Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 4

message: Why absolutely nothing on the young Reagan's job as a lifeguard?  He personally saved many lives: surely this is worth at least a brief mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.253.132 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Accurizer 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifeguard

message: Earlier this fall there was mention of the fact that Reagan was not circumsized.  I wonder why somebody chose to remove it?  I believe it is a matter of pubic interest. Natebjones 20:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is that a matter of public interest, oh, ha, you said "pubic" interest, I get it. Funny. I do hope you are joking about putting that in though, since it does not very important from an encyclopedic standpoint, unless of course he is known for that, which I doubt he is. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  circumcision 

message: I made a modification to the statement about the debt, expressing it in terms of GDP percentage, since 
- saying it tripled is misleading and
- claiming it decreased as a percentage of national income is plainly false 
--Emilio floris 17:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  debt 

message: How come there's no mention of him suffering from Alzheimer's during the presidency? That has to be at least moderatly notable.. don't you think? I mean it takes around 14 years for Alzheimer's to run it's course, there's no way he wasn't showing some signs back in the 80s--172.208.123.70 14:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So find some authoritative source regarding this and put it in the article. I mean, I think you're right, but that's only because of my own original research. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Peggy Noonan writes in her biography When Character Was King that she asked interviewees about it, and it was unanimously agreed that Reagan had not shown signs of Alzheimer's while President. - Calmypal (T) 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd, did he have some special type of Alzheimer's that somehow appears overnight? If he had full blown Alzheimer's by the early 2000s/late 1990s, then he had to have shown signs of memory loss, and early dementia far earlier, and speaking as a relative of an Alzheimer's sufferer, frankly, you can see signs several decades in advance, even if full blown symptoms aren't observed..--172.208.123.70 21:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So find some authoritative source regarding this and put it in the article.  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, he did land on his head when thrown from a horse in 1992. - Calmypal (T) 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The late Ronald Reagan did have slight signs of it during his presidency, as it was only officially announced around, what, 1993, 1994?  He did zone out a couple times, but he was pretty well off during the presidency. --The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alzheimers can only be conclusively diagnosed via a brain biopsy (post-mortem), but if he was "officially" diagnosed in '93 the plaques were almost unquestionably growing in '88.   You won't find his doctor saying this though.
Justforasecond 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This extremely odd behavior does bear mentioning in this article. Where do you suggest it belong? That Reagan claimed to be at Auschwitz -- and to the Prime Minister of Israel no less -- is well documented. It's odd behavior. Where should it go in this article? Griot 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the story is an urban myth spread by Reagan's enemies--there is no actual quotation by Reagan -- merely a paraphrase that was translated at least twice from foreign languages. The paraphrase itself it not well sourced. (A reporter claims to have heard it third hand.) Rjensen 13:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm just wondering? 

message: the Hinckley shooting incident hardly belongs in the Domestic Record section. maybe it can be put in the reagan "humour" and "sunny optimism" paragraph.  Doldrums 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Hinckley shooting 

message: "On his way to California's governorship, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
 
:"On June 17th 1966 California gubernatorial candidate Ronald Reagan was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964." 
:I'm removing this quote from the article for now. Even with a source it's hard to tell what to make of it without any context or connection with any greater discussion of his policies. I can find online sources for the quote but most also mention other quotes like, "I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." , (or the variant, "'I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet, if necessary.' --Ronald Reagan, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1965" ). In any case it's not an appropriate first paragraph about his governorship. Tajmahall 14:40, 10 November 2005
:: I'm restoring the quote to the article due to the following reference:
:::"On civil rights, he has abandoned over the last few years his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hotels, restaurants and other public facilities.'
:::He says that he was against it in his first campaign for Governor in 1966 because he thought that it 'infringed on the individual rights of citizens which are supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.'''
:::He opposes busing to desegregate schools and any form of quota for employment or school admission.  " </blockquote>
:::from Douglas Kneeland, "A Summary of Reagan's Positions of Major Issues of This Year's Campaign," New York Times, July 16, 1980.
::--151.203.242.124 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something I've brought up in the talk page for the New York Times article.  I'm not sure New York Times references should continue to count as "verifiable", since they've become inaccessible to the majority of Wikipedia editors.  I propose that for any New York Times reference, we try to find a reputable, web-accessible third-party reference and change to that; barring this, we should remove said content as unverifiable.  However, I would strongly urge anyone reading this to take no such action until consensus is gained, because current guidelines on verifiability and citation of sources allow this.  I'm proposing a pretty radical change to account for a radical change of policy at the New York Times; articles used to be free with registration, now it costs money to access them after a short initial free period. -Syberghost 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to civil rights act of 1964 

