friend, "cited voices of dissent" should be removed if they are placing too much undue weight on one side of an argument and throwing off the balance of the carefully-worded paragraph. On top of that, you, I, and several others hammered those paragraphs out after a very lengthy discussion, achieving a stable, NPOV paragraph. Finally, it appears these "Reagan screwed with a Marshall plan" ideas are only coming from one author (and the idea must be flawed at that). --Happyme22 (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne that the article could use a bit more balance, but I have doubts about this particular source, as it appears at first blush to be self published and I am not sure this is a notable source.

I'd like to get started on the "Reagan in Films" article when I get a chance. That was a good idea and I think it would be useful. Just a question of finding the time. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I've always though that Reagan didn't have much to do (well, that's not accurate, didn't really have tight control over) his foreign policy (a la The Power Game by Hendrick Smith). Soxwon (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but we all are trying to write an article based off of well documented facts, which this Marsahll plan idea by David Brin just is not. Happyme22 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL???? why would you spend so much time finding where the quote came from and stuff. Its not such a huge deal...--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Selene Walters

Pardon me as I borrow a page from the Obama talkpage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any mention of her here? Reagan raped her in 1952. It was in the article back when Reagan was alive. Gipper the Ripper revisited the claim: “...In Kitty Kelley's 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, actress Selene Walters claims that Ronald Reagan forced her to have sex with him in the early '50s. According to the book, Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, met Walters in a Hollywood nightclub. He asked for her address, and she gave it to him. Later at 3 a.m., he arrived unexpectedly at Walters' door and forced himself on her, Kelley alleges. The press ridiculed this and other passages from Nancy Reagan : the night the Reagans smoked pot with Jack Benny and George Burns; Kelley's implication that Frank Sinatra boffed Nancy Reagan. But Kelley's sourcing of the alleged Reagan rape is not much worse than the sourcing of the alleged Clinton rape. What's more, People magazine got Walters to repeat the story almost verbatim. Walters denied one key element of Kelley's version to People--that Reagan forced his way into her apartment--but reaffirmed the rest. It sounds remarkably like Juanita Broaddrick's story: "I opened the door," Walters told the magazine. "Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's [Kelley's] phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him." Walters--like Broaddrick--did not file charges. And Kelley maintains that Walters shared contemporaneous accounts of the encounter with friends. Ronald Reagan successfully stonewalled the Walters story when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times picked it up briefly in April 1991. And remember, this was three and a half years before his Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. The weekend the book was released, a reporter asked Reagan for a comment about it as he entered church. "I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that," he said. Not exactly a denial. ...” The article is dishonest and refuses to talk about the many flaws the man had Sparky (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC) You seem to have some POV problems. "Reagan raped her in 1952." No, someone claims he raped her. That's not the same thing. Were you there? Did you see the alleged incident happen? Enigmamsg 07:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Approval rating

"He ranks highly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating." - end of the intro... it links to the historical rankings.

Reagan does rank highly in historical rankings but how this has to do with approval rating is not said

Claim-Evidence - they don't sync up so well here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.253 (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reagan responsible for '94 revolution?

The following text in the Legacy section just caught my eye:

The Republican Revolution of 1994, the recapturing of both the House and Senate, can largely be credited to Reagan.[252] It can also be argued that Reagan is responsible for the elections of both George Bushes.[252] His tenure restored the office of the presidency to high regard[252] and restored America's confidence after the Watergate years and economic troubles.[253]

These statements - especially the first one - look pretty strange to me. OK, so there is a source for it, but still. (Why is this one source quoted three times?) I don't see how Reagan can be credited with this, unless we also want to "credit" him for the loss of 8 senate seats in 1986. Anyway, the whole paragraph reads way too positive and seems to be only opinion. Let's delete it. --KarlFrei (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bit too sweeping. Counting the paragraph before this, there are 8 sole citations in a row to this one CNN article, that was written right after Reagan's death and that suffers from some hyperbole both from the writer and the people interviewed. For example (in the CNN story, not the RR article): "To conservatives, 1980 is the year one. Nothing of importance happened before 1980, before Ronald Reagan." Goldwater? William F. Buckley? Milton Friedman? etc. I think the sourcing for broad legacy statements like these should mostly come from higher-quality book sources from professional historians or biographers. In any case, the wording about the Republican Revolution needs to be clarified (even this source says it's because "Reagan inspired a legion of conservative Republicans to run for office"). The credit for both Bushes is dubious, both on political grounds (GHWB won because of Dukakis, not RR, and GWB won because of ... well, let's not get into that) and on ideological grounds (many movement conservatives never liked GHWB much and over time became dissatisfied with many aspects of GWB). Indeed, one thing that could be added to this section is many Republicans and movement conservatives have never been very satisfied with any of their presidents or presidential candidates since RR. None of them have combined the charisma and ideological appeal of him (Dems have had somewhat similar problems with respect to FDR and JFK). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. That was an awfully good catch, Wasted Time R; I've never paid as much attention to what citations are being heavily relied on in the past - that will change now. The source itself cannot be be given undue weight when compared to other sources. An extreme example would be overly citing the Catholic Church in an article about birth control. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurgman comments on Reagan

