Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

← Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8 →

Contents 1 FBI Informant Section 2 Lifeguard Claim 3 This article has improved a lot recently 4 This article is in a good condition right now 5 Source for critic's claims of deficit influencing 1990 recession 6 Reagan pic 7 The Reagan Diaries 8 Payroll taxes 9 Mass murderer 10 Cato and National Review Are Biased Souces 11 War On Drugs 12 GDP Growth in "Reaganomics and economy" section 13 More evidence of blatant partisanship in this article 14 Close of the Reagan Era 15 Ronald Reagan Military Service 16 "Reaganomics" and economy 17 Reagan's economic record (from the previous discussion) 17.1 Ok here we go: The Real Reagan Record 18 this article will never be valid or legitimate 19 unsourced information 20 This article has a clear Right Wing bias 21 New article 22 Good article pass 23 Good Article 24 The Conservatives have highjacked this article 25 Lead 26 Issues with last paragraph in Reaganomics section

FBI Informant Section

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

Lifeguard Claim

I've read that Reagan saved 77 people in six/seven years of lifeguard duty several times. I know it's sourced, but this really is a ridiculous claim. I coordinate between various safety groups, and the most rescues I've ever heard of from a single lifeguard was 17, over nearly 12 years of lifeguard experience at one of the most dangerous beaches in the state. This "77 rescues" thing is more than farfetched. Since it's sourced, I'm not going to remove it myself (no good getting into an edit war), but I would to see it removed. 75.69.110.227 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a true claim - see the source. Happyme22 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy: the "source" that you offer turns out to be nothing more than an MSNBC story that quotes Reagan as having said this; what you're now saying is that something someone claims is true is now verified to in fact be "true" if someone else reports that the first person once claimed it. This is not a "source" for anything other than the statement "On at least one occasion, Reagan claimed to have saved 77 people while working as a lifeguard" (or something like that). Given the extreme dubiousness of the claim, as well as Reagan's well-documented long history of out and out lying about his own personal and professional life, you'd have to find a non-biased disinterested source to verify this claim, such as documentation in the local records, contemporary newspapers, etc.; otherwise, you can only put it into this wiki article as that Reagan claimed to have accomplished this feat, and that it has yet to be documented/verified. Info999 03:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article claims it as fact yet cites a reference that reads Again and again he would tell the story. "You know, that's where I used to be a lifeguard—I saved 77 lives.". Based on this reference, the section should change from "He was credited with saving 77 lives during the seven summers that he worked there" to something like "He claimed to have saved 77 lives during the seven summers that he worked there." Gmb92 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has improved a lot recently

Question: In the infobox, is the bracketed (s) after Vice President really necessary? There was only one VP and the (s) takes up a whole line by itself. It looks a bit untidy.

Changes: I have gone over the article and made changes: most of them minor matters of punctuation, grammar and reducing repetition of words.

• The most substantial alteration that I made was in the Legacy section, where a list of what "critics" claim about the Reagan Administration failed to mention that the fiscal deficit built up in those years has been blamed for the recession under Bush senior. I added this to the list because it was one of the most important criticisms that was made of the Reagan Administration. To leave it out would be to pretend that no such thing has ever been alleged; which would be a serious distortion.
  
• I changed "staunchly anti-communist" to "strongly anti-communist" and "staunch anti-communist" to "committed anti-communist" to avoid the approving judgement suggested by the word, "staunch".
• Changed "Reagan's supporters, and even many who are not, believe that much of America's success today can be attributed to Ronald Reagan" to "Reagan's supporters, and even some who are not...". Not because "many who are not" is inaccurate per se: but because it seems to hint at some kind of cozy concensus in America that 'Ronnie was right all along'. There is no such concensus and it is wrong to even faintly imply one. Neutrality of tone is as important as neutrality of content.
• In the End of the Cold War section, a photo of Reagan at the Berlin Wall is captioned with him "challenging" Gorbachev to tear down the Wall. The main text, however, said that his speech "pushed Gorbachev further" - a POV claim if ever there was one. I changed the text as per the photo caption to "challenged Gorbachev to go further", which is a neutral reporting of fact.

