Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Economic philosophy

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 philosophy[1] 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)

Is this the same edit you kept posting the same disruptive edit to? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your grammar. Operation Spooner 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
For what it's worth, I don't like it, either. Brian Pearson 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Haha well I hope so. Happyme22 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, Reagan did have an older brother: Neil (nicknamed "Moon"). Happyme22 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe could include more about his family life, and what his earlier life was like. Brian Pearson 01:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More about the lead

I think everyone can say that I would be the last person to bring up another debate about the lead, but after scanning the web, I realized we might be able to display Reagan's presidency in a shorter way in the lead. Take a look at this paragraph from PBS (source: "As president, Reagan unleashed a dramatic series of economic and political initiatives that became known as "the Reagan Revolution." He invested in a massive military buildup, challenged the Soviet Union, called for tax cuts and less government. Supporters credit Reagan with winning the Cold War, as well as restoring America's self-confidence and rebuilding its economic and military strength. Detractors assert that the "prosperity" of the Reagan years was built on borrowed money, driving up the national debt and benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Reagan's legacy is still in dispute, but his impact on American life and politics is unmistakable."

Now fo course, some of these can be elaborated on, and I'm definetly not calling for a full rewrite, but just take a look at this paragraph. Maybe we can choose a beter way to sum up his presidency.

"As president, Reagan unleashed a dramatic series of economic and political initiatives that became known as "the Reagan Revolution." - of course, Wiki can't plagiarize other sources, but something along these lines might actually be a better way to say "Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats...." because that phrase has come under intense scrutiny. How about something like:

As president, Reagan implented new political initiatives as well as economic policies, advocating a laissez-faire philosophy, but the extent to which these ideas were implemented is debatable. The policies, similar to those of supply-side economics, were dubbed "Reaganomics" and included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981. After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, he was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984.
Reagan's second term was marked by steps toward ending the Cold War, but his administration also saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. The president ordered a massive military buildup in an arms race with the Soviet Union, rejecting the previous strategy of détente and directly confronting Communism. He portrayed the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and publicly supported anti-Communist movements worldwide. Despite his rejection of détente, he negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War. Reagan left office in 1989 and disclosed he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. He died ten years later at the age of ninety-three.

Now we've got a slightly shorter version; we've got what Spooner wants; we've got what Paul wants; we've got all that Arcayne wants; we've got something I like; we've got something that correctly sums up a very important part of Ronald Reagan's life. Thoughts? Happyme22 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad at all. The only things I would point out is that we should remove the citation, as the Lead is to summarize content, and not make claims (which are what citations are for), and place the citation within the text which addresses the laissez-faire philopsophy in greater detail.
As well, I think we should consider correcting the phrase to read "advocating a more stringent laissez-faire philosophy", to differentiate him from his fellow Republicans who, by definition platform the ideals of Laissez-faire. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Great point; can easily be done. I'm going to implement this for now, and wait and see what happens. Happyme22 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So no one gets all twitchy and paranoid that the cite removed from the lead ([2]) is going to lead to the removal of part of the Lead, I have placed it here, so that any enterprising editor can place it properly in the section about, oh I don't know, maybe the Cold War section? Citations do not belong in the Lead, which is a summary of what is in the body of the article. Please do not re-add it the Lead statements. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic philosophy, number two