Something new from this Nobel Prize winning economist [3]. Thought on implications for this article? Mattnad (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The value of a Krugman opinion page column isn't much for WP purposes (and the same goes for all other opinion columnists). If Krugman publishes a peer-reviewed article in an economics journal with the same theme, that however would be of some value. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is new to me. When did all opinion pieces uniformly fail the WP:RS and verifiability tests? Krugman is a well regarded economist who has a point of view on Reagan's contribution to the current financial problems. I will add that there are many sources in this article that do not rise to the level of a peer reviewed academic paper. Can you show me the Wikipedia guidelines about this? Thanks.Mattnad (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V#Reliable sources for the general hierarchy of "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" of which "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". Then see WP:RS#News organizations for "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. We often have refernces to "critics of" etc. So properly attributed as opinion, we can consider this new bit of info. Really I'm thinking we need to little more than a mention that in the opinion of Krugman, Reagan deregulation planted one of the seeds for the current economic challenges. What do you think.Mattnad (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While Krugman isn't some joe schmoe, I think what Waster Time R is saying is that not every opinion piece deserves space in an article. Perhaps this would be better for the presidency of Reagan? Soxwon (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be. Considering this article's scope, the Kurgman comment without more academic corroboration probably doesn't rise up to be in the economic record section. For now, I can see it much more relevant on the presidency and reganomics articles. If Krugman's views become more widespread, then we can revisit this article.Mattnad (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act is only a short stub article right now. I think a focus on expanding that article, including economists' descriptions of what short- and long-term effects it had, would be the best expenditure of editing effort. Then after that's in place, you can see what if anything should be stated in some of the Reagan articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Very minor edit

I made one very minor edit. In the first paragraph, I changed the film title "Knute Rockne" to the correct "Knute Rockne, All American", which is how it appears later in the article. Elsquared (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Quips v. jokes

I'm not really sure why the wording is being changed. Quips are quips and joke are jokes. There is some overlap, but they are distinct. Both are find to use and NPOV where appropriate and sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have always thought that they are one in the same. Are there opposing arguments? Happyme22 (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To say, as the article does, that "Reagan had a good sense of humor" is an entirely biased and POV statement. Anyone who found the 'we start bombing in five minutes' gaff amusing is clearly dangerously bonkers. I think I may change this to "Some people thought that Reagan had a good sense of humour." It's a subjective statement what is funny and what is not and this would be a more neutral wording. Objections? SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It's not a biased statement, it is the truth. Reagan was known for his sense of humor and his use of same in his speeches and everyday interactions. Both contemporaneous accounts and biographies make it very clear. On the other hand it is biased and displaying a POV to suggest "Some people thought that Reagan had a good sense of humour." The truth is most people think Reagan had a sense of humor. In fact, it might be next to impossible to find anyone who did not think so. What is in the article now is clear writing and unquestionably true.--Paul (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So you think a joke about starting WW3 was funny do you Paul? And it's 'next to impossible to find anyone' who didn't think Reagan had a good sense of humour is it? Millions disagree with you and you are just showing your clear pro-Reagan bias.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 07:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore Smokey Paul, if you look through the archives he's a troll and has an unatural hate for Reagan. Soxwon (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

yo, paul, soxwon is right. smokeys just biased. YO, SMOKEY! DUDE! CHILLAX!! No one said EVERYTHING Reagan said was humourous. some people might say YOU'RE funny, but does that mean everything you say is humorous? NO. People think Reagan was humorous, but that doesn't mean everything he said was funny, so one quote ain't gonna do it. srry, bud. and btw, being pro-Reagan's not a bad thing. 98.226.79.168 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a joke on British TV at the time. What's the shortest book of all time? The wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan. This seems to be a USA vs the Rest of the World divide. No-one outside of the USA ever thought Reagan was remotely amusing.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just say "he was considered to have a good sense of humor". Obviously, like Smokey points out, the current statement is subjective. It's subjective even if millions of people think he had a good sense of humor--it's not a fact, just a widely held opinion. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He was considered by his lackeys to have a sense of humour but was regarded by the majority of people as a witless gormless fool. Bear in mind the man was a criminal and totally incompetent, it would be wrong for this article to convey the impression that he actually knew what was gping on. --78.16.112.33 15:26, 27 June 2009

