Talk:Ronald Reagan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Former FA Ronald Reagan is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Article neutrality

The article appears to present an overly simplistic and generous portrayal of this president.

There are a number of pertinent points missing in the article. Firstly, my studies on the subject have revealed that Reagan was a strong believer in an apocalyptic second coming during his lifetime. This is also evident from his speeches, his policies, and his admissions. This might help to explain why he ordered the greatest buildup of the nuclear arsenal ever. Even though Gorbachev did manage to convince him to enter into agreements to gradually reduce this arsenal over the succeeding decades, it together with that of Russia, remains by far the largest collection of WMDs to this day. Furthermore, Reagan refused to abandon his SDI initiative even when Gorbachev offered unilateral nuclear disarmament in return (Reykjavik Iceland 1986).

It would therefore be helpful for this article to expand on and elaborate in following areas:

  1. one Reagan's religious beliefs.
  2. two Reagan's military policies.
  3. three Reagan's international activities including disarmament treaties and negotiations.

please let me know what you think..

AD Adinov 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, so simplistic is fine, solong as not a caricature. I like this purported quote for Reagan: "Ronald Reagan once said, when asked the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists, that Marxists are those who have read the books of Karl Marx and anti-Marxists are those who have understood them." RL Raylopez99 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in fairly simple English, but it presents a reasonably complex and full portrait of President Reagan. The author notes that Reagan was widely criticized for some of his policies, and he or she includes a number of foot-in-mouth Reagan quotes. The comment, "tax cuts leading to dramatic increases in government revenue, which couldn't keep up with congressional spending," may be an exaggeration. However, in general I am satisfied that the article is balanced. -Larry Siegel


Re-think your choice of words. "Simplistic" implies simple-minded. Readable language is a plus, but not at the expense of facts and fairness.

Mention of Governor Reagan's handling of the Cesar Chavez-led grape-pickers strikes is vital. --JJP


This article is not merely generous, it is unjustifiably (and disgustingly) reverent. Let me put it this way ... when it was announced that he had Alzheimer's, my reaction was "how could they tell?" ;Bear 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's simplistic interpretation will improve to one more scholarly when less attention is given to his alleged religiosity, rather than more. Too much of the article accepts at face value Reagan's own self-assessments, and those of his most strident supporters. His mother gave him a strong religious upbringing, but he was a nominal Christian as an adult (insofar as anyone knows). He was very private in his personal feelings and beliefs, but knew how to quote the Bible to woo the religious right. Indeed, the most striking aspect of Reagan's religious beliefs was his almost Machiavellian orchestration of religious voters into a bloc that has exerted immense political power in American politics since 1980.--JStripes 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] religion edit

I'm editing this line: As an adult, Reagan was a member of Bel Air Presbyterian Church but never attended church regularly, including during his presidency.

to reflect the well-known reasoning that Reagan had for not attending during his presidency - the church services became all about him - people would come just to see the president, and it caused genuine inconvenience to the other parishioners at the church.

See, for example, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E1D71539F93BA35750C0A962948260

I'm changing the sentence to: As an adult, Reagan was a member of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, but didn't attend regularly during his presidency, due to the inconvenience his presence caused the parishioners.

with a reference to that NYTimes archive.


Also, this sentence is highly subjective: Reagan had an easy-going but deep Christian faith.

perhaps someone will consider making that a bit more scholarly! 80.229.242.179 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening section

This sentence...

"and huge tax cuts leading to huge budget deficits and subsequent tax increases labeled as "revenue enhancements" and tax reform"

...is this necessary as part of the introduction to the article? I see this as a slanted statement.