I went ahead and took the liberty of making some changes to the sentence about his economic philosophy. I changed it to "As president, Reagan implented new political initiatives as well as economic policies, advocating a laissez-faire philosophy, arguing that government was the cause of the economic problems America faced at the time rather than being the solution..." taking the latter concept from his inauguration speech. Enjoy. Operation Spooner 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks for the "help," but as the in-text notation reads right above the infobox in edit mode, "before changing the lead section or infobox, please review past discussions and start a discussion yourself about the material you wish to add/remove if you still plan on doing so" - I elaborated a little bit, but you get the point. Spooner, for the good of this article, please, please, please discuss your edits beforehand! let me explain what's wrong with those edits.
  • 1.) The lead was finally stable, and it is probably not going to be anymore because this has just mostlikely sparked long discussions
  • 2.) Your edits are focusing on economics and Reaganomics only; what about the rest of his life?
  • 3.) If we are going to concentrate on the economy, like you want to, then we are going to have to elaborate on the Cold War in the lead, the operations in Grenada and Libya in the lead, the Iran Contra affair in the lead, the events that led up to his Alzheimer's in the lead, and everything about his long funeral all in the lead which is not practical!
  • 4.) Please read WP:LEAD, again, and see that the lead should prvide a general, abreviated version of the article, and not focus too much on one subject.
-- Happyme22 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...And they have been since reverted, awaiting your reasons for inclusion to be discussed here. I am sorry, but due to the fact that the article is FA, we need to plan out any additional changes that are made to the article. Surely you understand, and will abide with working with your fellow editors to find edits that avoid POV and appeal to both NOR and neutrality. I will note that, while you keep attempting to edit in the same information into the Lead (and you are currently at your 3rd revert for the day, btw), the rest of your edits seem to be evolving into something more useful, and I firmly believe you should reinforce and reward good behavior - ie, "catch" folk doing something right and helping them to improve on that, rather than metaphorically swatting them on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper every time they make a mistake. So please, endeavor to continue that evolution, and please discusiss your edits here prior to makinghtem, to make sure that they will smoothly transition to the FA article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There are no special rules to follow for editing Featured Articles. If that's the case, then I'll push to have this article delisted from Featured Articles. Nothing should stand in the way of improving an article. Operation Spooner 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in saying there are no "special rules" for FAs, but because FAs are Wikipedia's best they need to be very close to perfect. They must be watched at all times so irrelevant or disruptive edits aren't made. The lead provided a very good generalization of Reagan's life, economics and all. The material you added was focusing strictly on economics; there is also no reason to go into detail about Barry Goldwater - pls see Barry Goldwater if you want to know his stance and opinions. So here we are, back again to my comments above. Your edits add too much detail, and WP:LEAD says not to focus on one specific thing but generalize. Feel free to add what you want in the economics section (although I think it's already there). There is no reason to delist this entire article because of a discussion. Happyme22 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think this article deserves the Featured Article listing. It looks like it was written a 3rd grader. It's very superficial and the grammar is attrocious. So, I don't care whether it loses the gold star on the upper right hand corner. In regard to your other points, there is nothing wrong with a setnence focusing stricly on econmics. It's better not to mix up different concepts in a single sentence. On Goldwater, it's only three word preceding him, so there's no space problem at all. I disagree with you totally. Operation Spooner 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled not to care if its delisted or not, Spoon - frankly, I kinda guessed that you would threaten to call for its delisting if you didn't get your way; I'm just surprised it took you this long to mention it. While not going into detail about how you use your User Page for personal attacks, it is important for you to learn how to work with a group. We aren't going to make an effort to work with you if you continually belittle those that try to help you along the learning curve, editors and admins alike.
However, I will work very hard to ensure that before anything makes it into this article that we all agree on its inclusion, so the resultant article is the best it can be. Your edits aren't going to do that any more than mine or Info or Paul or Hap's (well, maybe Hap's); the edits that are going to do that are our combined edits. Your editing frustration will become greatly alleviated once you grasp that fact.
Now, do you want to discuss what you wanted to include, or did you want to continue the pissing match? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"advocating a laissez-faire philosophy"

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)

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)
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)

GCB

I've removed the GCB from immediately after Ronald Reagan's name, in the first sentence of the article. This is per a discussion we had on the talk page of WP:MOSBIO. (Disclaimer: I was involved in the discussion, and was the one to update MOSBIO. I didn't initiate the idea, nor did anyone oppose it.) President Reagan was given many awards, both foreign in domestic. I don't think it's appropriate to single out one country's award in the first sentence. While being knighted is important, it's adequately discussed later, and probably isn't important enough to be the first thing mentioned in the article. — PyTom (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not to offend you, but your opinion doesn't count in an encyclopedia. Reagan was kinghted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1989, and although it did not allow him to be known as "Sir Ronald Reagan," he was able to use the post-nominal letters of "GCB." Besides the United Kingdom, I don't know of another country that entitles people to use post-nominal letters after thier names when they have been awarded; if there is one than your point is a very good one. But it's not a matter of it being the "first thing mentioned in the article" but rather his official title. His official universal title should be the first thing mentioned in the article, and "GCB" is. Look at Bob Hope; he recieved a number of domestic and foreign awards throughout his life, but his universal title is "Bob Hope, KBE, KBSC". Also, Suharto, former president of Indonesia, has his universal title as "Suharto, GCB" because he too was awarded the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. Again, Ronald Wilson Reagan, GCB his Ronald Reagan's official title. I do see how this can present a problem on Wikpedia, however, especially with Americans who were awarded foreign decorations such as Caspar Weinberger and George H.W. Bush. Either add the title to their names (i.e. "George Herbert Walker Bush, GCB") or remove them all (including those on Bob Hope and Suharto) and make the letters an "UK only" thing on Wikipedia. This is a list of notable Americans who have been awarded some important awards that entitle them to use post-nominal letters. Which do you think is best? Happyme22 04:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, at the very least, the Catholic Church allows people to use postnominals. That's where the KBSC in Bob Hope, KBE, KBSC comes from. It looks like several other organizations seem to also grant postnominals. According to the link you gave, Alfred J Welsh is entitled to use a postnominal as a knight of Belgium, while Charlton Heston seems to be able to use one in association with France. In the case of Reagan, I don't really see it as an official title, as he didn't seem to use it. (The letters GCB are never used on http://www.reaganfoundation.org, and the knighthood is only mentioned once.)
I believe that the consensus on WP:MOSBIO is that names should include postnominals issued by countries the person was closely associated with. As such, I think the postnominals in the articles you mention should be removed, with the possible exception of Bob Hope, who was born in England. — PyTom (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Might I trouble you to point out that resulting consensus? That seems to be a significant break from former policy, wherein postnominals are included, like DDS or MD. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Postnominal Initials. It wasn't the worlds's strongest consensus, but nobody seemed to disagree. (Most of the discussion was about the more radical proposal that postnominals should always be in the infobox.) Using DDS or MD is a weird example, because according to WP:MOSBIO, "Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name." — PyTom (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, i think I may have misunderstood what you were talking about. I am not sure that they belong in the infobox, either, but certainly as an honorific, they belong in the Lead. I think that a person earns a doctorate, LLB, or MBA. Someone else's recognition of accomplishments - ie, knighthood, honorary doctorates, etc. - are not, well, real enough to include. A doctor or dentist is a sawbones or dentist anywhere, but a knighted person is only a "Sir" or "Lady" in the nation honoring that knighthood. However, that's my reasoning, which may or may not jibe with current wiki policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The current policy forbids them from being used in the lead. "Postnominal letters should be included when they are issued by a country or organization the subject has been closely associated with. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead." Reagan was not closely associated with the United Kingdom, and thus they should not be used. The official title of someone in the Commonwealth is not necessarily relevant when a person is not from that country nor did he ever reside there.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 04:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some more issues...