I agree that the remarks on Reagan as dumb and incompetent are quite common (last example was Oliver Stone at Bill Maher's this friday), and therefore sources need to be added to reflect that in the article. The paragraph on his "sense of humor" gives an incomplete picture and is poorly sourced, as the rest of the article.--Sum (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For instance, further than saying that he "displayed humor throughout his presidency", a comment should be added synthesizing the judgments that have been made of it.--Sum (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bold over

There seems to be a little back and forth regarding the usage of the word 'bold' in the following statement:

"As president, Reagan implemented bold new political and economic initiatives"

The use of bold here is an evaluative descriptor, as well as an evaluative one. We are better off without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The word 'new' is an evaluative descriptor as well, though there doesn't seem to be any quibble about that word; same with 'political' and 'economic'. Supply side economics had never before been implemented on the scale that Reagan implemented it -- of course the policies were bold! They were new. They hadn't been done. People (let alone professional economists) didn't know if they were going to work. That is the essence of bold. To solidify my point, Reagan changed the very dynamic of how the American economy worked. Prior to his taking office, the majority of presidents adhered to Keynesian economics. Then Reagan came in and restructured how the tax code and internal revenue components of the economy worked. One has to describe both his actions and his controversial policies themselves as being bold (the fact that they were controversial enforces that). And the policies remained in place for the most part from 1981 until late 2008.

To draw a parallel to today, I would definitely describe President Obama's policies of spending money through the stimulus packages as bold. Though tried during the Great Depression, the amount of money that FDR spent versus that which Obama is spending is very different, which is no doubt also very bold. The fact of not knowing whether these policies will work to get us out of the recession is bold. Interestingly enough, many have described Obama's policies as a reversal of the long-standing Reaganite policies.[4][5] This makes the point that both Obama's and Reagan's policies are bold.

Respectfully, I am asking that editors do not change the current language until we thoroughly discuss the issue. As I said in my edit summary, the burden is on the editor (or editors) who wants to make a change to a long-standing statement to do so on the talk page and establish a consensus to change it. If that happens, it can then be changed. Until then, please leave this long-standing statement alone. Happyme22 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, lets avoid the partisan comparisons - they aren't going to do anything but cloud the issue. I actually pondered with culling the word new as well, but realized that supply-side economics (or what variation of them that Reagan actually practiced) wasn't a new. It had been tried in different countries and different levels before. So plainly, it wasn't new. That is an evaluation yes, but one based upon the same logic that wool socks aren't new. However, if we call those wool socks bold we are evaluating them, and that's a no-no for us as editors. I am sure there might be citations that ay they were bold, just as I am sure that there are citations out there that call them something along the lines of something else. Turning this into a game of reference one-upmanship is going to turn the article into a mess. The easiest course of action is to keep out that language which seems neutral. I understand that you admire the guy, just as you understand that my own view of the guy is somewhat less than that. However, we need to remember that keeping the articles neutral are the best way to preserve the implied authenticity that comes with being an FA-quality article. I mean, we could just as easily suggest that Hitler implemented "bold new political and economic initiatives", and through that example, it becomes clear that the usage of bold implies a compliment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to compliment him at all. I was not attempting to compare a Republican to a Democrat to make a partisan point, rather I did that to provide context into the current economic situation (because one cannot ignore the parallels). This has absolutely nothing to do with me favoring Reagan and you not -- nothing. This has to do with our description of his economic policies, which had never before been implemented in the U.S. so they were a bold, new attempt to revive the economy (just as Obama's polices are now). Check out those two sources which I provided above for more. Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"New" is enough. "Bold" seems POV for several editors. And Happyme22, haven't you eliminated other contributions because of concerns over the length of the article? Why fight so hard against tightening up the lead?Mattnad (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Mattnad, I have moved some passages from this article into subarticles over length concerns, yes -- what has that to do with anything being discussed here? This discussion is not about the length of the lead, rather it is about the description of Reagan's economic policies. The reason I am arguing to include this word is because it serves as a perfectly acceptable description that stresses the importance of Reagan's economic policies and their impact on the country (roughly the same economic policies introduced by Reagan lasted until late 2008). According to the New York Times, there was a "three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan"[6] The overwhelming view is that both Reagan's and Obama's economic policies were/are bold, both radical departures from the immediate past. Frankly, I have trouble seeing why one has a hard time describing Reagan's economic policies as being bold. Happyme22 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bold" is acceptable to you, but not to others. Now a few counterpoints: mixing in Obama with this discussion is a distraction so lets stick to this article. Also, the NYT quote does not say "bold"; that's your interpretation. No doubt Reagan was influential but "Bold" says something very different. It's generally used as compliment and you well know that Reagan's economic theories and the result of law drafted by his administration have both admirers and detractors. This is why some editors think we should stick to more neutral language.Mattnad (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you see bold as having an overly positive conotation (I don't see how you could because it can easily go either way -- I guess it just depends on one's perception) then we can attempt to solve this disagreement by finding another word which will satisfy both my desires and yours. Perhaps "new and lasting" or "new and influential".... I don't want to stick with simply "new" because it does not adequately capture the influence of the policies on the next thirty years of economic policy in the United States. Thoughts? Happyme22 (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "new and lasting" or "new and influential" both imply things that are simply untrue, and still smack of complimentary spin. I am sorry of accusing you of partisan behavior; I honestly believe you are acting in good faith and are largely unaware of your favoritism, being as close to the subject as you are. I trust your good faith a lot, but you have to admit that you aren't neutral where the Reagans are concerned.

