Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 10

message: The introduction said "Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy, although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office." There is no reason to give the impression that less regulation was the focus of his economic philosophy. I went ahead an added in equally important beliefs, by changing it to this: "Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, espousing a more laissez-faire economic philosophyKaraagac, John. 2000. Between Promise and Policy: Ronald Reagan and Conservative Reformism. Lexington Books. p. 113 including support of large tax cuts, less economic regulation, less non-defense spending, and belief in the abilities of private charity and self-reliance to preclude the need for a large welfare state. To what extent these ideas were implemented is debatable." Operation Spooner 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same edit you kept posting the same disruptive edit to? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your grammar. Operation Spooner 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this sentence: "Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office" is particularly ugly, awkward, and essentially informationless. It is so bad, that it can be deleted without hurting anything at all, and I think deleting it would be an improvement. Compelling and brilliant prose, this is not. We should be able to do better.--Paul 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware you don't like this sentence, Paul - I think it was your first contribution to the Discussion (something about a camel and a horse, as I recall). Perhaps you can try out a new edit here, so we can take a look at how it could be improved. i am happy to work with you on this. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I don't like it, either. Brian Pearson 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so f---ing tired of having this debate over and over again! If the editors don't like it, change it, but Spooner's edit is too long and, as I've stated about 10 times, it cannot go in the lead how Spooner wants it per WP:LEAD because 1.) it is just too damn long, and 2.) it is straying from the gist of each of the sections, something WP:LEAD says to follow. Generalize (or take the gist) of everything Spooner wants and use that. Have I finally made myself clear?!?! Happy's not so happy! Happyme22 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Relax, Hap. Nothing is going to go into the article that a majority of us don't agree to, or that conflicts with wiki policy. Everything is going to be okay, dude - I swear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha well I hope so. Happyme22 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Happy but this is the nature of Wikipedia. If you stay here long enough you will see the same debates over and over, forever. Nothing is ever permanent on Wikipedia. The introduction will never be made static in this article, nor in any other article, much less the body of articles. The sooner you can accept that reality, the sooner you can be stress free. Operation Spooner 02:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to reiterate my point again: please choose the gist of all that you want to put in the lead display it on this page. If you don't think less govt. regulation of the economy was the most important thing Reagan advocated, or wasn't the gist, then please come up with something that will work and satisfy all the editors. You seem to know a lot about this, so I'm trusting you. Then, and only can, can we really work togther. Happyme22 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for putting most of what Reagan espoused. Sometimes I don't  like the way it is said. Brian Pearson 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that's what I just did. What I wrote above constitutes the gist of what I'm saying. As far as any claim that's it too long, I don't understand how anyone can say that, because it takes only one sentence. I don't see the point of quibbling over exact wording, because someone will come in and change it regardless of what anyone agrees to today. I learned quick that consensus is futile, because when there was consensus to what I wrote the introduction during the vote for Featured Article, the consensus was gone the next day after it was awarded. If consensus will be gone tommorow, then what is the point of arriving at it today? I can't even commit that if I agree to a sentence today that I will still agree to it tommorow. I can change my mind, just as easily as others changed their mind after there was a consensus on what I wrote before. I don't care what the exact wording is, but that above is the "gist" of what I'm saying. I don't want more you want from me. You can try to change words around, etc. If I like it I won't change it. If I don't then I change it. Wikipedia doesn't have to be complicated. Operation Spooner 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose we start when Reagan was younger, working our way down chronologically how everything unfolded.It would mean a rewrite. Brian Pearson 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We don't need a rewrite. We've had three of those. We need the gist of what Spooner wants, because aparrently advocating less govt. regualtion of the economy isn't a good summary. I've changed it to read "espousing a laissez-faire economic philosphy." When you click on laissez-faire you can read about laissez faire and what it includes. Saying he advocated laissez-faire sums it up, something I think is precisely how it should read. Happyme22 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not. But I'd like to know how he came by his beliefs. BTW, this may be off topic a bit, but I was just doing a bit of reading and just now learned he had an older brother. Brian Pearson 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Reagan did have an older brother: Neil (nicknamed "Moon"). Happyme22 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe could include more about his family life, and what his earlier life was like. Brian Pearson 01:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic philosophy

message: That phrase appears in the Lead, but does the term appear anywhere in the body of the article? If not, we should probably add it where appropriate - the Lead is the summary of the article, and we do not add new info that isn't in the body of the article. As well, I seem to have forgotten if foreign words are italicized. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. As for the italicizing, the article laissez-faire only italicizes it twice in the lead... I'm not sure. Happyme22 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. I took the cite that Spoon so thoughtfully provided inthe Lead again and moved it, as well as the usage of lf int he Reagonomics section. It works there, and keeps the Lead nice and clean. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "advocating a laissez-faire philosophy"