I can easily see how Rise would think that phrase "and contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War" is POV. However, when you put this phrase into context and look at most of the Cold-War presidents before Reagan (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter) no president really did more than Reagan to being about the end of the Cold War. Truman organized the military; Kennedy met with Kruzchev and there was the Bay of Pigs (which failed) and Cuban Missile Crisis (debatably the closest the world has come to nuclear war), but those didn't stop the Cold War. Johnson did nothing, really. Nixon met with Brezhnev and signed the START treaty, something pretty big. Ford met with Brezhnev too, and so did Carter, but no major steps were taken. Then came Reagan. He built up the military, met with Gorbachev in four summits around the world, and signed the INF Treaty to reduce an entire class of nuclear warheads. No other president did so much. I'll elaborate in a few days, but I have to go.

Another problem I have with this article is my belief that it downplays Reagan's effect on the United States. Look at this from John F. Kennedy: "Many regard President Kennedy as an icon of American hopes and aspirations; he continues to rank highly in public opinion ratings of former U.S. presidents." The same is true for Reagan, but talk about picking and choosing words! We have "...ranks today with a high approval rating among post-World War II presidents." Umm, ok... And this from Lyndon B. Johnson: "He was a major leader of the Democratic Party" - the same could easily be said about Ronald Reagan, but as a Republican. Forgive me, but he is considered to be the "patron saint" of the Republican party today. I think that definetly should be said. Anyway, just some extra thoughts. Please comment. Thanks, Happyme22 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem mentioning his popularity among Republicans and the general populace. One thing I do want to mention about the popularity issue though, is that the current wording can give the impression that it was only after he died that he became popular. I'm not a Reagan scholar, but I'm pretty sure his popularity increased significantly before his death, not after. As for how he "greatly contributed;" while he may have taken more action ::than his predecessors against the communist threat, how much he contributed to its downfall is still a matter of opinion, not fact. Many people do give him credit for ending the cold war, however not everyone does. During Reagan's tenure, the soviet economy was crumbling under the burden of having to support an impractical form of government. One could make the argument that it was the soviet government itself, not Reagan, that ended the cold war. Would something along the lines of "he is regarded as a major driving force behind the end of the cold war," be acceptable to you?--Rise Above The Vile 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your argument is a very good one. I think that sounds great, and I'll make the change. There is still the issue of downplaying his effect on America and the Republican party. I've changed a sentence in the lead from "among post WWII presidents" to "among former U.S. presidents" to start with; otherwise Kennedy's would have to be changed, and Johnson's, as well as Clinton's and Truman's. Happyme22 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment. I think that the legacy section should be expanded with both his influence and criticism of him, and the "honors" section should be drastically summarized and put in a subarticle. It doesn't make any sense for random awards to take three times the length of his legacy and impact. Calliopejen1 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well the legacy section right now, in my opinion, is very neutral, but there is nothing about it that says, "Reagan is the icon of the Republican party and one of the most popular presidents today." Of course, any mention of something like that would have to be better worded than my example haha. As for the list of awards, I'd say the "biggest" awards and the most recent awards should be the main ones mentioned there (i.e. Presidential Medal of Freedom; Congressional Gold Mdeal; honorary British knighthood; Poland's Order of the White Eagle; etc.) as well as "big" things named for hm (including the USS Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Ronald Reagan Building, etc.). All the school names and highways, etc. are included (or should be included) in the very long List of honors named for Ronald Reagan article. We can work on this soon, and properly display Reagan's large effect on the Republican party and the United States. Happyme22 04:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You asked for comment, so I hope you don't mind, HappyMe.
I absolutely agree on Reagan's affect domestically. Whether you liked him or not, he contributed heavily to the huge Republican realignment that turned former southern Democrats into Republicans, and had many blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" voting for him in his landslide re-election victory. And while his sunny, upbeat, "Morning in America" attitude certainly drove his critics crazy, I don't think its impact on the country as a whole--especially after President Carter and his "malaise" speech--can or should be ignored. Tough to do it with a neutral POV, but seems important to mention.
On the other hand, there is still considerable (rancorous and partisan) debate on how much Reagan contributed to the end of the Cold War. I won't recapitulate those debates; I merely note that I have read plenty of opinions on both sides. (One historian--and I apologize for not finding the reference yet--agreed that Reagan's policies had helped end the Cold War by, maybe, about 6 weeks. Like I said; rancorous.) I don't know how to cleanly and neutrally take that into account, but it does exist. Dougom (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1968