That said, I suggest we cut the sentence thusly:

"As president, Reagan's supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," included deregulation and substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981."

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22, I "feel your pain" on this one. There have been many times I've tried to introduce a little art to the language in articles to give more dimension only to have it pulled back by other editors concerned about POV. I also agree that Reagan introduced dramatically different policies from the past and introduced a new era. So "new" is a little bland, and arguably not perfect, but it seems to be neutral enough if we need to be concise. Here's one alternative to consider - instead of "...bold new...", what about "....bold and controversial...." for balance?Mattnad (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's a little further down the road of pov, though I do note that you've tried to cover your bases. I think we need to allow the reader to make up their minds in these sorts of articles. They can decide if these policies were bold or boring, new or old, etc. We neutrally represent the info. That's it. all interpretation happens with the reader. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"New and lasting" and "new and influential" are 100% on the mark. Thirty (yes, 30) years of economic thought and policy in the United States was based on the ideas advocated by and the policies implemented by Ronald Reagan.

Arcayne we are buddies, but you seem to think I worship this guy, bowing every night to a candle-lit statuette. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I met him -- that's it. I shook his hand. I am not a Reagan-worshipping right-wing nutjob POV warrior. If I was, this article would not be featured.

I just don't see how this important and extremely significant aspect of the policies can be ignored. I am not going to agree to your "let the reader decide" version (at least not now) Arcayne, because on this one I feel that to help the reader, we need to make it known somehow (by adding one or two words) that these policies were extremely influential. When you think New Deal, you think of FDR.... when you think supply-side, lower taxes, you think of Reagan. I thought bold was the word. Happyme22 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I love Wikipedia. Such a big fight over a little word, "bold". I agree with Arcayne that using the word as follows is slightly POV: "As president, Reagan implemented bold new political and economic initiatives." It does kind of put a positive spin on it. As I see it, there are two options: either remove the word "bold" or instead put in some balancing word, such as: "As president, Reagan implemented bold and controversial new political and economic initiatives." I note that Happyme22 asked for my comments.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy also asked me to comment here. I'm a veteran of many high-profile articles (Hillary, McCain, Biden, Giuliani, Ted Kennedy, etc) and I generally favor trying to say something. The current "As president, Reagan implemented new political and economic initiatives" is the kind of bland, overly neutral language that is virtually tautological (what president had no initiatives?) and that violates an FA article's mandate to contain "engaging, even brilliant prose". I'm not wedded to the word 'bold' and there must be alternatives that can be used ('unprecedented'? 'aggressive'? I dunno). But I refuse to concede that NPOV equates to dull, bland, and dry. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What I gather is that the general concensus feels that 'bold' is not the right word. The two editors that I asked to comment are both widely respected across Wikipedia for their work on political biographical articles. I disagree with Ferrylodge in that if bold is added, some sort of balance needs to be reached (i.e. adding controversial) because that would only open up an even bigger can of worms about portraying controversiality very early in the article. I agree 100% with WTR in that neutral shouldn't mean bland. So I think the only way to reach a compromise is to find a new word which adequately portrays the very important point that needs to get across while not being overtly pro-Reagan. Options: influential, unprecedented, lasting, continual, indelible, enduring.... --Happyme22 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I only meant "controversial" as an example. WTR suggested "aggressive", but that might tilt it the other way. How about "bold and aggressive"? I don't think either WTR or I have objected to using the word "bold". It's a good, colorful word. It just should be balanced in some way, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if "aggressive and bold" flies. I wouldn't mind calling Hitler "aggressive and bold" either.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agressive and bold is leading. Agressive is only a bad word if the person performing the action is bad at it. 'Michael Phelps swam in an agressive and bold manner at the Olympics' is a determined individual who won 8 gold medals. Hitler's opening strategy in world war II was agressive and bold! Agressive and Bold Ronald Reagan's economic policies, that were agressive and bold, must have worked really well. Given the general glow of the Lead, it comes off as highly positive. I suggest getting more into the meat of Reaganomics, and the pros and cons thereof, instead of spending this much time figuring out how to describe which word should be used, but I support controvertial if it comes down to that. RTRimmel (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, "sweeping"? Huh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I done done it. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Reagan's increase of the deficit be mentioned in the lead?