Opinion: I think that the Legacy section lets this article down a bit. The Reeves quote is extravagant in its euluogy and syrupy in its tone. I have looked at the articles for a good number of political leaders and nary a one of them lays the unqualified praise on as thickly as this section does about Reagan. Also, several surveys are mentioned which rated RR highly as a president: I know for a fact that there were others that rated him significantly lower. Balance is the thing that's needed in an encyclopedia. I do not think that this page is otherwise all that far away from Featured Article status. Conval 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good changes. I agree on the Legacy section also. There is some inference here, for instance:

"Today, Ronald Reagan is one of America's most popular presidents. In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high. The Gallup Organization took a poll in February 2007 asking respondents to name the greatest president in U.S. history; Reagan came in second, after Abraham Lincoln.[130]"

In the poll, 16% chose Reagan as the greatest president. This doesn't imply that "Reagan is one of America's most popular presidents". From that poll, it can only be verifiably claimed about those 16% who chose Reagan. Who knows how the other 84% would view him. The same applies to the Quinnipiac poll. From the pollingreport link, we do see other polls that rate Reagan on the whole as above average. The wording should be modified to reflect that, rather than the opinion of 16%.

"On June 26, 2005, the Discovery Channel asked Americans to vote for The Greatest American; Reagan received the honorary title.[131]"

This poll shouldn't be included, since it wasn't scientific:

"More than 2.4 million Americans cast their vote by phone, text or e-mail in the poll, organised by the Discovery Channel and AOL."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4631421.stm

What should be linked to this section is the Wikipedia entry on historian rankings of presidents. There are a few issues with the methodologies of some of these polls but it's a reasonable summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Gmb92 05:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

I could not disagree further when it comes to removing the Greatest American discovery channel poll. There'a an entire Wikipedia article devoted to it!!! The Greatest American. It doesn't matter if it's not factually acturate: it's a poll, but there's a Wiki article on it. Happyme22 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if it's not factually accurate"? Are you serious? Why deliberately put something up of little value? The poll is not scientific. It's similar to an American Idol poll where viewers of the program can vote many times over. If you cared about the quality of this section, you wouldn't want it included.Gmb92 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

I agree that as the "poll" wasn't really a poll, it doesn't belong. You say it should be included because Reagan ranks "high" in the poll; hypothetical: what if the same poll, under the same conditions, ranked him as the third-most despised president in US history? Would you want to include it then, or no, since it doesn't rank him "high"? If this poll is "notable" then I would say we should include a piece about the CBS made for TV movie starring James Brolin that Republicans inappropriately got cancelled (because it was too accurate). In fact, the CBS movie was actually significant because of the controversy, but this poll is not only unscientific but was not a major news story. I agree that it doesn't belong.Info999 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there is a Wikipedia article on this. It is mentioned in other articles for other people who were named in the poll. Happyme22 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A similar non-scientific poll for Greatest Canadian named Tommy Douglas (basically the originator for universal healthcare in Canada) the greatest Canadian, and this is mentioned in his article (in the lead no less), so I agree that the link should stay. As for Info's question: yes, if the poll ranked him third-most despised, I suppose we should include it. But it didn't say that. Nathanalex 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If the argument is that this poll or other non-scientific polls are included on other pages, note that both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are both in the top 10 of the Discovery Channel ranking, yet such is not included on their pages. Nor should it be. If we want this section to represent an accurate view of how Americans view Reagan, then this poll shouldn't be included. These sorts of things are fan page material.Gmb92 05:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Right. It seems that Happy and Nathan's argument is that since it appears elsewhere in wiki, it should appear here (the same argument was used last week to advance an incorrect statement about Reagan's record). This is not sufficient to answer the challenge that it should not be included; I believe, and it looks like gmb agrees, that it does not belong, and we've given specific reasons. If anything, our arguments also suggest that those other articles should also lose the Discovery Channel popularity contest. It's not scientific, and therefore meaningless, and certainly not encyclopedic. Info999 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As terrible as this will no doubt sound, that the poll is non-scientific has nothing to do with whether it should be included. It was a notable poll, which appeared in the news, from a major network. I can't seem to find anything on Wikipedia that says highly notable non-scientific polls should be avoided; if you find this, then I agree it should be removed. Nathanalex 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does state "The hope of any contributor is to provide useful and accurate information to others". The purpose of the paragraph or section is to present an accurate view of how the public views Reagan and there are several polls cited that do this. Non-scientific voluntary polls that take a non-random subset of the population and allow individuals to vote multiple times simply don't do that. It's no better than any internet poll. The Discovery Channel poll is therefore neither accurate nor useful in this sense. Simply appearing in another news source is not sufficient criteria.Gmb92 05:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

