Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 7

message: Clearly needs to be modified, the whole section has a strong POV and is mostly opinion.  69.143.129.186 22:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI Informant Section 

message: I've read that Reagan saved 77 people in six/seven years of lifeguard duty several times.  I know it's sourced, but this really is a ridiculous claim.  I coordinate between various safety groups, and the most rescues I've ever heard of from a single lifeguard was 17, over nearly 12 years of lifeguard experience at one of the most dangerous beaches in the state.  This "77 rescues" thing is more than farfetched.  Since it's sourced, I'm not going to remove it myself (no good getting into an edit war), but I would to see it removed. 75.69.110.227 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a true claim - see the source. Happyme22 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy: the "source" that you offer turns out to be nothing more than an MSNBC story that quotes Reagan as having said this; what you're now saying is that something someone claims is true is now verified to in fact be "true" if someone else reports that the first person once claimed it. This is not a "source" for anything other than the statement "On at least one occasion, Reagan claimed to have saved 77 people while working as a lifeguard" (or something like that). Given the extreme dubiousness of the claim, as well as Reagan's well-documented long history of out and out lying about his own personal and professional life, you'd have to find a non-biased disinterested source to verify this claim, such as documentation in the local records, contemporary newspapers, etc.; otherwise, you can only put it into this wiki article as that Reagan claimed to have accomplished this feat, and that it has yet to be documented/verified. Info999 03:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article claims it as fact yet cites a reference that reads Again and again he would tell the story. "You know, that's where I used to be a lifeguard—I saved 77 lives.".  Based on this reference, the section should change from "He was credited with saving 77 lives during the seven summers that he worked there" to something like "He claimed to have saved 77 lives during the seven summers that he worked there." Gmb92 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifeguard Claim 

message: It needs to be locked from editing to fight off the repeated attempts by leftwingers to reintroduce negative material in direct violation of WP:BLP--—(Kepin)RING THE <B>LIBERTY</b> BELL 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is in a good condition right now 

message: This article presents the standard Democrat angle on the influence of the deficit on the Recession of 1990-91: 
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0603/0603taxing.htm 
Taxing our way to prosperity: The Democrats' strange version of fiscal responsibility by W. James Antle III (a senior editor for Enter Stage Right), web posted June 16, 2003:
Here are two extracts:
“This failed to bring us any closer to a balanced budget -- the deficit continued to grow -- and compounded the 1990-91 recession”.
“Buoyed by deficit hawks on the right and center, Democrats deftly tied the deficit to the early '90s recession. They claimed the Reagan tax cuts were a drunken binge that created the illusion of prosperity; the 1990-91 recession was the hangover. (No mention was made of loose monetary policy or areas where the Republicans had failed to confront government spending, such as the S&L bailouts and federal health care expenditures; tax cuts were the culprit behind the boom and bust.)”
I think that takes care of the source: but I am stumped as to how to fit it in. 
"Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt, and hostility towards the disadvantaged". could be changed to "Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt and compounding the 1990-91 recession."
But that leaves the bit about "hostility toward the disadvantaged" out on its own. I don't know how to make a whole sentence out of this part because I do not understand its meaning. I can understand a claim that economic policies hurt the disadvantaged financially or in terms of social programs: but I don't see in what sense economic policies would have caused "hostility toward the disadvantaged".
Any advice on these matters would be appreciated.
Conval 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well the statement was added in the last paragraph of the " 'Reaganomics' and the Economy" section. Happyme22 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for critic's claims of deficit influencing 1990 recession 

message: I think that a recently added pic on four Presidents in the Blue Room doesn't exactly work there--I think the picture capacity for this article is already full! If anything a pic of the assassination attempt belongs in the section "Assassination attempt". Plus, the text is already condensed from the box of cabinet officials. Happyme22 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan pic 

message: I think it would be a good idea to somehow incorporate the recently released book, The Reagan Diaries, into this article, because it is a very rare memoir (see the Wiki article for more). I think that it could be mentioned in the "Legacy' section, or the "Post-Presidential years", or even a slight mention somewhere in the "Presidency" section, maybe in the first paragaph. Any thoughts? Happyme22 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well I added it...Happyme22 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[The Reagan Diaries]]'' 