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)

(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)
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)
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)
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)

No, I disagree that it shouldn't be included at all, but think it needed to be cited. The original text was unsourced (who says he had pledges of 600 delegates, for example? that sounds way off seeing as he ended up with less than 200) and the 98% text didn't make sense. I've reworked that paragraph to be accurate and sourced from a contemporaneous 1968 Time magazine article and a 2006 book about the 1960s. This was a small part of his career only because he lost the bid - but that is significant because it was his first foray onto the national stage and he did not succeed. Lost his second time out too - and it was the third that was the charm. That history is significant - not to be as long as it was written in the edit discussed above, but I think the way it is now does the trick. The original can't stand the way it was Tvoz |talk 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hey, it’s me again. I also like the way you have it now, and won't edit the text. I do however want to suggest that you consider making a very slight revision yourself.

As worded, it seems like Nixon went into the 1968 convention with a lock on the nomination. It was generally assumed at the time that Rockefeller and Reagan would each get two hundred something votes and that Nixon would get six hundred something votes on the first ballot, but not that he would necessarily get 667, enough to win on the first ballot. Most delegates were committed or strongly leaning one way or another, but there were enough uncommitted delegates who were either undecided or had not announced their preferences to make that first ballot Nixon victory uncertain. I am now wondering if that unsourced 98 percent figure that I took issue with before might have meant the percentage of needed delegates Nixon had a lock on going into the convention, meaning that he only needed to pick up about a dozen more delegates at the convention in order to win, and perhaps that six hundred figure for Reagan (obviously not literally accurate) might have actually meant the number of delegates that Nixon’s combined opponents would get on the first ballot.

I remember watching as the votes came in with the tally shown on the screen, and frankly I was hoping that Nixon would fall short, if only to make for a more interesting convention.

The states voted in alphabetical order and so Reagan appeared to have a big lead after the California delegation voted. I don’t think anyone knew for sure that Nixon would win until his totals actually went over the magic number when some state far down the alphabet put him over the top. There was some temptation by uncommitted delegates in those states far down the alphabet to vote for Nixon if doing so would allow their state to be the delegation to put him “over the top.” At least the news personnel covering the convention seemed to think so.

This, and the 1976 Republican convention, again involving Reagan, are the only conventions I remember where it was not certain at the start of the convention who would be the nominee. I kind of liked that sort of convention better. I no longer watch the conventions of either party because now we already know who will win well before the conventions open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.93.228 (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

merge proposal

I really don't see how this deserves its' own page.--IsaacGS 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I merged it.. didn't seem like much to discuss. Call me bold. JERRY talk contribs 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page before merge below:

The main wikipedia entry for ronald reagan says:

Speech?

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)


Sound Check or Broadcast

"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)

My recollection at the time was that it was a sound check, and not the actual broadcast. But it was such a great sound bite (and spoken in the presence of reporters) that it ended up on the news in short order.

I've had some experience of television broadcasting, and things like this do get said sometimes as sound checks. However, if you're the President of the United States and you're in front of reporters, it's good common sense not to make foolish remarks. You never know when the mikes are actually live...

--Plane nutz 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Release vs. Leak

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).

Defcon lowered? Sez who?

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)

Rancho del Cielo, or "Ranch of the Sky,"

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)

Ok that's nice. And do you have a question in there? Happyme22 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

Request for citation

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)

I'll look. Happyme22 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have cited both; thanks a lot for noticing those. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! LordHarris 14:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Driving force behind the end of the cold war

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)

And those statements need cites; also, please see past discussions regarding this issue. Happyme22 (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Southern strategy

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 [1]. --KarlFrei 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source... Happyme22 (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, forget about that link, what about the Southern strategy article? --KarlFrei 09:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with End of Cold War Section

Right now, the article claims: "Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to look at the prosperous American economy, they would embrace free markets and a free society. Gorbachev, facing severe economic problems at home, was swayed"

Considering that Perestoika was proposed in June of 1985, a mere three months after Gorbachev took office, isn't it a little presumptious to assume Reagan swayed him? Reagan and Gorbachev never even met during this period. Their first summit, Geneva, was in November of 1985 (well after Perestoika was proposed) and economics was not a part of the agenda (other than tariffs). The Reykjavik Summit of 1986 discussed SDI, not economics. Economics did not come up until Decemeber of 1987 at the Washington summit, after the Soviet Union already passed Perestroika into law in July of 1987.