The Greatest American was a major TV event. The poll is notable enough that it doesn't matter if its methods were unscientific (although upon reading the wiki article about it, it says people were only allowed to vote a maximum of 9 times). That he received the title is useful and, obviously, accurate. Perhaps you should also suggest removing that Kelly Clarkson won American Idol in her article? After all, the voting in American Idol was also unscientific... Nathanalex 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Reagan was an American Idol contestant. How is an unscientific poll useful in accurately determining public opinion? The fact that a person was allowed to vote more than once (9 times is much worse) in addition it being being constrained to a non-random sample of the program's viewers effectively renders the poll inaccurate. The resulting useless information is not included on the pages for top-10 finalists Clinton or W. Bush nor should it be included here.Gmb92 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Factual corrections: the Discovery Channel is not a "major network." It is a CABLE CHANNEL (a widely distributed one, for cable, but not a major network. Words mean specific things. Let's try to use them properly.) The Greatest American was not a "major TV event", by almost any definition of that phrase. About half a million online votes were cast, and since anyone could vote (without having seen the show) and vote as many times as they wanted, this number is no indication as to viewership. In contrast, 106 million individuals watched - at the same time (this is before TIVO, DVR, multicast, etc) - the final episode of M*A*S*H*. That's 77% of the total viewing audience at the time. THAT was a "major TV event." The Discovery Channel "poll" did worse in terms of viewership than shark week. :) GMB: you can't win an argument that is not based on merit, reason, logic or the facts, but the insistence of committed Reagan fanboy who isn't interested in making the wiki article "better" - just more adulatory. Info999 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My point regarding American Idol was not that the voting there was representative or scientific, but simply that Clarkson won. The same situation with The Greatest American: it may not be scientifically accurate, but the point is only that he won. Perhaps the fact would be better listed in the Honours section? (Also, Winston Churchill's article mentions he won the title of Greatest Briton. Winning is more notable than finishing fifth or sixth, and thus the information may not be included in Clinton's or Bush's article.) Nathanalex 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy with American Idol is flawed. That is literally a popularity contest, and the rules and methods of voting are well known - and not accepted to be scientific, or even meaningful in any way. If an article about American Idol is to appear in wiki, then certainly Kelly Clarkson - and all Idol winners - should be noted. It's the point of American Idol. It should even be noted in her article (for there's really not much else to say about her). If someone held an online poll where a few hundred thousand people voted for The Greatest American Idol, that would not be relevant to the Idol article. It's not relevant to the Reagan article, and it's being included solely to inappropriately characterize Reagan. I think this one has been decided, folks. Info999 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's being included because it was a significant television contest (significant enough to have its own article), and that Reagan won. Please address my attempt at compromise. Perhaps this could be included in the Honours section rather than the legacy section? Nathanalex 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out earlier, it wasn't a very significant television event. There's a Wiki article for just about everything. Compare a few hundred thousand votes to the typical 40 million American idol gets per week or the 75 million from the final episode. Clarkson has her own Wikipedia page largely because of American Idol. Reagan somehow has a page despite a TV show that was approximately 100 times less "major". Regardless, I feel that this is a moot point because the unscientific nature of the poll pollutes the section with information that is not useful in accurately describing Reagan's public approval. The fact that Reagan received 75% of the final vote to Lincoln's 8% should raise an additional red flag (compare to similar scientific poll listed in this section). In addition to allowing multiple votes (up to 9 apparently) and being a voluntary poll constrained to a small subset of the population (the program's viewers), internet polls can be easily fixed or hacked.

This article is in a good condition right now

It needs to be locked from editing to fight off the repeated attempts by leftwingers to reintroduce negative material in direct violation of WP:BLP--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for critic's claims of deficit influencing 1990 recession

This article presents the standard Democrat angle on the influence of the deficit on the Recession of 1990-91: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0603/0603taxing.htm Taxing our way to prosperity: The Democrats' strange version of fiscal responsibility by W. James Antle III (a senior editor for Enter Stage Right), web posted June 16, 2003: Here are two extracts:
“This failed to bring us any closer to a balanced budget -- the deficit continued to grow -- and compounded the 1990-91 recession”.

“Buoyed by deficit hawks on the right and center, Democrats deftly tied the deficit to the early '90s recession. They claimed the Reagan tax cuts were a drunken binge that created the illusion of prosperity; the 1990-91 recession was the hangover. (No mention was made of loose monetary policy or areas where the Republicans had failed to confront government spending, such as the S&L bailouts and federal health care expenditures; tax cuts were the culprit behind the boom and bust.)”

I think that takes care of the source: but I am stumped as to how to fit it in. "Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt, and hostility towards the disadvantaged". could be changed to "Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt and compounding the 1990-91 recession." But that leaves the bit about "hostility toward the disadvantaged" out on its own. I don't know how to make a whole sentence out of this part because I do not understand its meaning. I can understand a claim that economic policies hurt the disadvantaged financially or in terms of social programs: but I don't see in what sense economic policies would have caused "hostility toward the disadvantaged". Any advice on these matters would be appreciated. Conval 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok well the statement was added in the last paragraph of the " 'Reaganomics' and the Economy" section. Happyme22 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"This article presents the standard Democrat angle on the influence of the deficit on the Recession of 1990-91"

An article entitled "Taxing our way to prosperity: The Democrats' strange version of fiscal responsibility" doesn't exactly present a "Democratic angle". Was there a previous source for this assertion? If not, it could be changed to something like "...tripling the United States national debt and increasing federal expenditures on debt interest". Such can be verified on pages 5 and 6 of this CBO source:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

While a higher percentage of the American tax dollar went towards paying debt interest in the late 80's and early 90's. This can inhibit economic growth but I'm not sure how much effect it had on the 90-91 recession.

