Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

message: I noticed some discussion on the issue of Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union. I grouped it together here.
=== 1 ===
Claiming that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe just doesn't hold up on close inspection.  The better explanation is that Gorbachev and friends lost control of their efforts to reform Soviet and East Bloc economic and political institutions.  That Gorbachev might want to give Reaganthe credit/blame for that is understandable; poor old fellow lost an entire Global Superpower.  Remember, Gorbachev didn't just lose political power, he lost the entire state.  (That he doesn't seem to have intended that as a consequence should tell anyone not suffering ideoogical delusion that it was a rather fragile entity.)   
What Ronald Reagan does deserve credit for is the withdrawl of Soviet forces from Afghanistan; but then that means he is stuck with responsibility for bringing the Mujahidein and then the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.
=== 2 ===
He is credited with:
* defeating the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries
* rebuilding the military - this caused the Soviet Union to go bankrupt trying to keep up its military
:This was done based on CIA numbers for Soviet nuclear weapons that turned out to be drastically overestimated, and many believe that they would have fallen apart anyway.
=== 3 ===
He should be credited with defeating the Soviet Union.
I don't think that's an uncontroversial opinion.  The USSR fell apart during his term, but because it (foolishly) tried to keep up with his arms spending, not because he did anything to it.  Probably the best way to put it would be that he "radically increased military spending (and violated a few treaties) to the point where the Soviet Union was unable to keep up, and collapsed soon thereafter."
:Actually it is a controversial opinion.  Perhaps not in the public arena but if you are to ask any historian, they will probably answer that the USSR collapse had very little to do with Reagan's policies.  I'm a student of Soviet history and I can tell you that the economic system of the Soviet Union was so bankrupt and inneficient that a colapse was inevitable.  To credit Reagan with the defeat of the USSR is to completely ignore a number of things:
::1) Dissent within the Eastern Bloc gained its most important momentum during the time Reagan was in office.  Oddly enough the US government did little to directly support such movements (like Solidarity or independence movements inside of Latvia or Lithiuania) because they were afraid of antagonizing the Soviets.  These dissidents inside the USSR are the real victors in the struggle against Communism.  They were the ones who risked their careers, their lives and most importantly the well being of their children.  
::2) Reagan's defense spending was spent on crazy hairbrained ideas like SDI or Star Wars (an outer space missile defense system) which many American scientists knew was not only impossible but idiotic as well.  Guess what?  The Soviets knew this too, they knew that SDI and Star Wars was at best the idiotic fantasies of a man who confused reality with the movies he starred in and at worst a weapon that would not be ready for at least thirty years.
::3) Lastly thanks to the neo-Stalinist resurgance of the Brezhnev regime the USSR had been falling apart economically long before Reagan came into power.  Thanks to wheat shortages and a disastrous 10 year war in Aghanistan that sucked an already failing Soviet economy dry.
::3)Lastly Reagan's increased military spending was anything, if not stupid.  Besides nuclear missiles the Soviet Union really posed no military threat to the United States.  There's a reason why the movie Red Dawn is just a movie.  There is no way the USSR could have carried out a succesful ground invasion of the US as Reagan and his cold warrior hawks feared.
:That being said.  Perhaps individuals should learn some history first and consult experts on the subject of the Cold War rather than getting their information from people like Fox News or the New York Times.  If you want history ask a historian if you want bullshit ask anyone who's on telly.StoptheBus18 18:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reagan won the cold war" 