message: Reagan wanted to cut the school lunch program, calling ketchup a vegetable, and spun lies about "welfare queens." 
Reagan was silent for years on AIDS. He tried to get tax exemptions for racist Bob Jones University. He originally opposed the Martin Luther King holiday before signing it into law. He did veto an extension of the Civil Rights Act in 1988 and defanged the US Civil Rights Commission. He exchanged schools for the prison boom. Reagan's legacy is still alive. The senior President Bush vetoed a major civil rights bill in 1990 and vetoed an increase in the minimum wage. President Clinton slashed welfare. The junior President Bush campaigned at Bob Jones and sided with the white students who wanted to destroy affirmative action at the University of Michigan.
: Doesn't affirmative action discriminate against others?  Most of those "facts" are bunk.
is this a president bush article? 202.68.163.192 05:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  true? 

message: there are a few unverifiable or unverified statements in the article. are there any sources for it? from what i could see, there wasn't any sources listed in the archived talk pages either.
*(during college years)he made many lasting friendships.
*Reagan tried repeatedly to go overseas for combat duty,
*In both of his marriages, Reagan was known as a loving and devoted husband.
*Believing that the Republican Party was better able to combat communism, Reagan gradually abandoned his left-of-center political views,
the statement "He gradually became a staunch social and fiscal conservative" should perhaps read he talked staunch fiscal  (and social?) conservative, perhaps. given his record as governor and president (see below). 
the LA times obituary mentions that, as governor reagan 
#proposed a 10% budget cut but ended up with a 10% raise
#the state budget went from $4.6billion to $10.2billion over his tenure, aprtly because of inflation.
#he signed "a historic abortion reform bill authored by a Democrat that vastly liberalized the procedure in California. Advocates promoted it as a model for other states ..." despite his later anti-abortion stand. 
# he signed some of the "strictest air and water quality laws, increased state parkland and started requiring environmental impact reports on state construction projects"
the last two also need to be incorporated into the governorship section.  Doldrums 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more "true?"

message: "An honest account would mention that Ronnie often confused his movie roles with reality. And how some WWII vets like my father consider the actor a poseur. - Sparky 05:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Opinions:Update

message: This article has some nice pictures and a lot of info, but wouldn't meet Wikipedia:Featured Article criteria.  I would like to try to expand the introduction.  Kaisershatner 18:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The two events shown under Posthumous Honors are not things that I would normally refer to as "honors".  Is there a Wikipedia definition of what an "honor" is, for the purposes of our biographies?  JackofOz 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Honors

message: please refrain from abusing your power of reverting
you reverted my edit from a couple of days ago... my edit was accurate and valid
you violated wiki rules when you used the one-click rollback on my edit - clearly my edit was not "simple vandalism"
please read, and in the future, do the right thing:
Reverting
Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with an edit summary of (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpgordon"
207.200.116.7 09:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  message to administrator jgordon 

message: Dates are for the Poll, not the event. That is why the revert. Reagan's Job Performance--FloNight 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagan's Job Performance

message: Congress investigated the story that Casey cut a deal with the Iranians in Madrid.  All the newspapers covered the testimony that showed Casey was in London that day.  Someone had planted a hoax -- and if they fabricated the Madrid part then they cannot be trusted in any other part. No documents ever emerged showing there was such a plot. Wiiki should say there was a hoax and it was exposed by Congress as false. Rjensen 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added some sources on the casey "hoax" below. Doldrums 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casey hoax 1980 