Please, someone explain the logic and proof in claiming that Reagan swayed Gorbachev? If there is none, remove this incorrect sentence.Hoshidoshi 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is a stetchy sentence, and I'd say it's find to remove that part. The part about Reagan's beliefs, however ("Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to look at the prosperous American economy, they would embrace free markets and a free society") should stay, as the article is about Ronald Reagan and it is cited. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not read anything by Reagan that says he believed he could "persuade the Soviets." If he did, it was by accident. For instance, read the second "evil empire" speech (his only speech on the economics of the Soviet Union). http://reagan2020.us/speeches/the_evil_empire_2.asp
Yes, Reagans believed Western societies are superior to Marxist societies because of economic prosperity. But, he believes the best way to combat the spread of Marxism is to "foster the institutions of democracy" (support anti-Marxist organizations and groups). He never tries to persuade the Soviets to look at a prosperous West or asks them to do anything other than improve human rights and free speech:
"Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must continue and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and peace. Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant transformation."
It is clear that Reagan bebelieved that if he could persuade the Soviets to allow for more democracy and free thought, this would lead to reform and the end of Marxist. This is not actually what happened. Instead, undemocratically, Soviet leaders gave up on Marxism.Hoshidoshi 18:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well there we go. Your last paragraph is exactly what we could replace that sentence with: "Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to allow for more democracy and free thought, this would lead to reform and the end of Communism," and we can cite it with that speech. What do you think? Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sound's fine. After second look at my words, though, "free speech" is better than "free thought" (whatever that is :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've made the change. Thanks a lot. Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Intro, military spending, "evil empire"

The intro places Reagan's increase in military spending during his second term. It was during his first term that military spending was increased and during his second term that a decrease in spending occured. You can check out CBO's data on tab 8 http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.xls

Reagan continued Carter's policy of increasing military spending (it went from 4.7 percent of GDP to 5.2 percent under Carter). Reagan bumped it up to 6.1 during his first term, but then began to scale it back by the end of his term to 5.6 percent of GDP.

Here's the data by year for Carter, Reagan and Bush I: Spending as percent of GDP: Carter Budgets: 1978 4.7 1979 4.7 1980 4.9 1981 5.2 Reagan Term I Budgets: 1982 5.8 1983 6.1 1984 5.9 1985 6.1 Reagan Term II Budgets: 1986 6.2 1987 6.1 1988 5.8 1989 5.6 Bush I Budgets: 1990 5.2 1991 5.4 1992 4.8 1993 4.4

Any talk of Reagan building up the military should attributed to his first term and not his second.Hoshidoshi 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Additionally, Reagan's "evil empire" speech was also during his first term, not his second. This needs to be moved as well. I think a better divide would be to place his military spending and tough talk in term I and speak about shift to diplomacy in term II. IMHO, it would be more accurate.Hoshidoshi 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with agree with that. However, in the past we have had very long debates about what should be included in the lead, so I am going to have to make my judgements based on those discussions as well as your ideas. The last two paragraphs could be something along the lines of:
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. The policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981. The president ordered a massive military buildup in an arms race with the Soviet Union, rejecting the previous strategy of détente and directly confronting Communism. He portrayed the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and publicly supported anti-Communist movements worldwide. After surviving an assassination attempt and authorizing controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, he was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984.
Reagan's second term was marked by steps toward ending the Cold War, as well as the Iran-Contra Affair, one of a few administration scandals. He negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals, and is regarded as a major driving force behind the end of the Cold War. Reagan left office in 1989 and disclosed he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. He died ten years later at the age of ninety-three, and ranks today with a high approval rating among former U.S. presidents.
I am worried, however, that this will cause problems because the Cold War sections will be split up. It's like we talked about the Cold War, then some other stuff happened, now we;re back to the Cold War. I know that's actually kind of how it happened, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic so let's give it a little time because it's best to get other users' views and comments before making changes. Thanks for starting the discussion, though. Happyme22 (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Cabinet

Recommend converting the cabinet table to use {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

where is domestic policy section?

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)

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)

header & taxes

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)

Hi there and thank you for contributing, however I would like to point out some things.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

Sometimes I love a good challenge! You inspired me to find the actual government figures. "Largest tax increase in history" is a bold claim, so I've given up on that phrase (except in the 1982 tax article, where WP:NPOV counsels that it's good to cite to the opinions of well-informed commentators, so long as they're flagged as the commentator's own ideas and not Wikipedia's.) Instead, I simply let the numbers speak for themselves by citing to the US Treasury study. I've also added the entire chart from the Treasury to some of the side-articles like Reaganomics.--M@rēino 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
Haha. Nice working with you too. Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why No Filmography?

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)

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)

Gibberish?