I was over on the George W Bush page when Happy22 brought up the point that Regan quadrupled the National Deficit, but it was not mentioned in the lead. Given the significance many economists place on the size of the deficit, and the rather significant increase that was done under the Regan years, should it be mentioned in the lead? RTRimmel (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not his job to balance the budget. Still, I don't think the lead is appropriate. It was important, but I don't think enough for the lead. Soxwon (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The classic supply side argument of "deficits don't matter" has more or less been put to rest by the current economic crisis and omission of the massive increase in government deficit in the lead, which Reagan personally considered the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency is troubling to me. RTRimmel (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The current economic crisis doesn't have much to do with the deficit, and it's more appropriate to the Reagan presidency. Soxwon (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding the deficit in the lead here would not only be against WP:NPOV (in that the decrease in unemployment figures, deregulation, decrease of stagflation, economic recovery would all have to be mentioned as well) and WP:WEIGHT (in that the weight placed on it would dramatically throw off the balance given to the rest of the Reagan presidency), but against the very essence of what this article is: a biography of Ronald Reagan the man, actor, union leader, governor, and finally president. This would all bog down and throw off the delicate balance of the lead of this article, which is about Ronald Reagan the man and his life as a whole, not just his presidency.

Reagan did indeed consider the debt the greatest disappointment of his presidency (which is discussed in the economy section), and you will see it is mentioned in the lead of the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article, right alongside deregulation, large tax cuts, and economic recovery. I would suggest doing something similar for the Bush the man article and the Bush presidency article, adding other results of Bush's economic policies into the lead of the presidency article as well as the debt. Happyme22 (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Two issues here. First off, deregulation is mentioned in the lead, as well as substantive tax cuts, so according to you those many need to be reviewed. Second off, wiki-lawyering aside Reagan the man is well known as a person who significantly increased the National Deficit. As such, the WP:Weight claim seems a bit lacking as a considerable number of economists consider that factor particularly noteworthy about his presidency and is at least as noteworthy as many of the other factors listed in the Lead and arguably more important than some. For example, Reagan's hard line against organized labor can be argued to have less long term impact that the increase in the national deficit. Further the delicate balance question seems odd as 4/4 paragraphs in the lead mention Reagan's presidency and 2 of the four deal with it exclusively. RTRimmel (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