[edit] WikiProject Baseball

I don't think Reagan's article really warrants being a part of this Project based only on the following excerpt of a paragraph:

In 1932, after graduating from Eureka, Reagan worked at radio stations WOC in Davenport, Iowa, and then WHO in Des Moines as an announcer for Chicago Cubs baseball games, getting only the bare outlines of the game from a ticker and relying on his imagination to flesh out the game. Once, during the ninth inning of a game, the wire went dead but Reagan smoothly improvised a fictional play-by-play (in which hitters on both teams fouled off numerous pitches) until the wire was restored. As a Headline radio announcer, Reagan took a screen test that led to a seven-year contract with the Warner Brothers studio.

That's the only part in the entire article that talks about his connections with professional baseball; surely that doesn't count, does it? If there are no objections raised, I will revert the bot's adding of this project. --ScreaminEagle 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball/Iowa

You could add in that he stopped in to a Cubs game when Harry Carey came back and called an inning with him.

It should also be noted that it was because of baseball - that he became more than just "Dutch" the play by play guy. He was "discovered" while covering the Cubs in Arizona during spring training.

Should probably be added in here that his first few years in Iowa he was the Iowa Hawkeye play by play man - and you can find a few quotes around the web from those days that give an insight on what he believed in the 30s.. most telling would be the way he regarded black Americans then. (... and the guy that replaced him in the mid 30s - Jim Zabel - just retired as the play by play man of the Iowa Hawkeyes a couple of years ago)

[edit] Glaring propaganda

There are probably many problems with this article, but a severe one jumped out at me, namely the article's assertion that the US "was found guilty of having supported terrorism in Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice". Firstly, this was not a criminal court and nobody was "found guilty". Second, the court did adjudicate on the issue of "terrorism" or even support for "terrorism" but was instead found to have been involved in the "unlawful use of force" (because of the treaty with Nicaragua and because the court rejected the claim of collective security). This is not a trivial distinction, but the assertion is quite trivial and should be removed. 129.71.73.248 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This part bothered me as well, I second its removal or rewording.Welostclyde 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So...?

When does the "disabled editing by unregistered users" tag come off, that way user including I can edit now?(71.96.229.107 13:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)).

The article is no longer semiprotected. In the future, if you would like an article to be unprotected so that you can edit, you can make such a request at requests for page protection and unprotection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] amnesty to illegal immigrants

does anyone remember when regan granted amnesty for imigration. if so, does anyone have any websites or sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.159.86 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Greatest President in US history i miss u Reagan very much god bless u Rest in peace.

Hello. This is not the appropriate place to either ask factual questions about the subject of an article - for that, see Wikipedia:Questions - or to discuss and give commentary; instead, it is a discussion page for how to improve this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jelly Beans Picture

The trivia section mentions his well-known love of Jelly Beans. Do people think a picture should be added? The following one from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is in the public domain so should be ok: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c1638-18.jpg. Uberdude85 11:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a nice touch. Too bad it's not the famous one made of jelly beans as a portrait of him. Morenooso 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan Administration

Hi everyone. I know that you guys on here are all about "short and concise" articles, but after taking a look at Gerald Ford's article, and looking at his "Presidency" section, it looked a lot nicer than Ronald Reagan's, which is so shortend down, that it makes it seem like the Reagan Presidency was no big deal. But it was a big deal, and for Wikipedia readers, I propose that we eliminate the article called "Reagan Administration", and just use that as the "Presidency" section. Yes, it will be long, but we can cut out info. Also, if you want to shorten the article, take a look at the "1976 Campaign", "1980 Campaign", and "1984 Campaign" sections, which are very long. I think, that if we work hard enough (and add some citations), we can get President Reagan's article back on to the "Featured Articles" list. Drop me a line, and tell me what you think. Happyme22 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make major revisions, removals, or edits without consensus for change.K. Scott Bailey 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

I added quite a bit of info from the article Reagan Administration, which I think helps Ronald Reagan's article, and makes it look more similar to Gerald Ford's and George H.W. Bush's. Ford's is a featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happyme22 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] References

Edmund Morris's book Dutch properly belongs in the biography section. It is NOT a primary source. The persona at the heart of the text is a fiction: a device employed to give the biography a personal feel. I have moved it twice, and someone reverts my edits. --JStripes 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Hey guys. I added a ton of useful info that you guys all deleted! I even icted it in the proper format! Can you tell me what was wrong with what I had done? Also, what makes your edit right, but mine wrong? Happyme22 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMPRESSIVE WORK!