message: Happyme22,
Your last edit removed the following, calling it "PoV".  This is a factual and relevant statement for this section that can be easily verified throught the ssa.gov source:
"Payroll taxes during Reagan's tenure were gradually increased.{{cite web | url=http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html|title= Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates|publisher = Social Security Administration}"
The precise wording or where this content should appear within the section is up for debate.
Gmb92 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payroll taxes 

message: 300,000 Central Americans died on Reagan's watch. They died to protect the profit margins of United Fruit(Dole) and Del Monte. George W. Bush may think that Reagan is 'in a better place now'. God may have other ideas. SmokeyTheCat 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this relates to the article how, exactly? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an essential and important fact about about the Reagan presidency. There should be a mention of it in the article somewhere. SmokeyTheCat 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A citation would be helpful for this claim....Happyme22 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is true, it would be pointless to include it. The president of the US is not able to prevent death. Millions died in WWII during FDR's presidency, would we fault him for not preventing the war? Is ther current genocide in Africa Bush's fault to the point that we can blame it on him? I don't think so. Unless Reagan somehow encouraged the killings, this is hardly relevant and far too POV to include. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reagan *did* encourage the killings. The Contras killed 60,000 in Nicaragua and Reagan compared them to the French Resistance despite the fact they terrorising an elected government. There was a civil war in El Salvador and Reagan intervened massively on the side of the ruling regime despite widespread murder of priests, rape of nuns and rampant death squad activity. SmokeyTheCat 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very POV argument. You still haven't provided an adequate citation to back up your claims, something that I doubt you will find. Happyme22 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary there are many such links. One is SmokeyTheCat 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That website doesn't even work for my computer. Your argument is not keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Like Mr.Z-mantalk¢ stated, George W. Bush is President, and is not held responsile for the genocide in Africa. The argument serves no factual purpose, and should not be included. Happyme22 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that Reagan was a "mass murderer" is extremely polemical and not fit for an encyclopedia. You can confine your discussion to his Central American foreign policy, but keep in mind that you must source all information and above all avoid polemics. Griot 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The murderous Contras were Reagan's personal crusade. Reagan fans may like to forget this but history has not. Nor have the people of Central America. This is an extremely biased article, very much distorted in Reagan's favour as witnessed by the fact that all those disagreeing with me here are self-confessed Reagan-admirers and don't care at all about the 100s of thousands who died as direct result of his policies. SmokeyTheCat 10:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are the POV ones? You are the one calling Ronald Reagan a mass murderer, and thinking that it somehow belongs in an encyclopedia. Almost all editors seem to agree (such as Griot, Mr.Z-man, GeeJo, Flag-Waving American Patriot, and myself) that this should not go in the article. Please do not re-add it. Happyme22 16:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps it is worth mentioning Smokey's idea that Reagan's policies in Latin America, in the name of victory in the Cold War, were harmful to the people there. (This isn't to say we should put he is a mass murdered though...) Of course this would need to have a citation, but I imagine there are those who would hold such a view, and wouldn't be hard to find. Also, there is a citation needed tag in the Iran-Contra affair section. Nathanalex 04:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though they may have been somewhat harmful, it would have been much worse if the Communist government were to continue. History shows that a Marxist-Leninist government is doomed to fail; either because the people revolt or because it destroys itself from the inside. History also shows us that Communist regiems eventually become considerably oppressive against their own people; therefore, it can be theorized that Reagan's actions in Grenada which re-implemented a democratized government stopped the Marxist-Leninist government from commiting atrocities that are bound to accompany a communistic dictatorship. Flag-Waving American Patriot 13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a paragraph in the "Iran-Contra affair" section describing some of the harsh feelings that the Central Americans had. Happyme22 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that SmokeyTheCat has provided is blatently POV. DemocracyNow has a reputation. On the political spectrum, it's right up there with MoveOn.org, and on a subject such as this it cannot be considered a legitimate and unbiased source by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, I don't know why we're even discussing this. 68.15.226.72 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass murderer 