message: I'm removing this from the Iowa article, as it's a very minor event (not even mentioned on this page), but you may want to include it at some point, if it can be verified:
*Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, worked at Davenport, Iowa's radio station, WOC, as a sports announcer for University of Iowa games in 1932.  In 1933 he became the chief sports announcer for WOC's sister station in Des Moines, WHO.  
-- nae'blis (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed from [[Iowa]] article 

message: I will be back with some more horse pictures!
/Gkirk
Why is it that President George H.W. Bush appears to have a bottle of Jack Daniels in the photo of Reagan's cabinet? Is this a real photo? 
::It's a vandal. I deleted it. Rjensen 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: The comment that "the political and cultural dominance exhibited by Ronald Reagan and his message of confidence and optimism led many to call the decade in which he was President, the 'Reagan 80's'" is underdetermined by the evidence.  A Google search brings up similar results for "Clinton 90s" and "Nixon 70s."  Hence, I think the phrase is meaningless - it also has the odour of a non-neutral POV.  Lots of people associate Reagan with the 1980s in a negative way; and recall his message differently.  Unless there is some compelling rationale offered for maintaining this sentence, I will edit it out.Fishhead64 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well no, historians are starting to use the term. See the NY Times Book Review 1-29-06 and   The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order by Steven F. Hayward (2001)  Rjensen 05:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This phrase does not appear in to Wooldridge article, and Hayward is not a neutral source, but rather a strong defender of Reagan and his legacy.  I'm still waiting for some rationale for this evident non-neutrality - I'll give it a few more days.  Fishhead64, 05:15, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's still not a lot of Google results for a descriptor of an entire decade. "Reagan '80s" doesn't refer to the decade as BEING the "Reagan '80s," it comes up (on Google) as an adjective describing things as being "Reagan '80s" in the same sense as valley girls say "that's so, like, 1999." It's an oft-negative descriptor for Cold-War mentality stuff. Check it out. --MattShepherd 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Reagan 80s"?

message: :He seemed more at ease, deflecting President Carter's criticisms with remarks like "There you go again." 
I can't find this in the transcript of the debate. Did it come from somewhere else?
*It was certainly uttered in the debate--just not in the transcript! It came up again 4 years later See Cannon bio p 477: [re 1984 debate] "After Mondale had charged that Reagan would find it  necessary to raise taxes after the campaign, Reagan had responded with the "There you go again" line that he had used so effectively against Carter. Mondale had been expecting the line, and he pounced on it when it came his turn for rebuttal. Turning and facing Reagan, Mondale said, "Now, Mr. President, you said, 'There you go again,' right?" "Yes," Reagan said. ...."  Rjensen 02:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate comment 

message: what constitutes a "Polemical or humorous attack"? by a similar standard, should i start moving some of the crud in secondary sources to "polemical and laughable hagiographies"? Doldrums 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemical or humorous attacks 

message: Attempts by some editors to include their pet topics in the introduction is leading to edit wars.  An introduction is just that, it introduces the topic at hand.  Whether you support the President and want to feature the economic growth of the era or ara critic and want to obsess over Iran Contra there are places within the main article to do that.
Furthermore, Iran contra was indeed a scandal, but it was not a "loss of control" of foriegn policy.  That term is not neutral and implies that Reagan was not in control of foreign policy.  He most assuredly was, he was simply being lied to by those he trusted.
Abel Archer: minor historical even.  It sared the pants off the Soviet high command but is not indicative of how Ronald Reagan "almost caused a nuclear war".  Even if had had been more than a war alert on the Soviet side it would have been the fault of the Soviets if they had launched nuclear weapons, not Reagan.
The recession started in 1981 and ended in 1982.  It did not occur in 1983.  It was not "sharp" except for unemployment, which was already high.  It started before Reagan's first economic package was approved and ended shortly thereafter.  If anything Reagan's policies had the effect of ending this recession, not starting it.
Again these are points to be hashed out in the body of the article, not in the introduction! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realityhammer (talk • contribs) .
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
:The United States was convicted of having supported terrorism in Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice, refused to pay reparations even when a United Nations General Assembly resoultion was passed near unanimously, and then the dirty war was financed by drug money and illegal weapons trade, and you think this is not a major issue? Get-back-world-respect 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given it was a major issue, the Iran-Contra scandal needs to be included in the introduction. Get-back-world-respect 01:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is the part that 50% of the readers only read. So it has to summarize the main points quickly.  "Loss of Control" is the term RR's supporters used (see Tower report) --it means that your top people are lying to you and doing things you don't know about--we all agreed that happened. Recession of 1981 set the stage--it was worst uneployment since Great Depression (isn't that "sharp"?) The point is not whether RR caused it, the point is that people need to know about it (and also about inflation and interest rates, which I added in later section). Rjensen 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki project is a failure if people can't agree on basic historical facts.  Was 1981-82 recession sharp or mild? People at the time thought it was sharp--(worst between 1958 and today), so why call it mild?  Abel Archer belongs in the article but not in the summary (mostly because nothing happened.) Again: the summary should say in 100 -200 words why RR is important. Most people will stop there, so we should get it right. Rjensen 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An introduction is just that