Six months ago this Reagan article was filled with partisan phony claims and partisan lies, which only hurts Reagan's long-term reputation. I was turned off. But what I just read is impressive!

[edit] GDP Numbers

Are the GDP numbers from the Reagan recovery listed (maybe by year)? I see this line "GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession." By the way, I thought the coverage of the deficits is very good, so now maybe a one liner on the GDP growth by year would be good.

[edit] inconsistent syntax

This article desperately needs revision for consistency. In particular, lists, such as under "policies" need consistent syntax. It currently reads as if the whole article is a stitch job by a group of minimally illiterate undergrads and high school students (which may be closer to the truth than we like to admit). JStripes 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 19, 2007 edits/deletions

user:Happyme22's edit summaries suggest that he is arbitrarily editting this article. Those same summaries are disruptive with capitals that indicate shouting. Suggest another editor review. Morenooso 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi everyone/deletion

First, I have a question. Why do people dislike me around here? I'm just trying to improve Reagan's article, but I'm getting yelled at for doing too much (see the above comment). Why? Anyway, everything that is listed in the "policies and desicions" section is mentioned in other places in the article. Should we check through it one more time, add unmentioned things to the correct places in the article, and then delete the section? It seems unnessecary to keep it if everything is already listed. I'll do it, if you want me to, but I'll probably get yealled at for trying to do too much :) . -- Happyme22 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one dislikes you, bud. They disagree with your point of view, and some might not be very civil or AGF about their comments, and that just makes them ass-clowns. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun (remember, you aren't getting paid for this, and you aren't really getting published), and people are supposed to work together. Since you are new, people with more experience are supposed to be helping you out by explaining things to you. If they aren't, then that's on them. If you don't get something, or don't get a particular edit, go to the person's talk page and ask them. Often, you will find people respond better to being talked to rather than arbitrarily reverted. And never use caps in an edit summary, as most of us geeks consider that the net equivalent of shouting. Arcayne 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Doing A Fine Job

Don't take it personally. Any political entry is going to invoke responses in others. Some think the information given is fake. Some simply do not like the other side. Some want to ensure that the information is from a good source. Just be careful that everything you add is rooted in an impartial, reliable source.

As you know, I disagreed with a few things but you compromised and made adjustments, so I think your work fair. The exagerated phrase "won the Cold War" was eliminated for example. So I think what' happening here is good work. Speaking of which, how about the great ground work that Harry Truman did to win the Cold War? Who won the Cold War?

By the way, I give this article high marks. Just be careful to avoid exagerations.

[edit] Citations

Thanks for that guys. I'm trying my best to help out. I was forced to add quite a bit of [citation needed] tags to the "Cold War" section, though. There's a lot of uncited info in there that's been recently added, and it would be helpful for whomever added it to adequatley cite your work (see Template:Citebook or Template:Citeweb). If the work is not cited, much of it will have to be removed. Again, I'm not playing the "bad cop" here, but to benefit the article, every "fact" needs a citation. Thanks, Happyme22 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, many, many fact tags were added by another user, so they should be fixed ASAP, and I'll help with that. -- Happyme22 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend taking a look at the current and ongoing Peer Review, majorly focusing on User: Awadewit's comments. They are very helpful! -- Happyme22 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this is an amazing article

i would like to say that this is a wonder biography on Ronald Reagan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.70.118.217 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] this is an amazing article

i would like to say that this is a wonder biography on Ronald Reagan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.70.118.217 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/n/Talk%7ERonald_Reagan_93d8.html"