message: Paragraph in the Governor section regarding the 1968 presidential run needs to be looked at - it is not sourced ("I watched it on TV" was given as a source in edit summary - I don't think so) and not clear to me if all of the facts are correct.  Further, this may be more detail than is needed in an article about Reagan - the detail seems more appropriate to an article about the 1968 election.  Might want something in between what was there (which facts are being questioned by the addition and which was kind of sketchy) and what is there now (which seems too long and smacks of original research). The concept is worthy of inclusion, but this needs examination. Tvoz |talk 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moving discussion from user talk pages for input from editors of this page):  Please come up with some sourcing for the material you  posted on Ronald Reagan--  better than "I watched it on tv".  And you dropped some important words - and therefore obscured the meaning - when you posted. Please use "show review" befor posting or at least read it and correct it afterward. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for not deleting my work out of hand, and for fixing the error I made in leaving out some of the previous text that you seem to have known I deleted accidentally. Yes, I did watch that convention on TV, every night of it, and I recall it quite vividly. I will admit that although I knew the rough vote totals, for example I remembered that Nixon needed six hundred something votes to win on the first ballot, and I remembered that most votes against him were switched to votes for him after he had clinched the nomination anyway, I got the EXACT figures for first ballot votes, before and after switches, from the wikipedia site about the 1968 Republican Convention. As for Nelson Rockefeller being one of Nixon's opponents for the 1968 nomination, I never knew that anyone ever doubted it to the degree that it would require a citation. To me it is just as well known as the fact that Howard Dean was a contender for the Democratic nomination in 2004. As for the strategies and hopes of Nixon's opponents going into and at the convention, (hoping to deny Nixon a first ballot majority and that subsequent ballots could find Nixon delegates deserting to other candidates)that was quite clear to anyone watching the coverage of the convention on TV. That is why I didn't intend it to be humorous when I cited the fact that I watched it on TV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.93.228 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I watched it too, and remember much of it as well - and I know what you mean about some facts being so obvious as to maybe not need citation - but a lot of readers have no personal knowledge of 1968 and would need references, especially for the inferences you make. I didn't remove the paragraph because it struck me as correct, fact-wise, but as I said above, I'm not sure that level of detail is warranted in an article on the entire sweep of his long life and careers - there is (for reasons that I don't necessarily agree with) a sense that we need to keep the size of articles in check. So the nuances of the 1968 presidential race, where he didn't end up as nominee, may be too much detail to be supported. Perhaps a discussion will ensue on talk about this, and you should participate in it if it does.  Specific places that I think would need citations include Rockefeller because it might seem odd that Reagan and Rockefeller were in agreement about anything, not that it's unknown that Rockefeller opposed Nixon.  Then, it's original research when you say things like "would have been seen as" and "political momentum could have started to shift" - I'm not arguing against the point, I'm saying that those points are analysis, and you'd need to cite some reliable sources making that analysis. (There must be many.) My other "or" tag was for the last 2 sentences (and maybe I meant it for the whole graf) - again, "it was suggested" - by whom? Citation would help.  Wikilinking to the 1968 Republican National Convention would also help. Tvoz |talk 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well maybe it was said on TV, but there is too much in there that does not pertain specifically to Ronald Reagan. Plus, this one election was a small part of Reagan's political career and does not need to be expanded that far. Therefore, it should not be included at all, and I have reverted it.We can't have cn tags in FA's! Happyme22 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How you currently have it worded is superb! Now it is much better off, and pertains directly to Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 00:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1968 

message: I really don't see how this deserves its' own page.--IsaacGS 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I merged it..   didn't seem like much to discuss.  Call me bold.  JERRY talk contribs 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The absolute hilarity of the situation aside, it was just a sound check.  A technician had, as I remember it, made the mistake of broadcasting the sound check, a mistake that was only noticed when calls started coming in.  (If anyone's wondering, I got it from his autobiography, An American Life.  Undomiel (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge proposal 

message: Should the title of this really be "Five Minutes Speech"? This was more of a quip or joke. I wouldn't consider it a speech. Searching "Five Minutes Speech" on Google doesn't provide many significant results either. How about "Five Minutes Gaffe" or just "We begin bombing in five minutes"?Ando228 18:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speech?

message: "My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. 
During a microphone check, unaware that he was being broadcast. (August 11, 1984) "
Was he unaware that he was being broadcast, or was it recorded by sound engineers and then released?
208.13.213.2 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The absolute hilarity of the situation aside, it was just a sound check.  A technician had, as I remember it, made the mistake of broadcasting the sound check, a mistake that was only noticed when calls started coming in.  (If anyone's wondering, I got it from his autobiography, An American Life.  Undomiel (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound Check or Broadcast

message: Was this soundbite released by some organization or was it simply leaked in unauthorized manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.128.185.37 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release vs. Leak 

message: If any statement ever cried out for "need citation" that's it.  Although there was a lot of controversy over the joke, I don't recall that there was any change in the alert level of the U.S. military.  Mandsford 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defcon lowered?  Sez who?