RTRimmel arguments make sense, they are even obvious. I think this discussion is a further example of how this article is at the mercy of two conservatives.--Sum (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Summer, I wouldn't come in here after having a few of your edits reverted and start pointing fingers at others who have been working here for over two years (in other words, yours truly). In response to RTRimmel, the WEIGHT claim is definitely not lacking. There is a delicate balance that the regular editors of this article came up with in lengthy discussions of the lead that weighs all aspects of Reagan's life and career with due weight, and adding the national debt in the lead is indeed a violation of WP:WEIGHT as it would throw off that balance. While reduced taxes and deregulation were part of his planned economic policies, and are the policies that he implemented, the debt was not. Thus when describing the policies, we should say that they included large tax cuts and deregulation -- the two most important initial parts. The debt was a result, which is dealt with in both the economy section and the legacy section (national economic restoration and success was also a result, and that one isn't in the lead either). Two of the four paragraphs are based on his presidency, which is without a doubt the thing he was best known for -- I don't see anything wrong with that. Again, I am not arguing against placing the national debt in the lead of the presidency article (it is already there, actually, and you don't see me objecting to it). Happyme22 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent)So, the issue here is whether to put in the lead that Reagan quadrupled the national debt? Hmm. If the national debt was one dollar when he came in and four dollars when he left, then it would be no big deal. So, merely saying that he quadrupled the national debt is kind of meaningless without context. The national debt as a percentage of GNP seems like a much more relevant statistic. And why compare it to what it was when he took office? Maybe it would be better to compare it to the 20th century average, or something like that. A lot of questions would have to be resolved before I'd support putting this in the lead. I note that Happyme22 asked for my comments.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Also asked. I think the lead as a whole is a bit on the short side for an article of this magnitude and importance. Some percentage of readers never look at more than the lead, and I'd want them to find a little bit more about Reagan than they do. But I would be hesitant about putting the deficit in the lead. As Ferrylodge states, it needs to be viewed in other than raw numbers. Moreover, Reagan wasn't solely responsible: there was sort of an unspoken deal with Congress that Reagan would get his lower taxes but Congress would get its typical spending. If there is one part of the Reaganomics section that I'd move to the lead, it would be: "Questions arose as to whether Reagan's policies benefitted the wealthy more than those living in poverty, and many poor and minority citizens viewed Reagan as indifferent to their struggles." But that would cause more trouble than it is worth. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up – two things I would add to the lead are a better description of his acting career (what type of roles did he play, how successful was he) and "Morning again in America" (one of the phrases he is most closely associated with and remembered by in American political legend). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the increase in the national debt should be included in the lead. Reagan planned to cut taxes, increase military spending and balance the budget but unfortunately was only able to achieve the first two. There are numerous ways to explain why the debt increased but no reason to ignore it.

BTW, Reagan's acting career was not particularly notable. His supporting role in King's Row was his most notable acting achievement, but this was greatly surpassed by his leadership of American conservatism and his presidency. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The two editors that I asked to comment are both widely respected across Wikipedia for their work on political biographical articles. I think a bit more on the acting would be alright and I'll try to work in Morning in America.

In response to Four Deuces, it is incorrect to say that Reagan's acting career was not notable. I believe it is 100% without a doubt correct to say that if Reagan had not been an actor, that he would not have gone to television, which would not have led him to GE, which would not have led him to join the Republican party, go into policies, and have the impact that he did on the country. As for the debt, I don't believe that anyone has suggested that we ignore it, rather we have suggested including it elsewhere in the article and in numerous other articles (including the lead of Presidency of Ronald Reagan) due to NPOV and WEIGHT concerns. Happyme22 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

one of the central themes of Reaganomics was to reduce government spending and reduce the size of goverment, and in fact this policy was to a large degree successful. To minimize that aspect of Reagan's career is POV. As for his acting career, I agree that it provided a route to Reagan's later political career, but all politician follow some route. Many politicians begin as lawyers, but that does not make their legal careers notable. Most politicians would not have been successful if they had failed to complete high school, but it does not make their high school careers notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article makes no claim that Reagan shrunk the size of government. And that's good, because he didn't. (By most metrics, the modern president who shrunk the size of government the most was ... Bill Clinton.) As for acting, as Happy's latest lead says, "He began a career in filmmaking and later television, both of which saw relative success and made him a household name." Few lawyers and high school graduates become household names through those activities, and if they do (e.g. if Alan Dershowitz became president) they yes their leads should describe that phase of their lives. However I'm not too thrilled with Happy's "relative success" phrase ... maybe "enough success to make him a household name" instead? Or briefly mention that he mostly played B movie roles but achieved note in Knute Rockne and Kings Row? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it, put in the B movies, and Knute and Kings Row. Happyme22 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) In regards to FerryLodge and Wasted Time R, as a percentage of the National Deficit, Reagan increased the percentage of real dollar national debt by 189%, the number two guy in the line is George W Bush with a mere 89%. The line I'm picking from is all US Presidents after 1976 and given the realitive changes in the underlying economic structures of the US economy, picking on Presidents prior to that is more abstract than anything. It may be simple enough to say that Reaganomics significantly increased the National Debt and be done with it, however it was a massive increase that is noteworthy. Many Economists consider Reagan to be a "Borrower and Spender" as, under that point of view, the prosperity brought by Reaganomics came at the cost of borrowing significant amounts of money from other sources and while that probably does not deserve to be in the lead, the shear magnitude of the increase of the deficit is one of the longest reaching arms of Reagan's economic legacy and therefor should be mentioned. "His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," included deregulation and substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981" is a very rosy assumption of the actual effectiveness of Reaganomics. Most serious critical works would include the significant increase of public debt caused by Reaganomics as the first criticism of the approach. We mention 2 of the 4 points of Reaganomics in the lead, the other two being a reduction in the government spending and the other being tighter control of monetary policy to prevent inflation. Under what justification are we only selecting 2 of the four key tenants and then why did we choose deregulation and tax cuts as opposed to reduction in government spending, which to my knowledge was not accomplished at all under Reagan's watch or tighter control of currency? Further, while his policies did improve the economy, it was in comparison to Carter's bungling of it and the 2.1% average job growth isn't putting him in the top of the pack(middle actually). A quick glance at the lead gives the appearance of a far rosier view of Reaganomics than I remember and that the sources demonstrate. In short, Reaganomics as conducted by Reagan caused a massive increase in US Public Debt as noted by Reagan as well as a massive number of additional sources. The increase in debt is at least as noteworthy as the two aspects of Reaganomics that were already in the lead, ie Deregulation and Tax Cuts, which are not all of the aspects of proposed Reaganomics but rather simply the successful ones. --RTRimmel