Gmb92 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Reagan pic

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

The Reagan Diaries

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

Ok, well I added it...Happyme22 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Payroll taxes

Happyme22,

Your last edit removed the following, calling it "PoV". This is a factual and relevant statement for this section that can be easily verified throught the ssa.gov source:

"Payroll taxes during Reagan's tenure were gradually increased.^[1]"

The precise wording or where this content should appear within the section is up for debate.

Gmb92 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Mass murderer

300,000 Central Americans died on Reagan's watch. They died to protect the profit margins of United Fruit(Dole) and Del Monte. George W. Bush may think that Reagan is 'in a better place now'. God may have other ideas. SmokeyTheCat 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And this relates to the article how, exactly? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an essential and important fact about about the Reagan presidency. There should be a mention of it in the article somewhere. SmokeyTheCat 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A citation would be helpful for this claim....Happyme22 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is true, it would be pointless to include it. The president of the US is not able to prevent death. Millions died in WWII during FDR's presidency, would we fault him for not preventing the war? Is ther current genocide in Africa Bush's fault to the point that we can blame it on him? I don't think so. Unless Reagan somehow encouraged the killings, this is hardly relevant and far too POV to include. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reagan *did* encourage the killings. The Contras killed 60,000 in Nicaragua and Reagan compared them to the French Resistance despite the fact they terrorising an elected government. There was a civil war in El Salvador and Reagan intervened massively on the side of the ruling regime despite widespread murder of priests, rape of nuns and rampant death squad activity. SmokeyTheCat 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very POV argument. You still haven't provided an adequate citation to back up your claims, something that I doubt you will find. Happyme22 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary there are many such links. One is [1]SmokeyTheCat 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I have added a line to this effect in the Legacy section as it extremely pro-Reagan and needs some balance. SmokeyTheCat 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That website doesn't even work for my computer. Your argument is not keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Like Mr.Z-mantalk¢ stated, George W. Bush is President, and is not held responsile for the genocide in Africa. The argument serves no factual purpose, and should not be included. Happyme22 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that Reagan was a "mass murderer" is extremely polemical and not fit for an encyclopedia. You can confine your discussion to his Central American foreign policy, but keep in mind that you must source all information and above all avoid polemics. Griot 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The murderous Contras were Reagan's personal crusade. Reagan fans may like to forget this but history has not. Nor have the people of Central America. This is an extremely biased article, very much distorted in Reagan's favour as witnessed by the fact that all those disagreeing with me here are self-confessed Reagan-admirers and don't care at all about the 100s of thousands who died as direct result of his policies. SmokeyTheCat 10:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We are the POV ones? You are the one calling Ronald Reagan a mass murderer, and thinking that it somehow belongs in an encyclopedia. Almost all editors seem to agree (such as Griot, Mr.Z-man, GeeJo, Flag-Waving American Patriot, and myself) that this should not go in the article. Please do not re-add it. Happyme22 16:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps it is worth mentioning Smokey's idea that Reagan's policies in Latin America, in the name of victory in the Cold War, were harmful to the people there. (This isn't to say we should put he is a mass murdered though...) Of course this would need to have a citation, but I imagine there are those who would hold such a view, and wouldn't be hard to find. Also, there is a citation needed tag in the Iran-Contra affair section. Nathanalex 04:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Though they may have been somewhat harmful, it would have been much worse if the Communist government were to continue. History shows that a Marxist-Leninist government is doomed to fail; either because the people revolt or because it destroys itself from the inside. History also shows us that Communist regiems eventually become considerably oppressive against their own people; therefore, it can be theorized that Reagan's actions in Grenada which re-implemented a democratized government stopped the Marxist-Leninist government from commiting atrocities that are bound to accompany a communistic dictatorship. Flag-Waving American Patriot 13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

History shows no such thing. Chavez in Venezuala, Zito in Bolivia, Lula in Brazil all go from strength to strength, all democratically elected; Cuba shows no sign of reverting to capitalism; and the FSLN(Sandinistas) have just been democratically returned to power in Nicaragua. This article is entirely written by self-confessed Reaganites and is a disgrace to Wikipedia.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph in the "Iran-Contra affair" section describing some of the harsh feelings that the Central Americans had. Happyme22 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The source that SmokeyTheCat has provided is blatently POV. DemocracyNow has a reputation. On the political spectrum, it's right up there with MoveOn.org, and on a subject such as this it cannot be considered a legitimate and unbiased source by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, I don't know why we're even discussing this. 68.15.226.72 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While you're trashing Reagan, edit Carter's article to reflect his covert persuasion Saddam to start the Iran-Iraq War to cover his hostage crisis failures. That nice 2,000,000 casualty number should be laid at the great humanitarian homebuilder's feet.