message: The Reagan's ranch was not only a weekend get away but also a place of business that the President used frequently. His love of western life, his horses and his "Sky Blue Scrambler" gave him the uniqueness of no other President. There are many pictures of him and his Scrambler including the famous one of him driving Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev around on the ranch. Raysjeeps.net has many of these pictures shown as well as Reagan's CJ-6 Jeep. Rskraba 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that's nice. And do you have a question in there? Happyme22 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe he wanted to add some information to the article and wanted to check before he did it.  Undomiel (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rancho del Cielo, or "Ranch of the Sky,"   

message: Could you add a reference in the governor section for "The only execution during Reagan's governorship was on April 12, 1967, when Aaron Mitchell's sentence was carried out by the state in San Quentin's gas chamber." Could you also add a reference in legal section for "However, in 1987, Reagan lost a significant political battle when the Senate rejected the nomination of Robert Bork, but Anthony Kennedy was eventually confirmed in his place." Just think they need one. Thanks. LordHarris 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look. Happyme22 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cited both; thanks a lot for noticing those. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for citation

message: The article claims Reagan "is regarded as a major driving force behind the end of the cold war". By whom? The Cold War article puts quite a different light on things. It looks like the end of the cold war was mainly caused by internal structural problems of the Soviet Union.
I suppose it could be argued that Reagan accelerated the downfall of the Soviet Union by his immense military spending and Evil Empire rhetoric, since the Soviet Union was in enough trouble as it was without going to all-out war, and had to start negotiations at some point. But did Reagan *know* about this?
My main point is that it looks like the cold war would have ended soon enough also without Reagan. At the very least, we need a source for this "driving force" statement. It would be helpful if some historian had said this. --KarlFrei 08:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And those statements need cites; also, please see past discussions regarding this issue. Happyme22 (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driving force behind the end of the cold war 

message: Not that I have anything against Reagan, but shouldn't this article mention his use of the southern strategy somewhere? As in my comment above, the Southern strategy article is quite clear on this, in contrast to this article. For more examples, see . --KarlFrei 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A blog is not a reliable source... Happyme22 (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, forget about that link, what about the Southern strategy article? --KarlFrei 09:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern strategy 

message: Recommend converting the cabinet table to use .  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally find that table too large and intrusive, whereas the one we are currently using is smaller. Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet 

message: or are they leaving that out since he was utterly abysmal in that area resulting in the influx of homeless people?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.7.181 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reagan's domestic policy is covered in the "Presidency" section, but unlike the George W. Bush article, Reagan's is not specifically split into "domestic policy" and "foreign policy". Happyme22 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is domestic policy section? 

message: I made a small but noteworthy addition to the header, changing the following sentence to add the portion in italics: "The policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981, although he also signed the largest tax increase in U.S. history."  My addition, is supported by the Reaganomics section of the article; I only note it here in deference to the proposed policy of announcing all header changes on the Reagan talk page.  --M@rēino 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there and thank you for contributing, however I would like to point out some things.
# You are the first user to follow the in-text note at the top of the page regarding the infobox and discussion, so thank you.
# I checked out the article you wikilinked in "Reaganomics" section, as well as searched google. I find no evidence stating it is the largest tax increase in American history (although taxes did increase). In the Wikipedia article, two commentary POV articles were cited, and one even supposedly quoted the Treasury dept., but no source was provided as to how those numbers arose.
#Furthermore, however, I did find that his August 14, 1981 tax cuts (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) were the most in history! (see here, originally published from the Tax Foundation making it a reliable source, and here, as well as here). I conclude that signing the largest tax cut in American history outweighs signing tax increases with no specific amount. Happyme22 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well thank you. I have edited it, though, as the actual figures did not belong in the the lead (which is meant to summarize the article) and it was gettin' detailed! I also tweaked the newly added paragraph. I plan on going through this article in the upcoming days to shrink the Reaganomics section, as it is the longest on the page, and much can be read in the Reaganomics article, as well as the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. Any more concerns? Happyme22 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Reagan articles are getting unwieldy (an embarrassment of riches, to make a tax pun!)  I have no more concerns.  Pleasure working with you! --M@rēino 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. Nice working with you too. Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  header & taxes 

message: Why is there no filmography?  Almost every other actor with a career like Reagan's has either a full filmography or at least a partial one. Storyliner (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a really good idea. But it definetely belongs in a seperate article, not this one, as he made 50-some movies and it would just be a bad-looking list at the bottom (similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger). So I am willing to create one in the upcoming days, or feel free to do it yourself, then provide a link in the "Radio and film" section. Happyme22 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why No Filmography?

message: The following phrasing:
"As president, Reagan implemented new political initiatives as well as economic policies, advocating a laissez-faire philosophy, but the extent to which these ideas were implemented is debatable."
in the introductory section seems to me to be very poor quality writing and ever so slightly POV. It is certainly less that encyclopedic in its nature. I think this needs to be evaluated (by someone with better writing chops than me).72.0.175.144 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. Can you give an example of how it is POV? Happyme22 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of the Copy