message: Two examples:
*"a confrontational foreign policy towards the Soviet Union and Socialist movements around the world that proved successful and led to the end of the Cold War."  Many other historians suggest that the end of the Cold War was an inevitable result of American foreign policy for many years, as well as the Soviet Union's own missteps (e.g., the disatrous war in Afghanistan).  Further, the term "socialism" is msileading.  I rather doubt Reagan opposed socialist governments in Scandanavia, for example.
*"The political and cultural dominance exhibited by Ronald Reagan and his message of confidence and optimism led many to call the decade in which he was President, the 'Reagan 80's'"  Above, user Rjensen claims that this phrase appears in the Wooldridge article in the NYT.  It does not, as a web search for the article will show.  And Hayward's hagiographic biography can hardly be cited as a neutral source for such a characterisation.  Again, a Google search will yield both positive and negative definitions of "Reagan 80s" - citing such things as support for right-wing death squads in Latin America, for instance. Fishhead64, 05:15, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try  The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan by John Ehrman (Yale University Press 2005) which has very strong reviews. Or, by a leading Canadian historian, Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980's by Gil Troy (Princeton University Press 2005) -- books published by two of the leading universities.  Both of the titles clearly support the "Reagan 80s" tag.  Rjensen 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the intro - you may want to have a look.  I've retained the "Reagan 80s" tag, as per your citations, by removed the language that suggested that this involves a universally sunny view.  Again, I'd refer you to our friend Google, in which people use the moniker in positive, negative, and neutral ways.  Reagan was there, he was a dominant figure - hence "Reagan 80s".  I also corrected the non-neutral assessment of the effect of his foreign policy, and the incorrect use of the word "socialist."  Thoughts? Fishhead64m 05:31, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job in removing the POV.  I revised somewhat to emphasize the main points of his presidency, and restored the Wooldridge equote, which offers a European perspective.Rjensen 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revision was good - too bad it was tossed into the ether by another user to once again yield a POV.  I don't want to get into a tit for tat, but the anonymous edit should be reverted to your's.  Fishhead64 16:45, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the support. I will try to repair.  Rjensen 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: when you have such a major person it does get a bit complicated. The intro should explain why he's important, and does so in non-POV fashion.  The older versions had a lot of miscellaneous information there. Good idea to move Wooldridge quote to end and I will do so. Rjensen 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in the Introduction

message: An anon removed the statement that the Reagan administration increased the national debt.  My recollection is that he not only increased it, but set new records for deficit spending.  Is there any reason why this fact should be suppressed? JamesMLane t c 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National debt 

message: suggest a rewrite of the intro, which concentrates on actions and reduces emphasis on the (mostly contested) effects of these actions. something along these lines (this is not meant to be the whole intro, it has left out the lead paragraph and stuff like "elected president on ...").
 