Per Table 7.1 of this government document, gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP went from 33.3% in 1980 to 51.9% in 1988. That compares to 98.4% in 1948, 56.1% in 1960, 37% in 1972, 58% in 2000, and 67.5% today. So, it seems like it increased while Reagan was in office, but the final percentage (51.9%) is lower than it's often been.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's the gross accumulated debt, not the current additional debt (or surplus). The percentages are huge during WWII and take a long time to go back down, but do so steadily until plateauing in the Nixon/Ford years. They then takes a big rise in the Reagan/Bush 41 years, then go down a bit in the later Clinton and early Bush 43 years, before going back up a bit during the later Bush 43 years. From this chart the biggest culprit is Bush 41, but I'm not sure it's the best metric. Lead-style conclusions about macroeconomic statistics is a hazardous place to go ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP is an important figure. Other figures are important too. Based on the figures cited above, I agree that a lead-style conclusion would probably not be the best way to go.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related matter, this Wikipedia article says: "When Reagan entered office, the United States inflation rate stood at 11.83%[95] and unemployment at 7.5%.[96]" I think we ought to immediately follow that sentence with a new sentence stating what those rates were when he left office. Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we ought to create a template to include in every presidential BLP: "Large-scale economic forces and trends affect every president's economic record and make analysis of their policies' impact and effectiveness difficult. A lot of luck is involved: Presidents tend to get too much credit when the economy is good and too much blame when the economy is bad." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think yer joshin' us.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) "As president, Reagan implemented new political and economic initiatives that were aggressive and bold. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," included deregulation and substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981." So this is what we are going with now? We can't include stuff like the increase of the national debt, but we can include the standard right wing lines of 'deregulation and tax cuts' are always good, aggressive and bold even! Aggressive, in this context, is such a positive term and bold only underscores it. It glows, a bit. Maybe something like "As president, Reagan was largely successful in implementing his new supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," included deregulation, reduction in the size of government, inflation controls and substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981." He was, in fact, not successful in the reduction of the size of government, for example, and those are the 4 tenants of Reaganomics rather than just cherry picking the ones that were. "These policies were largely successful, successfully turning around the US Economy, at a cost of a significant increase to the national debt by the end of Reagan's presidency." RTRimmel (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This article already includes lots of stuff about the national debt: (1) "Reaganomics was the subject of debate with supporters pointing to improvements in certain key economic indicators as evidence of success, and critics pointing to large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt." (2) "In order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.[116]" (3) "Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency…."(4) "Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, quadrupling the United States national debt."

Why should we put info about the national debt into the lead, but not info about how he reduced inflation and unemployment?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As WTR pointed out "Some percentage of readers never look at more than the lead, and I'd want them to find a little bit more about Reagan than they do." I think the lead is short, adding in how Reagan reduced inflation and unemployment is a good idea. Further, a sizable enough segment of experts attest that Reagan's deficit spending was one of the few major issues of his Presidency. If you listen to certain loud modern sources, they tend to whitewash Reagan's few failures and I'm afraid people who log in and read that "Reagan deregulated and cut taxes" are going to get the impression that that was all he did and it worked perfectly. Reagan has such an underlying sense of "I am a successful President who is know for my skill with the economy" that it naturally biases the reader towards a direction that may cause them to misinterpret NPOV unless it is clearly spelt out(which Agressive and Bold was not). Such an impression of success is supported by a large number of right wing pundits who omit the negative and less positive results/effects of Reaganomics. Because of the status of Reagan and the ommissions spoken about his highly successful record, it behoves us to point out that it was not all chocolate and roses under his watch, he was a real person for better or worse and to provide detail and context for his acomplishments more so than would perhaps be required for a less legendary figure. We need to include more detail about Reagan, and ommissions that underscore what certain spin doctors are spoon feeding the public aren't doing the project any favors. That said, Reagan was a highly successful president and the tendency to paint him in a positive light is a difficult lure to ignore, but we need to stick to a Just the Facts approach as much as possible though, due to his success, many of those also paint him in a positive light. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems with including every little thing about his presidency so that readers can "get the gist" of the article: 1.) according to WP:LEAD, the lead should purposely omit less-important facts to encourage readers to read the rest of the article. Otherwise, why have it? 2.) WP:WEIGHT comes into play and every little thing about his life and presidency would have to be balanced, which is very difficult to accomplish.