message: He should be credited with defeating the Soviet Union.
I don't think that's an uncontroversial opinion.  The USSR fell apart during his term, but because it (foolishly) tried to keep up with his arms spending, not because he did anything to it.  Probably the best way to put it would be that he "radically increased military spending (and violated a few treaties) to the point where the Soviet Union was unable to keep up, and collapsed soon thereafter."
:Actually it is a controversial opinion.  Perhaps not in the public arena but if you are to ask any historian, they will probably answer that the USSR collapse had very little to do with Reagan's policies.  I'm a student of Soviet history and I can tell you that the economic system of the Soviet Union was so bankrupt and inneficient that a colapse was inevitable.  To credit Reagan with the defeat of the USSR is to completely ignore a number of things:
::1) Dissent within the Eastern Bloc gained its most important momentum during the time Reagan was in office.  Oddly enough the US government did little to directly support such movements (like Solidarity or independence movements inside of Latvia or Lithiuania) because they were afraid of antagonizing the Soviets.  These dissidents inside the USSR are the real victors in the struggle against Communism.  They were the ones who risked their careers, their lives and most importantly the well being of their children.  
::2) Reagan's defense spending was spent on crazy hairbrained ideas like SDI or Star Wars (an outer space missile defense system) which many American scientists knew was not only impossible but idiotic as well.  Guess what?  The Soviets knew this too, they knew that SDI and Star Wars was at best the idiotic fantasies of a man who confused reality with the movies he starred in and at worst a weapon that would not be ready for at least thirty years.
::3) Lastly thanks to the neo-Stalinist resurgance of the Brezhnev regime the USSR had been falling apart economically long before Reagan came into power.  Thanks to wheat shortages and a disastrous 10 year war in Aghanistan that sucked an already failing Soviet economy dry.
::3)Lastly Reagan's increased military spending was anything, if not stupid.  Besides nuclear missiles the Soviet Union really posed no military threat to the United States.  There's a reason why the movie Red Dawn is just a movie.  There is no way the USSR could have carried out a succesful ground invasion of the US as Reagan and his cold warrior hawks feared.
:That being said.  Perhaps individuals should learn some history first and consult experts on the subject of the Cold War rather than getting their information from people like Fox News or the New York Times.  If you want history ask a historian if you want bullshit ask anyone who's on telly.StoptheBus18 18:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 

message: The "quotes" section seems like it will be a pov magnet.  NPOV is not about simply presenting both positive and negative.  The quotes don't really enhance the understanding of Reagan.  I think we ought to take it out, and will commence. Meelar 02:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: but now it seems that most of the quotes which make him look bad have been taken out of the article, even those which were well publicized at the time and do indeed tell something about his thinking (like the 5 minutes bombing joke), while those which make him appear witty and likeable have remained (like the 'hope you are republicans' anecdote which has a prominent place in the first paragrph on his presidency - actually i love that one ;) ). hardly npov either. High on a tree 02:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: :In 1921, at the age of 11, Reagan was baptized...
If Reagan was born in 1911, he couldn't have been eleven in 1921. Was he baptized in '21, or at age 11 (in '22 or early '23)? Garrett Albright 03:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Child of an alcoholic father, Reagan developed an early gift for storytelling and acting.
What does one have to do with the other? :P Garrett Albright 22:24, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Date incongruity

message: 'Gov. of California' is not a profession, it is a job. If you mean that his profession was 'politician' as well as actor, well, kind of, but every President is a politician. Let's just stick with actor. Mark Richards 20:49, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Profession

message: ABC news is reporting that Reagan died today. I have added pertinent info.Brian Schlosser42 20:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC news reports Reagan's Death 

message: This is the first time in more than 30 years when there was a time when an earlier President (Jimmy Carter) survived a later President (Ronald Reagan). The previous time was from 1969 to 1972 when Harry Truman survived Dwight Eisenhower. What does this sound like to you?? 66.32.138.16 22:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: An occasional circumstance of no further significance. - Nunh-huh 09:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interestingly... 

message: I felt compelled to add sections on Personality and Presidential "Style" as I believe they are important attributes of a president. I was surprised to find no such text. As a (regrettably) "Reagan Democrat" I feel that these are important and relevant additions to this page. Leonard G. 23:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sections

message: Okay, this page is now offically overloaded with photographs.  Please no more.  --Rookkey 00:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wish that users would read the talk page before just haphazardly adding MORE photographs.  The current count is 14!! in the article.  I'm not sure an encyclopedia article needs that many.  Especially as not quite all of them seem needed to support the text. --Abqwildcat 04:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: I've always felt that he had some sort of mysterious connection to my grandmother, although to the best of my knowledge she had never met him.  He was born just over 1/2 year before she was (Sep. 1911).  I know that doesn't mean too much, but we have two other things.  One of her daughters, and one grandson were both born on Feb 6th.  And Ronald Reagan passed away 11 months to the day after she had (July 5, 2003).
You may not agree with his politics, or what he had done while President.  But still, today the United States of America, and indeed the world has lost a great man.
:JesseG 00:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interestingly... (part 2) 