I have a vague idea of where the editor is going with this sentence—

The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills resulted in a decrease in a 1% decrease of government revenues representing, with the revenue-shrinking effects of the 1981 tax cut (-3% of GDP) and the revenue-gaining effects of the 1982 tax hike (~+1% of GDP), while subsequent bills were more revenue-neutral.

but I'm not totally sure. Frankly, without some clarification from the original contributor, I'm leaning towards deleting this as gramatically nonsensical. But maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone help? Unschool 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I really am also somewhat confused. It was added by the user two conversations above ours. I think there is an easier way to say it, though: "The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills resulted in a decrease of government revenues." --Happyme22 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be simpler. But is it true? Federal revenues when Reagan left office were higher than when he entered, were they not? Unschool 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The information given seems to suggest that they were lower. Looking at the GDP numbers it went down three, then up one, resulting in two. Or am I totally lost? Happyme22 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The confusion arises from the fact that many people look at the effect of tax cuts on tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. For many economic analyses, evaluating a particular aspect as a proportion of GDP makes a lot of sense. But I think that in this case, it not only not appropriate, it actually misses the whole point.
Advocates of lower tax rates never argue (as far as I know, anyway) that lowering tax rates will increase the percentage of GNP taken in taxes. They advocate it because they argue that lowering the tax rates—rather than resulting in a decrease in absolute tax revenues as one would naturally assume—results in an increase in absolute tax revenues.
In other words, if there are revenues of, say $5 billion, with a tax rate of 70%, lowering the rate to 50% might increase the overall revenues to $5.5 billion. This chart on the 1980s is probably better than my fictional example, but I'm not putting it in the article just yet because it comes from the Heritage Foundation—not the most unbiased source. Anyway, it shows that while tax rates were decreased in the early 1980s (and again in 1986), that general revenues did not decline—they went up! I'd rather find some government doc to show this, but government websites don't seem to often go back to data that precedes the web.
I apologize if all this is old hat to you; I certainly do not want to come across as patronizing. I just wanted to point out that taxes as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant; the only thing about GDP that matters is that it grows when tax rates are cut (which is the reason revenues can increase, despite lower marginal rates). Oh, and one more thing. Someone might argue that this needs to be adjusted for inflation. That is absolutely true, and this chart does that. Unschool 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, you did not come across as patronizing. Please forgive me for I was the one who was the idiot - do I not remember anything from economics class?!? Anyway, the graph from the Heritage Foundation probably shouldn't be used, as it is a conservative and somewhat-biased oragnization, so if you can find numbers from a govt. source, well, fell free to add. Thanks and apologies, Happyme22 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality of the Copy

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)

Thank you for your comment. Can you give an example of how it is POV? Happyme22 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Close of the Reagan era

Do we really need this section? It reads like a hagiography. We certainly do not need this level of detail here, other presidents also do not have this. Only the last line could perhaps be kept, in my view. --KarlFrei (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We do need to show what happened, especially since this article is a FA and not like other presidential articles. And what part reads like a hagiography? We simply explained what happened: Bush won, Reagan gave his last address, the Reagans showed the Bushes to the Capitol, Bush was sworn in, and the Reagans returned to California. If we did not have this section, then we would have to cram it into the top of "post-presidential years" which technically is not even factually accurate. Happyme22 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is all so obvious. What else was supposed to happen? I just don't see the relevance. The next section could start with "For the first five years after the end of Reagan's precidency in 1989, he and his wife traveled..." When you think about it, the line about Reagan being 77 when he resigned is just a bit of trivia. --KarlFrei (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it could be argued that one sentence might be classified as trivia, but surely not all this info. Actually, removing the section might be ok, as it would lower the kb count plus it is mentioned in Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ye-es... Now that you mention it, rather a lot of material is also mentioned in that presidency article, isn't it? Entire sections are copied nearly verbatim! Since the Reagan article is about twice as long as is recommended, it looks like the presidency section should be shortened significantly. However, since this is a featured article, I am hesitant to start making large changes and cuts now (even if the material is copied elsewhere). What do other people think? --KarlFrei (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea this article is "twice as long as is recommended"? This article passed FAC exactly within the WP:SIZE guidelines. Perhaps you don't know how to calculate the size of readable prose? There are *scores* of featured articles larger than this one. This article is 50KB of readable prose. For a list of the 56 featured articles longer than this one, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how that script calculates readable prose. When I copy and pasted it to my talk page, as the Article size article recommended, I get 60K. The recommended size is 30K.--KarlFrei (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines are 30–50 KB readable prose, and there are 56 featured articles larger than this one. WP:SIZE is only a guideline, and the size of this article was discussed at FAC. This article passed FAC at 50KB and was considered comprehensive. If you have a hard time with the calculation (it's not easy doing it manually), I suggest you download the page size script from Dr pda (talk · contribs); one-click page size. You also might browse some of Wiki's MUCH longer featured articles, like Ketuanan Melayu or Bob Dylan. Surely, if Bob Dylan has 72KB readable prose, Reagan can have 50. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Trim away. We don't duplicate content. We wikilink to the spot where the material primarily exists (presidential = Presidency of Ronald Reagan, personal = this article). the article will still be FA, so long as unreliably unsourced info is kept out. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed all the material that was copied literally in the presidency article, and replaced it by a summary, which I think is more appropriate for this article. Now the article is only 70Kb. Still large, but a lot better, I think. Hope everyone likes what I did. --KarlFrei (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain the real story. I copied the material from here when i was a more inexperienced Wikipedia editor (you can check the history of the article Presidency of Ronald Reagan). It is the other article that needs to be rewritten, not this one. This is a featured article and it got that way because of it's current content. I will begin working on rewriting much of the presidency article. But a long paragraph "summarizing" the presidency is not going to work here. You do not know how hard myself and other editors have worked. I wrote much of this myself and have continuously worked to preserve and expand it until August 25 when it became FA. We cannot just simply summarize the section, as that is doing the article - and the man - a disservice. I know Arcayne and others argue that the presidency was eight years of his life. But I argue back that those were the most public year of his life, and the most substantial where he was able to be known on a world scale. They were the most important years of his life. And "summarizing" them just isn't going to cut it. I would also like to say that this is not a literal copy. This text is much better written than those I copied from here to the presidency article way long ago. I will reverse much of what I have done and, again, rewrite a lot of that page.
I will however budge and say that we can do away with the "Post-presidential years" section and save that for the presidency article like we have already recently discussed. Happyme22 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me start out by saying that - for the most part - KarlFrei's version was outstanding. I am not sure where Karl is from, but that seemed like one of the more non-partisan I've seen in some time. With the exception of the assassination attempt and a few other things that more directly affected the man it was really, really good.
Now, the problem with instituting those massive changes is that with an FA article, some consideration has to be paid to the fact that is is FA, and some discussion (beyond what was already said) should be done. This is one of those situations where BE BOLD runs into trouble.
I think that the majority of Karl's edit is solid, non-partisan and well-written. With a few adjustments (and in consideration that numerous other articles exist to cover Reagan's presidency), I think it should remain. While the eight years were arguably the most public of his life, we have an article specifically for that - several articles, to be exact. This article isn't forgetting that, it is just supposed to focus on the man, and not the President. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying Karl's version was bad; it wasn't at all and I found it to be very good. But it summarized too much, and that was the problem. Happyme22 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this entire discussion is based on a misunderstanding of article size. We don't go by overall size (which includes references, for example); we go by readable prose. There was no problem with this article size; I'm going to have a look at what content was removed, as this article was intact when it passed FAC. That the Presidency article can be separately expanded is another issue, but there was no size problem here. There are 56 featured articles larger than this one, some of them much larger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For me, the size wasn't the issue so much as the duplication of material and the duplicated coverage of the President. This article shoud be about the man, and signpost those many, may articles that discuss the presidency of the man. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Summary style will necessarily duplicate some material; that doesn't concern me because this article needs to be comprehensive and balanced. All the FAC demands to incorporate perceived negatives or criticism in this article contributed to the size, and pros and cons must be balanced according to WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I was the one who started all this, let me chime in again :-) What bothers me most is what Arcayne pointed out: the duplication of material. (Regarding size, see my new comment above.) The Summary Style article points out right at the start that "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place". This is what should have happened here, and we can still do that now.