Cato and National Review Are Biased Souces

These were removed and reverted to get a non-POV statement. Any reverts will be removed. Happyme22's userpage shows his adoration for Reagan and should watch putting biased information into the text. This is Wikipedia, not a fan page. I hope you fully understand. Maddyfan 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I understand all right, and I thank you for helping out. Although I agree with what most of what Reagan stood for, I don't let that influence my edits. I have been awarded three barnstars soley for this article, all for being POV free. Happyme22 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank god, not a fight. Someone added back in the material and I had to revise it again. We have to remember that this information has to be encyclopedic and not a fan page. Maddyfan 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Maddy: there are at least four other "reference sources" from Cato and NR still in the article, which is full of POV, regardless of what "stars" Reagan fans give to one another. Info999 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Cato and National Review are partisan sources with an agenda, the same could be said about faireconomy.org, which I just noticed in the Reaganomics section. The question is should this page focus strictly on the facts of what happened, sticking to more factual less-partisan sources (i.e. Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis) or should it make attribution of causation claims where there is no consensus (i.e. Reaganomics "caused" lower inflation is PoV stated in the opening section) and cite various op-ed pieces. If so, the text should at least make it clear that it's an opinion rather than stating it as fact. In addition, the article should have a relative balance of political views.Gmb92 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

cato is libertarian and not conservative or republican

Along these lines I have removed Cato citations and added citation needed tags Wikipediatoperfection 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

War On Drugs

Link 66 does not say that drug use dramatically decreased under the Reagan presidency. It doesn't say that drug use decreased at all. SmokeyTheCat 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Nor does link 69. The Wiki entry on the War On Drugs shows that the price of cocaine only fell in the Reagan years. Hence I am amending this section to be less favourable to Reagan.SmokeyTheCat 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a source for the text, and inserted it back in. Happyme22 00:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

GDP Growth in "Reaganomics and economy" section

Hi. I have nominated Ronald Reagan for FA status, and one of the comments read: "In the Reagonomics section, there is a mention of GDP growing after the recession, and then a few sentences later, it mentions the rate of growth of the GDP. Perhaps these could be merged into a single sentence?" That is what I tried to do, and it was reverted. Before, it read:

"...and GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession. Unemployment peaked at over 11 percent in 1982, then dropped steadily, and inflation significantly decreased. During Reagan's eight years in office, real GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.4% per year...."

I changed it to:

"...Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession, growing at an annual rate of 3.4% per year. Unemployment peaked at over 11 percent in 1982, then dropped steadily, and inflation significantly decreased...."

In my revision, the GDP growth was merged into a single sentence, therby making the paragraph flow easier and not jump around as much. I am interested to know why it was reverted, being labled as POV. Happyme22 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I changed the wording but not for any PoV reason. 3.4% growth represents the average annual real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth from 1981 through 1988 (rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent). In fact, to be accurate, this should read "real GDP growth" and not "GDP growth". The current wording gives only some indication as to what time period is being measured.Gmb92 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Ok I will add "real" to it. Happyme22 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of blatant partisanship in this article