The Reagan administration is noted for its economic policy, dubbed Reaganomics, featuring tax cuts and deregulation, combined with increased miltary spending leading to record national debt; its nominations of justices for the supreme court. Reagan's foreign policy included a <shift to  a confrontational cold war strategy>, the Iran-Contra affair and interventions in <Grenada, Lebanon>. 
His period in office witnessed <changes in inflation, unemployment, gdp growth> and was immediately followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. 
Reagan is noted for espousing <free-markets, anti-communism>. He has been dubbed "The Great Communicator" for <>. Evaluations of his <administration/policies> are controversial, with supporters <saying dum-dee> and critics <saying doo-daa>. 
Notes:
#stuff in <> to be determined.
#national debt mentioned because the causal link b/w policies and this effect is clear, and (i think) uncontested. 
#have left out reform of tax code and social security, they can be tagged on, if these were thought to be significant actions. incidentally, is it "reform" or "scaling back" of social security?
#should the justices be named in the intro? imo, no.
#supporters and critics statemenents to be restricted to one line with two or three phrases, i think.
#there is no wiki article on the dissolution of soviet union?
comments? Doldrums 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: some very good ideas here. Please keep the Social Security and income tax reforms. His attacks on labor unions need to be noted. Rjensen 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a rewrite of intro 

message: Someone edited out my reference to the nickname "Ronald Ray Gun."  As I mention in my revert edit, we cannot simply allow the laudatory nicknames to stand, and I think I have support for this .  Quite apart from that discussion, Google yields nearly 27,000 hits for "Ronald Ray Gun" and its variants ("Ronnie" and "Raygun").Fishhead64 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone edited out the section on nicknames entirely.  It would be nice if major edits were accompanied by some explanation of their rationale.  Failing this, I've reinserted the section. Fishhead64 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you both seem to be missing is that there is an article entirely devoted to the nicknames of presidents.  It might be nice to include some of the most popular nicknames, but not all of them--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: In the references section, memoirs by Reagan and members of his administration were listed as "primary sources." I think this reflects a misconception of what primary sources are. They are things that are contemporary with events, such as Reagan's speech at the Brandenberg gate, diary entries, memos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a memoir is a secondary source, even if it is written by Regan himself. –Joke 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Documents written by Reagan about Reagan are considered primary sources. Historians and librarians normally classify autobiographies and memoirs as primary sources.   See for example the library guide at .  Rjensen 12:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: I removed the following:
"More disputed was Reagan's consideration of the Salvadoran FMLN and Honduran guerrilla fighters as terrorists, Reagan is widely credited in El Salvador as having helped the country escape the claws of international communism. He helped overturn the communist guerrilla domino effect already reaching El Salvador and Honduras due to Carter´s handing over Nicaragua to the Sandinistas. "
and replaced it with this
"Reagan is widely credited in El Salvador as having helped create the El Salvador Civil War via his staunch support for its undemocratic, right-wing government; the war left 75,000 people dead, 8,000 more missing and and a million each homeless and exiled."
The line about helping (!) El Salvador escaping the claws of international communisim is a bit rich, as it was US support for right-wing regimes that drove the people to leftist partys, only some of whom espoused communism. It and the following line are far too POV, and read like they were written by someone from the State Department in a 1968 mindset. Any comments on the above are welcome, as far too little has being written about the destructive effect Regan and US policy has had on the peoples of these regions. Fergananim 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regan and Central America

message: Should there be some sort of discussion regarding Reagan's friendship with Brian Mulroney in the four years they were leaders together?  In Peter C. Newman's "The Secret Mulroney Tapes" on page 305 a conversation is quoted where Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) said (paraphrased) "It's the only thing that'll move mountains around here, when the president gets up in the morning and says, 'I want this done.  My pal Brian wants this, and that's that...Everybody in Washington knows that Reagan's special relationship is now with Mulroney."
::very good idea. I have not read the tapes so please write up a short section. What were the policies under discussion? Rjensen 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Regan's relationship with Mulroney to warrant much discussion here it would have to be shown to have influenced more than just Canada-U.S. relations.  --Tedd 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regan and Brian Mulroney

message: A somewhat stubby and POV article may belong in the main article. Alba 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding something on this is quite necessary, but the mentioned text is very POV and should be rewritten entirely.  Having an independent article is a good idea, since it could be refernced by many other articles, such as the Republican Party article, and the Reagan article.  For now, though, we should consider writing a new Reagan coalition piece, because the current one stinks so much I deleted it, for reasons explained at the article's talk page. Demaratus83 19:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagan coalition

message: Was Reagan the only President to actually be hit by a bullet as President and survive?  Because we've got loony toons changing that section, and saying things like Andrew Jackson survived and assassination attempt?  I've never heard THAT one?  It's false, right? Demaratus83 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination attempt details 

message: There are some major points about RR that seem to be missing. 
First, my mom, who is still alive, met Ronald Reagan at Chapman college in 1947.  What was he doing at Chapman College you may ask?  He was a campus recruiter for the American Socialist Party.  That's right he tried to recruit my mom into the socialist party!  This membership seems to be missing from his Bio. 
 
