Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 3

message: I've moved the following paragraph from the main article. The assertion in the first sentence is not supported by the following three sentences. Someone may want to argue that there was a similar dynamic at work, but that would require rewriting.
Reagan's passing helped Bush win re-election. Many people felt that the experiences of the Canadians during the six emotional days in September 2000 that marked the passing and state funeral of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was prime minister when Reagan became president (Mulroney didn't become prime minister until 1984) may have been the factor. Then-prime minister Jean Chretien called an election weeks later and it helped him and his Liberals win another majority government. Both cases make one point clear: Reagan inspired Bush to be president, like Trudeau inspired Chretien to be prime minister.
Bbpen 18:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think this is pretty off-topic anyway and shouldn't be part of the article. Neilc 04:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagan and the 2004 U.S. Election

message: This ties in with <B>Doris Lilly</b>'s 1949 opinion of Reagan before he transforms himself from a very hayseed type of a man into a swinger. This might explain his treatment of Jacqueline Parks who said in 1991:
: "When I told him I was pregnant, he said he didn't want to have anything to do with me anymore. He just ran out on me. He was a swinger in those days. He went out with this girl and that girl. But the moment he married Nancy and became a Republican, he was reformed, and there's nothing more boring than a reformed swinger." - Sparky 19:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That part of the article is about his retirement. It's just a coincidence, the allegation and diagnostic placed in the same period of time.  --Vasile 06:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  occurred within 3 years of the same decade.
Why does no one feel his abandonment, infidelity, and rape is important? I'm stunned. - Sparky 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doris Lilly and Jacqueline Parks 

message: Wasn't his Governor portrait defaced/damaged at some point? Rhymeless 02:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: I notice the NPOV tag is on the page.  Glancing through Talk & the archives, I didn't notice a specific dispute in progress justifying the tag.
Would someone mind bringing me up to speed on the specific complaint leading to the NPOV tag?  A linki to the appropriate discussion would be fine.  Thanks. Wolfman 19:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As best I can tell, no one has made any comments about a neutrality dispute in over a month.  Nor has my query been answered.  So, I am removing the NPOV tag.  If someone still does in fact have specific neutrality objections, please state the specific objection below and reinsert the tag.  Thanks. Wolfman 00:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The article claims:
:At various times the administration supported both nations but mainly sided with Iraq, believing that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was less dangerous than Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Weapons and tactical support were sent to Iraq, including the transfer of chemical and biological materials, ostensibly for humanitarian purposes. These materials were in fact used to make chemical and biological weapons.
But declines to include any references or sources to support this (controversial) claim. Does anyone have any links to documentation concerning the sale of chemical and biological materials, and the future use of these materials in weapons? Neilc 04:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I did some research into this. This WaPo article is informative. I've updated the article to reflect my understanding of what is accurate. Neilc 07:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi chemical weapons 

message: I've noticed that there are more anti-Reagan links than pro-Reagan links, which is odd considering he had 60% of the popular vote and 49 states....It should at least be 50/50. Anyone to help? BMWman
Like George Bush, one can be popular with half of the US and unpopular with almost everyone else in the world :) Wikipedia is also for Angolans, Iranians, Central Americans... Greenman 13 Dec 2004
You don't think the man that set an electoral college record should get an equal saying in the links saying? This was much, MUCH more than half the US. It may be for others also, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt have a say. BMWman
:Go for it, dude! However you're going to be riding uphill on this, the consensus on this 'pedia seems to tilt to the left. Only way to achieve true NPOV is to try to balance everything out with worthwhile content. Ellsworth 23:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Any objections to me adding such a section? BMWman
:Certainly, such information would be welcome.  If you want to add a lot of detail (more than a paragraph or two), please consider making a separate article on his nominations.  Then a summary and a link to the nomination article can be included here in the Reagan biography.  In fact, a general article on Reagan's judicial nominees at all levels would be a nice addition. Wolfman 02:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a section on that topic at Reagan Administration. Ellsworth 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court Nominations 

message: The reagan2020.com website has got links to all his major speeches at /speeches. 
Maybe we could condense the links section a bit? Normally I'd go for it but as all editing to this artcle seems to stir up contention (deservedly or not) I thought I'd solicit some opinions. Ellsworth 21:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on second thought, I decided to just note on the link pipe that there are numerous speeches collected there. Ellsworth 01:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Link section has now been trimmed, so follow that link to major speeches. Ellsworth 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to speeches 

message: The phrase "labor union" gives the wrong impression. Yes, Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, but that's not what most people think of when they hear "labor union". There is probably a better way to express this that doesn't put Reagan in the same camp as Joe Hill or Jimmy Hoffa or Walther Reuther. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  labor union 