Moreover, I advise that this article should mention Reagan's use of the Southern strategy, which is currently only mentioned in *that* article. --KarlFrei (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary style was used; this article was judged comprehensive at FAC, although it had to continually grow to incorporate perceived criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Corruption -- Important to create a criticisms section

I think that it is important to at least briefly mention the fact that Ronald Reagan's administrations was one of the most corrupt of all of the US presidencies.

Copyright violation removed, see comment below Mr.Z-man 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmmtmmmm (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are deprecated. Can you suggest which of these are the most important to add to the article, supported by reliable sources and conforming with our neutral point of view policy? --John (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize Criticism sections were deprecated. Perhaps instead a section entitled "Criminal Acts Of The Reagan Administration"? I feel that all of the items here are important, however, I realize that it is a long list. Maybe it would be more appropriate to create a seperate article dedicated specifically to government corruption during Reagan's presidency and mention it in this article. What do you think?
Maybe something that reads similar to: "The Reagan administration had a large number of it's members put on trial for various criminal acts such as fraud, illegal arms smuggling, insider trading, misappropriation of funds, perjury, and many others. See Criminal Acts of The Reagan Administration for more info" Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to know where you copied and pasted this block of information from, since the presence of terms such as "Teflon president" suggests it falls well short of compliance with our neutrality policy. The creation of a section or article called "Criminal Acts of the Reagan Administration" would be highly POV as well. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The length of this list, of course, proves nothing about Reagan's administration being particularly corrupt, until it is compared with lists compiled from the administrations of other Presidents that served eight years. It certainly looks long to me. But I have never seen a anti-Clinton partisan compile a similar list. There are thousands of people appointed to positions in any administration—standing alone this list does not support the contention that "Ronald Reagan's administrations was one of the most corrupt of all of the US presidencies". Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It was all copied from here. Mr.Z-man 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well how should we go about getting the truth out there? Everything on the list was true, and can easily be written from sources instead of copied. This has nothing to do with partisan issues (I don't vote at all). I just think it is misleading to the readers of this article to not show how dishonest and corrupt his administration was. They were selling weapons to terrorists, funding cocaine dealers, taking bribes from corporate lobbyists, and stealing government money. I think that this should be mentioned somewhere, so that people don't get the wrong impression. Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a depository for partisan rants. If sources which meet reliability standards cannot be found, then the information has no place in this article. End of story. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Then please suggest what exactly you would propose to add or change in the article, and what your reliable sources would be, and we can talk about it further. --John (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