Second, I believe you will find that in 1949 Ronald Reagan became an FBI informant.
Third, that he testified at the McCarthy hearings is not mentioned either.  By the way, he testified against many former friends.
Fourth, his greatest passion was horses and he was an expert horseman in the English style of riding and owned horses trained for Dressage.
07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great story--please have your mom write it up for a history journal and then we can use the story! (otherwise it is original research.) Rjensen 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing BIO stuff 

message: Could someone who isn't a Republican or Democrat go through this please. PMA 09:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: 167.206.69.43, I reverted your edit for two reasons.  One, stating that the budget was over 200 billion doesn't really add anything to the page, since it was well over 200 billion long before Reagan took office.  Stating that the national debt tripled isn't really true, either, although "nearly tripled" is; however, I'm not sure that by itself it's really necessary.  Please reconsider what you're trying to say and try to present it more coherently.  References would help. -Syberghost 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reverted

message: President Reagan did NOT kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS... he spoke at the Neshoba County Fair in MS in August 1980, but 1)it was not his kick-off (his kick-off was in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend, with the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop) and 2) although Philadelphia is in Neshoba County, the fairgrounds, where Reagan spoke, are several miles away
Reagan won 49 of 50 states in his reelection campaign vs. Mondale... that is a landslide
There is simply not valid evidence to substantiate a claim that Reagan's tax policies resulted in a loss of "huge" amounts of tax revenues (because a left-wing author wrote a book to discredit Reagan, doesn't make the book true)
The fact is that income tax revenues doubled during the Reagan years, from $517 - $1032 billion.
Regarding the claim that Reaganomics was unsuccessful in stimulating the economy, consider:
GNP 1-1-81 3084.1 billion 
GNP 1-1-89 5390.9
Increase during Reagan administration: 2306.9 74.8%
GNP 1-1-93 6580.0 
GNP 1-1-01 10.060.2
Increase during Clinton administration: 3480.2 52.9%
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GNP.txt
Again, your personal bias is not sufficient to revert valid edits  (comments by User:71.147.6.185) Pollinator 10:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I should have looked this one over more carefully before reverting.  But User 71.147.6.185, you would gain credibility if you would sign in. Most of the periodic vandalism that occurs on this and similar pages comes from anon users, and we administrators on vandalism patrol tend to home in on anon edits. Sometimes it becomes a race to keep ahead of the annoying group of brats and malcontents that live here anonymously. Oh, well. It's time for some shut-eye. Life will get better afterwards. Further, you should sign your posts on talk pages. Pollinator 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO RORY96 & POLLINATOR 

message: Hi, I'll be mediating the latest dispute on this article. Please chime in at []. Hope we can all come to a civilized consensus. Danny Pi 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I would like your comments: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR On every page I post this on, many people start passionate conversations about this. Travb 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reagan was the most important world leader predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union. His prediction had a major impact on the Soviets.  Better keep the page. Rjensen 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a vote on Article for deletion