message: " to his wife Nancy he jokingly commented, "Honey, I forgot to duck.""
What does this joke mean ? It's possible Americans may understand this joke not others. If someone explains it here that would be helpful. Jay 09:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems clear that even most Americans don't recognize that this remark was not something Reagan "thought up" on the spur of the moment: he was quoting a remark made by boxer Jack Dempsey in 1926 explaining his loss of his heavyweight championship.  After Dempsey lost to Gene Tunney, his wife Estelle Taylor asked him "What happened?". His reply was "Honey, I forgot to duck."  Reagan often is credited with witticisms, like this, that he creatively quoted rather than originated. - Nunh-huh 06:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ducking joke

message: Reagan was 93 ??? I would have guessed he was in his 70's looking at his photographs. Does anyone his pics as recent as 1 or 2 years back ? Jay 09:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagan was 93 ??!? 

message: Removed text previously stating 'Reagan was considered before Humphrey Bogart for the part of Rick in Casablanca; a career move that surely would have changed history.'
Reviewing the current Snopes.com what's new, http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/reagan.asp , the issue is discussed and determined to be a myth (or urban legend, if you prefer).  Based upon facts and interviews, they establish the Casablanca link to be purely mythological.
-Abqwildcat 20:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casablanca info 

message: There should be something regarding his policies toward terrorists in general; the end of the Iran hostage crisis as his presidency started (just before the assassination attempt is recounted, perhaps); and also about the air strike on Libya and the dispute about the boundaries of Libya's territorial waters. The Libya strike in particular seems at least as important as the Grenada invasion. Wesley 16:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism, Libya 

message: 66.192.161.220 added a comment about Reagan "being tough on terrorism" that was removed.  However, as I've reread Reagan speeches the last few days and seen video clips, I've been amazed at the number of times Reagan did mention terrorism.  Though obviously not as big an issue as today, it was a pressing reality from the beginning of Reagan's term to the end.  Reagan did indeed take a hardline stance against terrorism.  That could be mentioned in the article somewhere, though I'm not sure it rightly goes in a section of "Ronald Reagan is credited with" items, since many probably don't remember that specific issue in association with his policies. Jdavidb 21:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, because, amongst other reasons, being "tough on terrorism" is a pretty vague accomplishment.  I don't know enough about Reagan to argue with you if you have more specific/detailed factual stuff, so go ahead. Meelar 13:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Eek. The Contras were terrorists, if we're going to be serious and not throw history down the memory hole. He also showed a lot of support for Arab terrorist groups. Wasn't it under Reagan that the CIA trained and armed Osama bin Laden? They were also pretty tight with Saddam Hussein, this during his most brutal era. Giving Reagan credit for proliferating terrorism is fair; the opposite is not. I won't remove it immediately, because I don't want to start an edit war, but I just think it's an utter falsehood. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: I think that the following changes meaning and can be a kind of vandalism: 
History comparison
Changes by user 66.192.161.220. 
I did not rever them, as I am not a Reagan specialist enough to know if they arent actually improvments. Your thougts?
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspicious changes

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 

message: For the record, Wikipedia's article on Ronald Reagan is 21th in the Google search at this time...
-Jasper Chua 09:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia popularity 

message: What's your problem with MSN's Slate or Amazon.com's IMDB? They both clearly state the same facts — in 1952 42 year old Ronald Reagan raped 19 year old Selene Walters and got away with it. It's not something people should ignore. I don't mind you not trusting me but it's more than gossip. I guess you have no respect for AOL Time-Warner's People magazine's confirmation of the same fact: Ronald Reagan raped Selene Walters and got away with it. So you've read the victim's statement on the basics of the event as written by Kitty Kelley. That's not gossip at this point. So what's your problem with the facts as reported. I've gathered you lack respect of women by this point. 
Might as well face the facts before we start an edit war as I'm not backing down. 
* His mob connections will be shown, and we'll examine tales of his going out whoring with Mafia fixer and lawyer Sidney Korshak.
* And that Reagan deserted Jacqueline Park when informed he had made her pregnant.
Nor am I intimidated by your sock puppet calling me names. - Sparky 21:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In [[1952]] 42 year old Ronald Reagan raped 19 year old Selene Walters and got away with it 