That said, I think the current lead is fine for now. Happyme22 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Every little thing is your opinion. Many experts consider Reagan's impact on the economy to be some of the more important facts about Reagan... 20 years later. The current lead is short and under-informative, but at least its less of a fluff piece than it was. RTRimmel (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Both RTRimmel and IP161.150.2.58 say that the present "lead is short" (or maybe it's one person saying it two times). The present lead is four paragraphs long, and the first paragraph is a very long one. This is currently at the long end of what is permissible for a lead. "The lead should be no longer than four paragraphs."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasted Time also said "Also asked. I think the lead as a whole is a bit on the short side for an article of this magnitude and importance.", and I'm 161 in this context, but given WTR's reputation as an editor of BLP's perhaps we should consider expanding it somewhat? RTRimmel (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you draft something up here at this talk page, I'm sure everyone would be glad to look it over and comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) RTRimmel, WTR's comment was before the expansion of the sentences on Reagan's acting career, and before the expansion of the economic policies. If anything, the lead is getting a little long now, but I'm fine with its current length. I would not recommend drafting any significant overhauls. Happyme22 (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm curious about the National Debt figures (700bn and 3 trillion) quoted in the article. I've checked the Historical Papers in the 2009 Annual Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf) and the figures given there are:

         Gross       Held    
       Federal     by the
          Debt     Public
1980   909,041    711,923
1988 2,601,104  2,051,616
1989 2,867,800  2,190,716

Given Regan assumed office in January 1981 and departed in January 1989, the figures for Year-end 1980 and Year-end 1988 appear to me to be reasonable comparison points, with some argument for using Year-end 1989 as the cut-off point, after which the increase in National Debt could be attributed to his successor's policys. If the 700bn referred to in the article relates to the 711,923m in Debt held by the Public in 1980, then the corresponding figure in 1980 was 2 trillion (a little under a three-fold increase) and this measure of debt did't increase to 3 trillion until Year-end 1992 (2,999,737m). Can someone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.72.248 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discouraging contributions from new editors

Here is Happyme22's revert of J.R. Hercules's referenced additions. One more episode in which new editors are discouraged from contributing to this (embarrassing) article.--Sum (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly just laughed at your logic. You are so incorrect; when new editors bring well cited, factual, NPOV information to the article, it is usually put in. However this is a featured article and is one of the most viewed on Wikipedia, meaning that it is held to a higher standard (in case you were unaware), thus not everything that has a reference is automatically guaranteed to go into the article. Your average Joe who brings cited material that is either complaining about Reagan or glorifying Reagan, depending on the circumstances, should not go in and I have reverted both over the course of my time here.

In the case of Hercules' edit, the consensus in this very discussion (literally right above) agreed not to add about the debt in the lead. Just because you may not agree with the consensus' decision doesn't mean that you have the right to breach it simply because a new editor who evidently failed to look at the talk page added in the information that you wanted. Please stop being childish and accusing me of things I am innocent of. Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that characterizing Happymetoo22 as someone who discourages new contributors is wildly incorrect, I think that the discussion wall o' text (why no one thought to arbitrarily nreak is anyone's guess) did a lot of discussing, but I am not sure I see a consensus for removal of cited information. Don Conlan's comments seem germane to the discussion. There should be more development of such in the body of the article before tampering with the Lede - the Lede is simply an overview/introduction of the article. If it isn;t in the body of the article, it should not be in the Lede.

Therefore, while your heart seems to be in the right place, your form of expression (accusing H of unfairness) and your method of disagreement (editing the Lede instead of the body of the article first) do not help us all to take you seriously. If you wish to reinitiate discussion on the matter, you should do so - without the accusations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)