The second paragraph of this article begins with this sentence: "The election of Reagan as president marked a significant rightward shift in American politics.[1]" You'd think that for a wiki article, such a bold statement would be sourced...and when we read the sentence, we see a superscript 1 at the end, leading us to believe that there is such a source, and that it proves the notion in the statement. However, the "source" reference for the statement happens to be an address by the subject of the article! Not only is that completely unacceptable for a fact source, nothing in the referenced source even mentions this so-called "significant rightward shift", much less proves such a thing even happened! It's interesting to point out why there is no source on this supposed shift: because it never happened. Nothing of the sort even came close to happening. When Reagan took office in 1981, 38% of the country identified their political philosophy as "conservative", 17% of the country identified their political philosophy as "liberal" and 40% of the country identified their political philosophy as "moderate." When Reagan left office in 1989, 38% of the country identified their political philosophy as "conservative", 18% of the country identified their political philosophy as "liberal" and 39% of the country identified their political philosophy as "moderate." The same statistical consistency holds true for party affliation as well. Nothing shifted in terms of national political philosophy during Reagan's eight years. Nothing. (Voting patterns may have, but not political philosophy or party affiliation). And here's the fact source to demonstrate this: The Harris Poll, one of the oldest and most respected independent polls in the world. But as this article is written and edited almost exclusively by slavishly devoted Reaganites, it's consistently and significantly slanted. Take a look at the numbers, and then ask yourself if the first sentence of the second paragraph of this article is intellectually honest (if you can even understand what "intellectual honesty means"). I used to chalk up that particular editor's many many errors in fact and continual misrepresentations of Reagan and his accomplishments as the enthusiasm of a dedicated but poorly informed partisan; as time goes on, however, and instances such as this one keep appearing, it's clear that it's knowing and willful. And a shame. Info999 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue with you. Someone suggested to me to put that sentence in, and I took it right from the United States page. I will remove the sentence. Happyme22 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy: Hi. It's not a question of arguing with you - the facts directly contradict that statement. Words mean something very specific, and people in politics often use them to say one thing and mean another - and to get out of having said something that later proves not to be true (just look at any one of a dozen ongoing stories out of Washington right now). A lot of people keep their jobs and get better jobs at better pay making sure that Americans believe things that aren't true - on both sides of the aisle. One of those things is the supposed "Reagan revolution" that supposedly caused America to shift radically, immediately and fundamentally "to the right." The facts show otherwise. There are plenty of places on the net where you can share your opinion of Reagan and what you think he did and what you think that means to you and to America; this isn't one of them. It's not personal, it's just an attempt to keep things factual. Good luck. Info999 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Happyme22 04:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me say I am not a "slavishly devoted Reaganite". However, there certainly was a "rightward shift". This is not a controversial statement. Look at Reagan's predecessors and then look at him. His policies of tax cuts and spending reductions were sharp contrasts with past presidents. This is not to say his policies were right or wrong, or that he was a good or bad president, but it did happen. Public ideology may not have changed (although definitions of 'conservative', 'liberal', or 'moderate' have different meanings over time and between individuals), but policy did. Furthermore, I suppose that, Info, you will also be alleging blatant partisanship on the United States page as well? Nathanalex 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this argument, but I will say this: here is the exact sentence from the Wikipedia article United States of America: "The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 marked a significant rightward shift in American politics." Siding with Info999, I will say that there is no citation provided. Siding with Nathanalex, I will say his argument makes sense, because the predecessors of Ronald Reagan had different policies than he did, and Reagan was elected. I'm not going to give my opinion on whether the phrase should be in the article or not, but I'm fine with it gone. Happyme22 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You both seem to be under the impression that if something is stated in one article in wiki, it cannot possibly be incorrect. You also seem to be under the impression that the results of a presidential election or two - and only those results - indicate a "significant shift" in American politics. You both seem to be under a further impression that the attempted implementation of specific policies by specific presidents equal a reflection of the political mood and/or will of the American people. All three impressions are factually incorrect and contradicted by history.

During Reagan's eight years in office, the self-identified political philosophy of Americans did not change, and neither did party affiliation. Moreover, the House of Representatives - the chamber more responsive to immediate trends - not only never changed hands during Reagan's two terms (Democrats controlled it, as they had for decades), but no significant increase or decrease of Democrat-held seats occurred. While the Senate changed hands back and forth, the fact that the Democrats could recapture the Senate during this supposed "significant rightward shift" as well as retain control not only through the rest of Reagan's term but during the whole of his Republican successor's term also disproves this supposed shift.

So we have long term polling and long term electoral results that disprove your analysis regarding the "shift." We have the twice-elected Bill Clinton and the popularly-elected Al Gore covering twelve years of presidential elections disproving your analysis of the supposed presidential elections determining nationwide political philosophy (unless you're actually claiming that these three election victories signaled a "significant leftward shift" in American politics, which is cleary disproven by fact and history as well). And we have the current administration - opposed by over 70% of the electorate on virtually all major presidential and Republican congressional initiatives - that disproves your analysis that the attempted implementation of specific policies by an elected president automatically indicates that the country is behind those policies.

We have facts, history and provable analysis which completely refutes your claim. And in all this time, neither of you have offered anything to support your claim, other than the exact same discredited statement elsewhere on a user-edited web site. Bravo. Info999 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna respond to the above. But perhaps as a compromise we could say something like, "Reagan's policies were a significant rightward shift from the policies of past presidents"?