message: pulled because Dominick doesn't want people to read the truth. And now resurrected ...
Sorry you don't care for Ms. Kelly. Hate Salon as well? Think MSN doesn't fact check stories?
# We have Peter Lawford's famous quote about Nancy's mouthwork. Remember the man had Marilyn Monroe to compare it to.
# Uncle Milty made similar claims. I suspect most of the Rat Pack had their way with her as well.
# People Magazine got 
# Selene Walters to verify the basics of what —
# Kitty Kelley asserted.
# Salon Magazine's —
# Jack Shafer also reported on the fact the rape story got silenced.
# Kevin Jeyes also reported about the Reagan's sexual shenanigans. 
# Patti Davis and —
# Ron Reagan also admitted their parents were notorious players.
# Robin Leach only made sly  wink wink remarks so there's no real reason to dump on him.
And Character Assassination is more part of the Washington scene. However, I have no high horse. Nancy is still alive. She knows what she did. She knows what her husband did. And with whom. So you want a pretend good absent-minded grandpa image of the dead pervert or the truth. And it not funny that articles are disappearing thanks to the FCC protecting a dead man's self-tarnished image. - Sparky 03:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want a pretend good absent-minded grandpa image of the dead pervert or the truth. Since when did any sexual procivities make one a pervert? This is exactly what I am talking about. You have the he said she said. Hollywood and DC share in character assasination, Wikipedia should not. I am sure that both of them had Sexual experiences, however, as a matter of scholorship, all you have is shaggy dog stories. Articles disappearing? It is convienent that you can't offer proof, because the FCC, who can't even regulate radio emissions, somehow can participate in a conspiricy. Bedroom tales are not the defining moment in Reagans life. Rape is also a criminal act. If it was true it would have a lot mroe traction. Dominick 19:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Maniac Ronnie 

message: I must say, being new to Wikipedia, that I was flabbergasted - a word I don't use often - to find that if you put one hint, a mere soupcon, just the suggestion of something absolutely true, e.g. Reagan's people classified ketchup as a vegetable to save money on school lunches for poverty-line children... whoosh!  Not only is it removed, but is called "vandalism."  Not only is this well-documented, but I was an adult at the time, just as I am now.  I remember Senator Heinz (Teresa's husband) said at the time, "I know a little about ketchup and it is not a vegetable; it is a condiment."  Every time I see ketchup, which is daily (okay, I'm not a gourmet), it reminds me of how callous and niggardly Reagan was, how he told his daughter Patti that the homeless choose to be homeless (this tidbit comes from Patti's own writing), how his antipathy toward the poor verged on the pathological, and
his cavalier approach to those with AIDS WAS pathological, particularly considering the sexual orientation of his son.  These were parts of the man, but you'd never know it because obviously, as some glassy-eyed keepers of the flame must be watching this site every second, the entry for Ronald Reagan may as well be straight from Fox News, chock full of itty-bitty positive sound bites and little else.  This, my friends, is one reason the US, the only country I've ever lived in, and the country I love, is in the mess it's currently in: a dismal lack of curiousity, and a total disrespect and disregard for the truth.
Giving him credit for the fall of the soviet union is overly positive, the soviet union was critically flawed, and started to die out after the Cuban Missile Crisis. In communist government you can't afford guns and butter. It was primary propped up to get Star Wars going they needed a reason, also the Missile Gap which was at best a lie. But, it'll be a while before things cool off and you can talk about the mass graves in Central America. Saying that there are too many negative items is wrong, it's actually pretty kind... it's just lately people have been piling on praise. It'll die down and most reasonable people will recall his actions, and then it'll switch back. No real reason to change it much to the right when it'll shift back after this love fest is over.
:It's my understanding that Soviet military spending remained relatively constant during the reagan administration, so it's not clear that Reagan had any effect one way or another on the demise of Soviet communism.  I do think his friendship with Gorbachev, and the relationship they established, helped a LOT.  It was that, rather than the high military spending during his administration, that helped speed up the end of the cold war, IMHO.  Also it should be remembered that every single one of the weapon systems deployed during the Reagan administration was started under the Carter Administration -- so the idea of the so-called "decade of neglect" and of Reagan solving it with a massive military buildup is completely overblown.  --Commodore Sloat
::It's a supportable position. E.g.--
::"... in 1991, Vladimir Lukhin -- once a top diplomat for the USSR, then the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Duma -- told me how Reagan's SDI speech was received on the other side. ... in 1985, the reports came back to the Kremlin, both bearing the same basic message: "We don't know if the USA can succeed with this missile-defense plan, but we know that the USSR cannot." This forced the Politburo into an agonizing reassessment: something, Lukhin recalled, had to change. And that change, the Russian gerontocrats hoped, would come in the form of a young new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who took power in 1985. ... As Lukhin told me, "Reagan accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union by five to ten years" -- which was fine with Lukhin." http://www.techcentralstation.com/060804C.html
::--wwoods 20:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many negative items? 