I listed many of the things that I would like to see added to the article and they were removed. Everything in there is either already elsewhere on Wikipedia or will turn up as the first term of a Google search on the topic. I am not proposing that the list be added as is, but it is important that some of it is mentioned. I will gladly find sources for all of them, but I wanted to get a consensus about what should be added to the article. But instead, all I have received is criticism about "partisan rants" when all I posted was a list of criminal acts committed by Reagan and his administration. I understand that some of us might love Reagan, but this is an encyclopedia, not whitehouse.gov
I would gladly write up a well-sourced article, if I didn't feel like I would be wasting my time. Am I going to spend ten or fifteen minutes writing something only to be told that just because it doesn't praise Reagan that it is too "partisan"? If not, then I'd love to discuss what you all would like to see in it. Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're not being persecuted. Your list was removed because all you did was cut-and-paste a chunk of copyrighted material from some left-wing website. If you're willing to put in the time and effort to write up a well-researched and neutrally-worded addition on this matter, we would be more than happy to consider it. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously that list has no place in the article. But did it hurt for it to remain on the talk page? Unschool (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
An admin removed it for copyright violation. I would ask him instead. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. I hadn't even considered that. I was just concerned that it was adding fuel to the ostensible "persecution fire". No worries. Unschool (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmtmmmm, I'm mildly amused at the notion that "ten or fifteen minutes" is a lot of time to waste. Many of us spend that much time on a single edit to an established article. If you are serious, then be prepared to spend some serious time. And my response was not that your ideas were too partisan, it was that your assessment was not necessarily supported by the mere presentation of a list. Go ahead and write a section or an article, submit it, and be prepared to receive both support and criticism. Just realize that what seems obvious to you will not seem obvious to everyone else, and that those who do not immediately (or ever) see their way to your thinking are not bad people, they are just different. Good luck. Unschool (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Put your time where your mouth is, to paraphrase a phrase. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are specifically discouraged as they aren't neutral; when this article passed FAC, criticism was carefully woven into the text, seamlessly, as expected in Wiki's best articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ATC Strike

HappyMe, I was unsurprised that you deleted the note I added to this section; I figured someone would object. However, the end of the union was a direct result of Reagan's action, and it had an impact that we still feel today. The current link to the article on the Air Traffic Controller's Union in this section is a history of their union, mention very little with regards to cause and effect of the end of the previous union and the formation of the current one.

If you feel the wording is insufficiently neutral, please feel free to reword. But this firing had a massive effect on the ATC system that we still feel today, and it seems important enough to me to mention. The whole article, after all, mentions other things that seem fairly trivial, even in context (e.g., the discussion of Reagan's post-Presidential travel and what church he attended). This was a pretty big deal, and striking the mention of its effect on the union seems inappropriate. And I was careful to put it neutrally; it's not like I said, "Reagan's heinous act broke the union and helped put us in the current mess we have today," or whatever, any more than I said, "Reagan's heroic act was the beginning of a critically-needed reorganization of the existent corrupt system."

Bottom line: the end of that union was a pretty big deal, and Reagan's move was a direct cause of it. How would you prefer it get mentioned?Dougom (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it did not have a citation. Your best best would be to find one and present it here. Then we can debate the content. Happyme22 (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't include a citation because cause-and-effect seemed to me to be pretty easy for the reader to infer by following the link to the ATC article. But if you feel one is necessary, I'll rustle it up for you; no worries.Dougom (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Being a featured article, all potentially controversial material (and believe me, some people can make extraordinary claims about controversial material) needs to be cited. That is the case here; it's not me, it's keeping up the standards of a very good article. So, yes, a citation is needed and once one is found please present it here and we'll go from there. Happyme22 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
People really need to chill out. But then, I lived in California for a long time.
Here are a few; please let me know if these are appropriate/inappropriate:
"strike." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved, 27 Dec. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9069969>.
baltimoresun.com. "Reagan presidency pivotal for unions." Stacy Hirsh, Sun Staff. June 8, 2004. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.unions08jun08,0,1761456.story?coll=bal-business-headlines
(Not as good). NPR Morning Edition. "1981 Strike Leaves Legacy for American Workers." Kathleen Schalch. August 3, 2006. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5604656
Chicago Tribune. "Remembering the day the strike died." Joseph A. McCartin. August 1, 2006. http://www.nd.edu/~hlrc/documents/McCartininTrib06.pdf.
History News Network. "The Anniversary Everybody Forgets." Joseph A. McCartin. August 14, 2001. http://hnn.us/articles/199.html.
Let me know if these are sufficient as citations, then we can hash out the details. Fair enough? Dougom (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for the Baltimore Sun. I can't view the Britannica one because I'm not a subscriber but if you can, feel free to use two citations and cite it with both. Now I think the phrase was worded fine how you had it, so I'd say it's okay to be added back in. Happyme22 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I'll go ahead and use the Baltimore Sun cite, and re-add the text with the citation. Thanks for the help.Dougom (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the discussion. Happyme22 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that back in for me; I've been busy with Christmas-related stuff the last couple of days, and just now had time to modify it.Dougom (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)