message: These were removed and reverted to get a non-POV statement.  Any reverts will be removed.  Happyme22's userpage shows his adoration for Reagan and should watch putting biased information into the text.  This is Wikipedia, not a fan page.  I hope you fully understand. Maddyfan 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I understand all right, and I thank you for helping out. Although I agree with what most of what Reagan stood for, I don't let that influence my edits. I have been awarded three barnstars soley for this article, all for being POV free. Happyme22 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank god, not a fight.  Someone added back in the material and I had to revise it again.  We have to remember that this information has to be encyclopedic and not a fan page.  Maddyfan 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maddy: there are at least four other "reference sources" from Cato and NR still in the article, which is full of POV, regardless of what "stars" Reagan fans give to one another. Info999 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cato and National Review Are Biased Souces

message: Link 66 does not say that drug use dramatically decreased under the Reagan presidency. It doesn't say that drug use decreased at all. SmokeyTheCat 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source for the text, and inserted it back in. Happyme22 00:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War On Drugs 

message: Hi. I have nominated Ronald Reagan for FA status, and one of the comments read: "In the Reagonomics section, there is a mention of GDP growing after the recession, and then a few sentences later, it mentions the rate of growth of the GDP. Perhaps these could be merged into a single sentence?" That is what I tried to do, and it was reverted. Before, it read: 
:"...and GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession. Unemployment peaked at over 11 percent in 1982, then dropped steadily, and inflation significantly decreased. During Reagan's eight years in office, real GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.4% per year...."
I changed it to:
:"...Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession, growing at an annual rate of 3.4% per year. Unemployment peaked at over 11 percent in 1982, then dropped steadily, and inflation significantly decreased...."
In my revision, the GDP growth was merged into a single sentence, therby making the paragraph flow easier and not jump around as much. I am interested to know why it was reverted, being labled as POV. Happyme22 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I changed the wording but not for any PoV reason.  3.4% growth represents the average annual real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth from 1981 through 1988 (rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent).  In fact, to be accurate, this should read "real GDP growth" and not "GDP growth".  The current wording gives only some indication as to what time period is being measured.Gmb92 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I will add "real" to it. Happyme22 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP Growth in "Reaganomics and economy" section 

message: Marine One and Air Force One (as well as Navy One, Army One and Coast Guard One) are simply call signs for use by air traffic controllers and air crews while POTUS is aboard any aircraft of the respective services. Technically, there is no such aircraft as "Air Force One" in and of itself. Popularly, the terms are used to refer to the aircraft in general, but this being wiki...:) I would suggest rewording the phrase about in this case it was not called AF1 etc., or simply dropping it in favor of using "a presidential aircraft" like you do with the helo. Info999 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Close of the Reagan Era

message: Happy: the problem with the way you changed the references again is this: virtually that entire section on RWR's military service is verbatim from an information document on the Reagan Library's web site. As such, it should be referenced as the sole source, because we're not just giving it credit for the information, but for the wording as well. Thanks.  Info999 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just trying to remove some phrases. Go ahead and add it back. Happyme22 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ronald Reagan Military Service

message: it is obviously impossible for the wiki community to write an article with a neutral point of view.  even sourced, factual, relevent information is written out by those who dislike it...
:For articles on politics or politicians, you may be right.  Those with strong political views and opinions on various sides will be tugging in each direction.  One way to ease this tension is to avoid .orgs like heritage, cato or faireconomy and focus on brief factual and easily verifiable information.  This article is nowhere close to that yet.Gmb92 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article will never be valid or legitimate 