Surprising for a conservative to completely drop an argument when faced with irrefutable facts contradicting him. Rare, even. Hmm. In answer to the question, it would depend upon which policies...Happy uses the tax cut and "spending reductions" as examples; Reagan's early tax cut was about half the size of Kennedy's, and under Reagan, government spending increased dramatically, which is the opposite of a "rightward" direction. I think you're stuck on wanting to prove something with the idea of a "rightward" shift, and stuck on needing it to be "significant." What I might suggest is going more towards the idea of "In attempting to reduce or eliminate decades-long social programs and to significantly increase defense spending while at the same time lowering taxes, Reagan's approach was a departure from his immediate predecessors." This avoids the pitfalls of the POV nature of how much it was a departure, and in exactly which direction. But it's factual, it's sourceable, and it's NPOV. Info999 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well where would that go (oh, and that wasn't me who didn't sign the post)? It's a little long to go in lead, so maybe in the beginning of the "Presidency" section? Or perhaps in the " 'Reaganomics' and the economy"? What do you guys think? Happyme22 01:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've settled the language issue in terms of not claiming something that can't be backed up. I welcome suggestions for rewording my suggested sentence above; I agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. Maybe Reaganomics? What do you think Happy?Info999 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, that was me who didn't sign above) I still like my suggestion above. The rest of the paragraph already describes his economic policies. Reagan's policies marked a significant (a change of policy and ideology of a president from the last 40 years would be significant) rightward (obviously, you wouldn't say it was leftward) shift from predecessors. And what I was trying to above was to compromise not "drop an argument". Nathanalex 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Close of the Reagan Era

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

Ronald Reagan Military Service

Happy: the problem with the way you changed the references again is this: virtually that entire section on RWR's military service is verbatim from an information document on the Reagan Library's web site. As such, it should be referenced as the sole source, because we're not just giving it credit for the information, but for the wording as well. Thanks. Info999 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that you recently removed as "unimportant" is anything but; a man who later became Commander in Chief was once turned down for promotion. This isn't "negative" - except maybe to a family member. Not only is it public knowledge, but the sentence comes from (as does the section) the Reagan Library's web site! Plus, think about all of the unbelievably small details you have included in other parts of this and other Reagan-related articles. Until I edited this section, it was a sentence or two long. One of seven presidents to serve on active duty during WWII and the section was bare. Do you think perhaps if he had actually seen combat you would have included more? I'm sorry, but this deletion was pure POV. Info999 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to remove some phrases. Go ahead and add it back. Happyme22 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reaganomics" and economy

Ok. Well let me say that Info999 has helped this article, but we disagree once again here. I'm going to go through some sentences that I think should be reworded, and we can come to a concensus (because that's what Wiki's all about!). Here goes:

President Reagan's economic record is mixed. His tenure marked a period of economic prosperity, though shorter and less significant than the greater economic expansions of the 1960s and 1990s.

Why is President Reagan's tenure of economic expansion "shorter and less significant" than that of the 1960s and 1990s? I think it's POV to call it less significant, and I'm getting a feeling that there's a negative slant in this section. And who cares about the 60s and 90s? It could be argued that Reagan's policies were a huge influence on the 90s which started in the 80s and grew....

I think that the article as is right now is a legacy-building exercise and not a straight recitation of the facts. However, even in an "ideal" wiki article, facts must have context to be relevant. For example, Roger Maris' 61 homers in 1961 was an important record - even after it's been broken again, it's still rare for anyone to have hit so many in one season - but it was important mostly for the fact that for decades, no one had broken Ruth's record, and for decades afterward, no one broke Maris'. These facts are relevant in order for the reader to judge the relative importance of the accomplishment.

In terms of Reagan, it's important to note that the economic expansion that occured during his two terms was not as long (the use of the word "shorter" might need a tweak) and was not as large (again, same with "significant") as the much longer and much larger economic expansions of the 60s and 90s. It's not a knock, it's context. And no, actually - the relationship between Reagan's policies and the expansion of the 1990s is that partly because his policies were explictly reversed (especially when it comes to the deficit) did the 90s boom occur. And even if you thought you could prove that Reagan was responsible for the 90s boom (and no evidence of any kind exists for that theory) it doesn't belong in the section covering Reagan's policies. However, the relative size of Reagan's accomplishments do in fact belong - and you actually agree with this approach - otherwise, you wouldn't be insisting on including all those "Reagan was the first to/only to/last to/" factoids.

I agree that the theory of Reagans economics influencing the 90s should not be in this section - I just mentioned that as an opposing viewpoint. I think we're on the same page there.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession During Reagan's eight years in office, grew at an annual rate of 3.4% per year, which was lower than the postwar average of 3.6% annual growth, and no faster than the economic growth of the 1970s or the 1990s.

Now it's the 70s and the 90s. And why are we talking about the war average? Is this war WWII or Vietnam?