message: The following is a direct quote from the WaPo article; I think it clearly says the US authorized sales of weapons to Iraq: "A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."--csloat 08:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote doesn't support the claims the article makes — it merely says "authorize", while the Wiki article says "provided". Also, the quote above does not necessarily suggest that they provided weapons to the Iraqis — since the material was dual-use, I would expect it would not be shipped by commercial companies in a weaponized form (although I won't claim to be an expert, of course). I think the WaPo story supports the claim that the US govt. turned a blind eye to the export of potentially dangerous substances to the Iraqis, but I don't think it supports the current claims the Wiki article makes. Please adjust the claims, or find more evidence. Neilc 12:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What are we talking about here when we say "weapons"? In terms of modern warfare, I suggest that "weapons", unmodified, means guns, bullets, tanks,  mines, bombs and other materiel whose primary purpose is to kill people and break things. If that's not the meaning, what do you propose?  If it is the meaning, isn't it clear that the Soviet Union and France provided the weapons (e.g. France with the Mirage bombers and Exocet missiles, the Soviets with MiG's and ground warfare items). Ellsworth 14:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to come up with a compromise statement on the disputed para. that comes just short of saying "the US supplied weapons to the Iraqi  military". Check it out. Ellsworth 00:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons to Iraq

message: I've been reviewing many articles relating to politics and some have got me so mad, I've put disputed tags on them. This article is however excellent. It presents the good and the bad with little editorializing. Is it possible those responsible could re-write the George W Bush article which is really a mess. Lagavulin 20:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, but since George W. Bush is the current president, it's hard to get anything done on that article.  Changes have to be made one by one and hacked out on the talk page, where nothing really seems to resolved.  If someone is bold and does a complete rewrite, it will be reverted since it is a contenscious article and *someone* is going to find something wrong with the article. Add to that the endless vandalism on the page which constantly needs to be reverted. I think that a good article on GWB is going to have to wait until he's been out of office for a while and the passion has died down.  But I hope I'm wrong.  --BaronLarf 20:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I fear you might be right. I've been looking at many political articles and some are just terrible while others - where you might expect controversy - are just great. The Oliver North one is particularly bad I think. Haven't had the courage to look at Bill Clinton's one yet. It's a shame that fanatics of both sides seem to be able to get their way. But congrats to all those who made the Reagan article, it's excellent. And he was as controversial as there ever was. Lagavulin 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Make that "is". ;-> Ellsworth 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent article

message: Should Reagan's tenure as head of the Screen Actors Guild  be included in the succession box"?  NoSeptember 11:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should.  If you head fifty notable organizations, you get fifty succession boxes.  --Unfocused 22:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I finally got around to adding it. :)  NoSeptember 20:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession Box 

message: This article seems RIFE with editorializing.  There are a lot of "comments" that seem either lifted directly from a non-journalistic/-encyclopedic source (= plagiarism) or are made up on the spot, which is as poor a practice.  At first, this was just a general impression, but the most egregious ones were evident even then, and frankly were distressing upon a closer reading.  I recommend that this article be made more compact and topical, and that these comments be removed.  I don't want to edit the page further without more input, and the task certainly belongs to someone more qualified in these matters than I.
:I reversed your recent edit because it left a gap in the paragraph that caused it to no longer make sense.  You removed two sentences without removing the speech link that followed.  (Reagan was a loving and devoted husband. One of the most touching speeches he ever made as president was a tribute to his wife.)  You can't call these editorializing if they are supported by proof (such as the following link).  What you could dispute or change is the way the speech is introduced.  I see nothing wrong with the innocuous sentences to introduce the link but perhaps you could simplify them somehow while retaining the fact that he paid tribute to his wife in the linked speech. - Tεxτurε 22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing 

message: The idea that Reagan personally ordered Carter-era solar panels removed from the roof of the White House early in his presidency seems to be a popular one, but I can't find any support for it. On the contrary, this article from BusinessWeek   suggests that the panels were removed in 1986 to repair the roof and were simply never put back in place. --Bziobnic 20:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Solar Panels

message: This article is 51KB. Which section as of this moment is the best to put into its own article?? Georgia guy 22:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing this article 

message: An anonymous editor changed "earned excellent grades" to "earned mediocre grades" -- this should be easy to check; can anyone document whether Reagan's grades in school were excellent or mediocre? --csloat 04:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan's grades? 