message: Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted downfall of Soviets???? in 1976 he was predicting the Soviet Union would be practically unchanged for several more generations to come: "A central question, however, is whether such social change [modernization] is capable of altering, or has in fact already altered in a significant fashion, the underlying character of Soviet politics. That character, as I have argued, has been shaped largely by political traditions derived from the specifics of Russian / Soviet history, and it is deeply embedded in the operational style and institutions of the existing Soviet system. The ability of that system to resist de-Stalinization seems to indicate a considerable degree of resilience on the part of the dominant mode of politics in the Soviet context. It suggests, at the very least, that political changes are produced very slowly through social change, and that one must wait for at least several generations before social change begins to be significantly reflected in the political sphere."  from his essay in The Dynamics of Soviet Politics, ed. Paul Cocks, (1976) pp 337-51
::A few weeks after Reagan's presidction of the fall of Communism Brzinski responded (June 9, 1983): "The Soviet Union may be beset by massive domestic crises by the late 1980s, but these problems will probably still be contained by the highly regimented and bureaucratically assertive Soviet political system. " In Quest of National Security p 14.   On the other hand he did praise Reagan in Oct 1986: "Only a carping partisan critic would begrudge the president's claims that he has restored American self-confidence; increased markedly our defense spending; called the Soviet bluff in the INF talks; put the Soviets on the defensive with his bold Strategic Defense Initiative; increased thereby the chances of inducing genuine Soviet concessions in the arms-control negotiations; demonstrated, despite unfair Democratic criticism, the capacity to use force decisively, as in Grenada, with positive regional results; improved personal relations with our top allied leaders; maintained the new U.S.-Chinese connection (despite some initial fumbling); and projected once again an image of America as the future's innovative social laboratory. That is an impressive list. Whether much of it is the product of luck-- 
as critics would allege--or of personal leadership--as devoted Reaganauts would claim--is irrelevant. A true leader is a lucky leader. He generates his own "fortuna," to use Machiavelli's formula for the secret of the Prince's success. Reagan did benefit from the drop in the price of oil and from Brezhnev's senility. But he also inspired a sense of confidence and projected personal strength, and true leadership requires both." [ibid p 21] 
Another criticism is more germane. A closer scrutiny of Reagan's Rjensen 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brzezinski 1976: predicts 

message: He had, in a speech trying to foster world peace, stated that what it would be like if something from out there were threatening this planet. This is now found mainly on pro-UFO websites and data sites. Martial Law 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO Speech

message: Sorry for the many edits.
I couldnt get my reference tags to work.
Yes, yes I know - the show preview button is my friend.
CanadianPhaedrus 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My apologies. 

message: I dropped this portion of a sentence from the paragraph about the social security tax increase:
:a tax increase that left the poorest 40% of income earners with higher federal taxes than before Reagan's income tax cuts. 
This ignores the effect of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which effectively refunds a portion of FICA taxes to the very lowest income earners. Ellsworth 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax the poor? 

message: The transcript of the first Inauguration address that can be found through the external link  at the end of this article, as well as several other transcripts that can be found online say, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem." But, in the video of the speech, you can see that Reagan says, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  Several of the transcripts online leave out the latter part of the statement --that "government is the problem."   How convenient for the pro-statism crowd to excise that out. Thank God for video. RJII 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy in first Inauguration Address transcripts

message: Why is it that some presidents have two pages about them, one for the person in general and one for just the administration. See Ronald Reagan and Reagan Administration. The administration pages seem redundant as the information is mostly the same on both pages. I have also posted this on the Reagan Administration page.
*Grhs126student 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the "record-setting" arrests/convictions info should be moved to the Administration page?Dubc0724 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration pages 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to advertise FAC on the talk pages of articles; though those who worked on the article may be interested, simply because another article is tangetially related doesn't mean that you should place a request here. The article should be judged on its quality, not topic. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United States]] article on featured candidate nominations list 

message: Didn't Reagan write some of his own speeches? And, in those that were written by speechwriters didn't he engaging in a lot of his own editing? RJII 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wrote some of his own speeches?

message: An AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents seems to be converging on a merge decision.  That would involve moving the information into this article.  69.181.124.51 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The introduction to this article is eight paragraphs long, over 600 words (exactly 666, in fact), and larger than some full articles on wikipedia. In my opinion, we should take a long look at the introduction and try to cut it down to either 2 long paragraphs or 4 short ones, maximum. As it is, the summary is a long and cumbersome recap of Reagans life, instead of a succinct . Some key things I think we should axe:
* Putting trivia in the summary seems a bit odd, given the wealth of information we need to put there. These things would be very useful in a normal summary, but this summary really needs (in my opinion) some cutting down. Examples of what I mean:
**The statement about him being the oldest president.
**The paragraph about how he's considered the Teflon President.
**The paragraph about how he's the only presiden ever to survive an assassination attempt.
* The second paragraph, where it summarizes his policy, is cumbersome. They may be facts and useful to know if you're doing a report, but this is a summary, we don't need to explicitly explain Reagan's position and what he did about it on every little thing. If someone wants to do a report on Reagan, they can read the article. The same applies for the third paragraph, the sixth, and the seventh. 
* The paragraphs that deal with his legacy are useful for a summary, but they should be cut down a bit. 
Again, just a thought. If you disagree, please state disagreements. I enjoy debates, and I'd rather not tamper with this article until I get a consensus of how the active participants would enjoy seeing it. Haven't edited this article before, so I'd rather not barge in here and do major edits without a sense of consensus.
Cheers. Captain Scotch 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! Maybe one suggestion is to draft up an alternative lead, post it hear and then see what people think. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction length. 