message: in the context of SDI as a Cold War policy, it doesn't make too much sense to discuss Clinton and George W. Bush's views since the Cold War is already over by then... the reasons stated by the current administration for continuing this policy are different
:At the time, Reagan suggested it would take decades for the program to be carried out. The program was supported by his successor, George H. W. Bush, though not eagerly pursued. Bill Clinton also supported it, though not actively. President George W. Bush actively supports the program.
--Confuzion 07:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SDI post-Cold War

message: This sentence:
:The child of an alcoholic father, Reagan developed an early gift for storytelling and acting.
seems to imply that Reagan was forced to be a Scheherazade to protect himself from mistreatment by his alcoholic father. If this implication is true, the implication should be make explicit. If this implication is false, these concepts should not be grouped together.
EmRick 19:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify implication

message: I once read somewhere that all US presidents who took office in a year ending with '0' were assassinated and Reagan was the first president who survived the assassination attempt and finished his term safe. But now after a look at the list of presidents chart I see that only 1 president took office in a year that ended with '0'. So was that a complete hoax or did I get the figures wrong ? Jay 09:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it's elected: Tecumseh's curse--Jiang 09:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jiang, I've added this bit of trivia in the Presidency section. Jay 18:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Numerological hoax ?

message: I just took out this new addition: "This view is supported by Gorbachev's blatant begging of Reagan not to follow through with the program, offering him obscene arms deductions at Reykjavik." - It seems POV but I'm having trouble understand the viewpoint and what the skew is. What are the facts of this? - Tεxτurε 00:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is that far off; Gorbachev himself credits Reagan's SDI for his concessions at Reykjavik and in fact credits SDI with helping end the cold war.  The offered reductions at Reykjavid were indeed significant and it is generally accepted that SDI was the deal-breaker.  (And I'm saying this as someone who believes that SDI was one of the most insane pie-in-the-sky ventures dreamed up in Washington, absolutely destructive of world peace). csloat 05:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double check 

message: It's 51kB. Quotations belong in wikiquote. I'll be deleting the section. --Jiang 01:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Drop the links section while you're at it. They should be moved to footnotes in the article (like the documentation of Reagan's discussion of AIDS) or just dropped as POV pushing. Ellsworth 18:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long 

message: <BIG><B>Some people are cowards and afraid of the truth here. Protecting the image of a lie is not the job of an encyclopedia... And pretending we're ALL giving him a pass is simply wrong. </b></big>
The Selene Walters Rape charge was an orphan paragraph on earlier versions of the main article as you can see here. If you remove the below again with the rationale of it being mere gossip after I reinsert it in the main article this Sunday we'll merely have an edit war. - Sparky 16:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Cowardice