message: although the following has a footnote, the footnote only reads ^Morris (1999), p. 113 and there is no other reference that it points to.  i am inclined to remove it is not properly noted:
In 1983, and again in 1984, Reagan told prominent Israelis and American Jews — notably Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel, Simon Wiesenthal, and Rabbi Martin Hier of Los Angeles — of his personal experience vis-à-vis the Holocaust, saying "I was there" and that that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of Nazi death camps; in fact, he was in a film unit in Hollywood that processed raw footage it received from Europe for newsreels, but Reagan was not in Europe itself during the war.[85]
this information is not to be believed - reagan was already in office for 2 full years as of this time, and his backgroud was well-documented.  to think that he would actually try to hoodwink these guys into believe the above supposed-quote is incredulous.  it would be like saying:
during their commencement address, reagan told navy midshipmen "I was there during the first moon landing; I walked on the moon"
::Your argument is unpersuasive. First, your analogy is not valid, as Reagan has a well-documented history of either lying straight out or simply being confused about events in his life, and this is only one of them. Second, here is an account of him making the statement (and the WH trying to deny it) from the NY Review of Books , one of many that can be used as a source.  Info999 04:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the "References" section - You will see a book by Edmund Morris called Dutch from 1999. That's the book. 68.96.76.118 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dutch is an odd book indeed. It does take a fictional approach to Reagan, with the narrator writing from the point of view of a friend of Reagan's since his boyhood. However, it's important to remember that the author was Reagan's official biographer and was given access to all of Reagan's personal papers, including his diaries and letters. The meeting with Shamir and other Jewish leaders was an odd event in the Reagan presidency. It did happen. It wasn't an invention of the author of "Dutch." It belongs in this article. Griot 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of other sources for this. Shamir himself remarked on it when he returned to Israel. Griot 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced information 

message: I just created Ronald Reagan Birthplace, I linked it in the article and nominated it for DYK. If anyone has any good sources on this building please let me know or feel free to have a go at the article. Thanks : ) IvoShandor 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Chupper 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good article]] pass 

message: I'm very happy to hear that Ronald Reagan is now a good article! I would have nominated it myself, but I have been out of town for a while. Again, congrats to all of us! Happyme22 04:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: It paints too positive a picture of Reagan when his administration was anything but.  I know repubs worship this man but he was a horrible failure.
:You might want to review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The purpose of the article is not to paint a positive or negative picture; it is just to assert verifiable information about him. If you feel you can bring it closer to that goal, do so. Leebo T/C 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Conservatives have highjacked this article 

message: Some of this has been mentioned in other threads.
"It can be argued that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy, however there is some speculation about deficits from Reaganomics being a contributory factor to the economic recession of 1990 – 1991,[67] and being the reason that Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reneged on a campaign promise and raised taxes. Although under Ronald Reagan real GDP grew, government spending was partially cut, unemployment decreased and inflation was lowered, the American economy in the 1980s did not perform as well as that of the 1990s, but Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman wrote that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s." Similarly, fellow Nobel Prize winning economist Robert A. Mundell wrote that the tax cuts "made the U.S. economy the motor for the world economy in the 1990s, on which the great revolution in information technology was able to feed."[68]"
1.  The source for "some speculation about deficits" is an article entitled "Taxing our way to prosperity: The Democrats' strange version of fiscal responsibility" from mormon.org.  A less partisan and more objective source for these deficits slowing economic growth is [].  Also, it's more than "some speculation".  Why not "many economists believe" or something less POV?  Also, it's a fact that Bush Sr. raised taxes as a direct response to high deficits.  Why else would he raise them?
2.  Government spending wasn't "partially cut" overall.  Domestic spending was but it was more than offset by large increases in military spending.
3.  The final 2 quotes from Friedman and Mundell are being selectively pulled from the Business Week link.  The paragraph following that is:
:Other economists, however, are far less willing to give Reagan credit for the boom. They argue that the big deficits generated by the drop in tax revenues were detrimental to business investment; had the red ink continued, it would have been much harder for companies to fund their spending on info tech in the 1990s. Instead, these economists believe far greater kudos go to President Bill Clinton for raising taxes and bringing down the budget deficit. "As for Reagan being responsible [for the 1990s boom], that's far-fetched," says another Nobel prize winner, Robert Solow of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "What we got in the Reagan years was a deep recession and then half a dozen years of fine growth as we climbed out of the recession, but nothing beyond that."
Thus, shouldn't these arguments be incorporated as well if we are to include the first one?
4.  Grammatically, the paragraph doesn't read to well (run-on sentences).Gmb92 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with last paragraph in Reaganomics section