message: Apparently, there is talk of putting up a bust of Reagan in Budapest, alongside one of George Washington (see link).  If this comes to pass, I imagine it would be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5071695,00.html
Funnyhat 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan Bust in Hungary 

message: "During his governorship, Reagan actively dismantled the public psychiatric hospital system, proposing that a community-based housing and treatment system replace it."
I recently had someone bring this up in conversation, and realized I had never heard of it.
Googling didn't really turn anything up, and even the california governor's page didn't have much.
What's the deal?
What was the name of the system?  When was it dismantled?  Was it through the legislature?  What was Governor Reagan's involvment? 68.167.2.149 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  public psychiatric hospital system 

message: yeah, all the SLA was doing was asking for redistribution of food to the poor. give it a rest. J. Parker Stone 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Patty Hearst

message: Why in the world is a disambiguation notice to the ship necessary at the top of the article? Nobody who is looking for the ship will put in just "Ronald Reagan", they should know better than that. The ship is properly linked down below in the See also section. --Michael Snow 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: It reads like one editor had a field day with this sub article. Please provide sources for quotes about botulism, SLA requesting food for the poor, when he sent troops and a direct quote on his alleged eagerness to use violence. If this information cannot be provided, it will be erased. Finally, the information about him dismantling the public psychiatric system is plain pov unsupported by historical fact. The actual details are more complex than that. If relevent information is not provided, for example that he inherited a bankrupt California during his administration and the fact that the right of goverment to house mental patients against their will was a civil liberties issue at that time, is mentioned, this information will be erased. I will give about one day for this information to be provided, then I will proceed to erase it. 
Guy Montag 01:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On "Democratic Congress:" I know the House has more power with appropriating spending and such Montag, but we should recall that there was a Republican Senate until 1987. J. Parker Stone 02:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The cuts were not "blocked." They were compromised between what the House wanted and what Reagan wanted. We should also recall the "boll weevil" Dems who supported Reagan's agenda. J. Parker Stone 02:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This sounds like POV to me. I never heard of Reagan's program being "gridlocked." J. Parker Stone 02:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever man, i just don't want "the deficits were Congress's fault" imposed as fact into this article. J. Parker Stone 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The "botulism" comment was made March 6, 1974, to the Bull Elephant club in Washington, DC: It’s just too bad we can’t have an epidemic of botulism. When the press caught wind of the comment, he apologized. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Governorship

message: This is still a little convoluted, but i think it's better than it was before. ANC, FMLN can certainly be called guerrillas rather than terrorists. Hezbollah and the PLO cannot -- when it is the M.O. to kidnap, torture, or murder civilians then it is a terrorist group, period. J. Parker Stone 02:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist organizations

message: he seems to be copying the same bit about Reagan and Gobechev into every cold war themed article, that is more than false, and more than inncorrect, it's the same paragraph, how many times is the SDI article going to reproduce?? this human spambot has now gone back and re-added the same sentence, changing the wording enough that it doesn't look like random vandalsim...
*# 1
*# 2
<--these bits look like copy/paste pov vandalism to me, how about you?
he also seems to have a very simplistic understanding Mutually Assured Destruction, but that's another story..
..this seems like a good a place as any, since his point of origin, seems to be the Reagan article, It would be a good idea to watch out for him-(signed warning by 172.128.124.231/172.149.94.2)
:: So why did Gorbechev opposed SDI then? Why oppose a defensive mechanism? It is like opposed someone putting a lock on their front door. I self-edited those pages to present a more NPOV. That is what supporters of Reagan claim. It is strictly their opinion on the subject. Quit being such a vandal Barneygumble 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One, you're not qualified to answer the question you just asked, two... are you kidding me? why would somebody be afraid of nuclear weapons orbiting the planet earth, that have a snowball's chance in texas of being aimed correctly???obviously, the answer is, he was being a bully, not that he realized the only way to continue the diplomatic language he had with Carter would be to cut down on nuclear weapons deployment, not just escalate it to a new planet killing level--172.140.221.199 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, you want the PC answer, fine, the reason he was threatened by Regan's expensive yet ineffective missile defense sheild, was because he'd have to waste as much money as Regan wasted, to go and build his own version for the USSR, and that kind of spending would be virtually impossible for the failed economic entity that was the Soviet Union of the 80s, and a recession as bad as the one affecting the US, would cripple the Soviet Union, which it eventually did--172.140.221.199 21:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to answer either of my responses, the fact that I can offer multiple alternatives, should at the very least show how ridiculous it is to make that kind of definative statement about what historical figure XYZ was thinking 20 years ago, beyond that, there's still no reason to go around inserting the same paragraph into a dozen similarlly themed articles--172.140.221.199 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barneygumble User:Barneygumble]

message: Can someone show me some evidence (eg. polls from that timeframe) that the Iran Hostage Crisis had a greater bearing on the election than the Economy for example.  Otherwise that should be de-empahsized.
:the reason Reagan beat out that loser Jimmy Carter was very simple, the country had grown up enough that we realized we had no more room for a bunch of whiney libs like you, just like now, if this trend continues you guys may never hold public office again, isn't it great--I-2-d2 13:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran Hostage impact on Election