message: I kid you not, see Public Law 107-1. Worthwhile a mention in this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Law: wishing Reagan happy birthday 

message: The section commenting that "Many different conspirators claim to believe that Reagan was an incarnation of the Devil. A large reason for this was that in each of his names was six letters- Ronald Wilson Reagan- 6,6,6." has been removed due to the superfluous and pretentious nature of the remarks, in that the claim is excessive and unjustifiable, until a user is able to supply substantial evidence.Allstargeneral 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: While contrary to as indicated in the text, this did happen in 1984, but was in no way part of the 1984 campaign. While worthy of inclusion, it does not belong in either of the presidential campaign sections.
Indeed.  I believe he said it while joking around with a staff member prior to a public address, and was unaware that they had already gone live. - Ecksem Diem 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We Begin Bombing in Five Minutes" 

message: I broke the Cold War section down into subsections, deleted entirely one sentence that I couldn't find any decent context for, and reorganized the order of the subsections. Also, the expansion request is that the end of the Cold War didn't happen on Reagan's watch, for one thing, and another thing is that it skips all of the events that lead up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 
I'm not sure that the events of 1991 belong, but I do think that the gratitude of the various leaders is appropriate. Hires an editor 17:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Section 

message: This article should mention how Reagan cooperated with the late Pope against the communism (, ).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pope John Paul II]]

message: I seem to remeber vaugly that Reagan was assulted by an enviromental activist in 92 or 93. Does anyone have any info on this? If so should it be mentioned in this article?--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of  Wiktionary 05:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: was Reagan assulted in 92 or 93?

message: This article is so damn biast. Where is the any mentions to the deficets, the lengthened healthcare waiting lists, the lower income for employees and the higher poverty rates? And in the UK people objected in Reagan because he had a goofy haircut and couldn't remember Princess Dianas name but how come theres no mention of the that? And why has all those things been deleted since I've been here last?
Your paragraph is full of words spelled incorrectly and poor grammar.  A haircut has historical significance?
75.37.131.231 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I think that this page should be reverted the its previous version as of Blobglob's edit. It moves information from the top of the page to the Presidency and removes information from the Presidency section that has already been placed on other, more specific, pages (such as Foreign policy of the Reagan administration and Reagan administration scandals)
:Rougher07 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: should he be part of this category? he technically died of pneumonia, but I suppose Alzheimer's likely played a part in his death. I'm reluctant to remove it because his suffering with the disease is so well known. Hazydan 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  category: deaths from alzheimer's? 

message: The last time I checked, being 6ft 1 inch tall equated to around 185.4cm, not 182.xcm as stated.--85.180.182.172 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia: presidential height 

message: Should there be a definition or mention of this term somewhere in the article? Non-English speakers might not have the necessary context and having your name become a byword for something is, while not all that unusual with US presidents, quite impressive. --Kizor 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reaganesque" 

message: The following comment was added by  in the middle of the lead in hidden comments; I've moved them here.
:Please move these lesser tidbits, such as the gold standard, to other sections and not in the introduction; the gold standard is an obscure topic, and my thinking is that Reagan never seriously attempted it and the topic is not at all newsworthy - just political posturing. Also, the Berlin Wall and Cold War are already expanded upon in the foreign policy section. Move your comments there. You make an important point about taxes that will retained here - actually the tax reform introduced taxes too. Feel free to compromise back
Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment left on article