In most discussions of 20th century political history, "postwar" refers to WWII. And what that means is that the average GDP growth rate from the end of WWII through the Reagan years was greater than it was during only the Reagan years. This places what many call "strong" growth in context, and allows one to understand whether or not it was really "strong" - as some suggest. We have to operationalize our terms or we won't be able to understand each other. In addition, what this means is that yes - GDP growth was down low right before Reagan - and yes, it appears, if you only look at what it was when he came in and at then his average, that the economy accomplished "strong" GDP growth under Reagan. However, when it's put into context, it's not only not as strong as the economy averaged in the previous 45 years, it wasn't stronger than the decades immediately before and after Reagan. If I'm a brick carrier, and I carry 5000 bricks a day for thirty years, and then I get injured and can only carry 1000 bricks one day, and you replace me on the job the next day and carry 2000 bricks, you could claim that you "doubled" the number of bricks that I could carry. Unless you look at my average, and then see that your "doubling" accomplishment really wasn't all that you thought it was. We don't live in vacuums, presidents don't serve in vacuums, and we don't write about them in vacuums.

Great, then I think we need to emphisize both those points - Reagan's GDP growth was lower than than directly after WWII, but higher than the administrations before him, correct? I think we should say that somehow.

However, productivity gains during Reagan's two terms failed to match those in the decades before and after, and were significantly lower than those seen during the gains of the 1960s.

It seems like everything Reagan's doing now "fails to match" something that happened in another decade.

Well, no, but for some of the "accomplishments" that his followers like to tout, it's so.

While the rate of job growth was higher in the 1980s than even the 1990s, it was lower than in either the 1960s or the 1970s.

It's a little anoying and difficult reading about a comparison to another period of time every two sentences, so we can work on that.

Well, if there is a long long list of supposed Reagan accomplishments that appear virtually without context or challenge, and then a short list of "critics" later on, you get a POV article, which we don't want. Right?

Correct, but I think we should work on the wording of how all the comparisons should be written.

In addition, unemployment rates remained quite high throughout the 1980s: 5.2% in 1989, well above the 3.5% and 4.1% rates achieved at the end of the 1960s and 1990s booms. The economy in the 1980s improved purchasing power for median families, but were extremely modest compared to what the 1960s boom did for that representative family.

That totally contradicts another sentence, where it says unemployment decreased, and then there's more deriding comparisons to the 60s and 90s. It seems like it's saying "the 60s were great, the 70s were okay, the 80s were hard times that didnt match up to the 60s and 70s, and the 90s is where everything happened." ?!?!?!

Well. In preparation for answering you, I took a look at the numbers - and was surprised. See [2] and tell me about unemployment under Reagan. It was higher than under Carter almost every year of Reagan's term. Let's deal with this separately, because it will entail changing the claim that unemployment "decreased" under Reagan.

I just get the feeling that now that all of Reagan's acomplishments in the economic field (his policies definetly had their pitfalls, something we've already outlined) are now emblazened with negative remarks following them and negative comparisons to other decades.

First, there's a difference between a policy having pitfalls (and unintended consequences) and claims of accomplishments being incorrect. It would be incorrect to claim that under Reagan, defense spending decreased - that's just flat out wrong, right? It would also be incorrect (because of wiki policy) to claim that because defense spending increased under Reagan, the United States was "stronger." That's a vague, POV statement, right? Well, so is (I believe) even using the term "accomplishments" when describing a president's record. Instead, why not use "record"? It's an opinion that cutting taxes was an "accomplishment" (even if you're using it in a very narrowly-defined way, as in the legislative "accomplishment" of having passed the legislation; this is because other people didn't want the cuts, and so don't view them as an "accomplishment.").

True, the word accomplishments can be misleading, but I know from personal experience that the American people like it when taxes are lowered! "Record" would be a more neutral word though.

Second, here's another indication that there's POV at work (and really, I'm not criticizing or accusing, I'm trying to help): let's say for a moment that the data I added is in fact correct; that a certain data point was X under Reagan and Y under Clinton. I see that (as I wrote before) providing context, but I don't see it as "negative" for Reagan and "positive" for Clinton. (As a side note, many of your fellow conservatives refuse to give Clinton credit for the 90s boom, but give all the credit for anything they see as positive in the 80s to Reagan). You see it as "emblazoned with negative remarks", I think, because you view Reagan, and you want us to view him, positively. That's not appropriate here.

First off, I give President Clinton credit for the economic boom of the 90s. Second, I don't want anyone to view Reagan any way - you can despise him and hate him but that's your right to have those different opinons. I have my opinions, and although I happen to like Ronald Reagan, I'm not going to force anyone to like him. I want to work with you to come up with something that we can both agree on, and let bygones be bygones.

And let me ask you an honest question: if the data during the 1980s was far and above better - in terms of lower inflation, lower unemployment, higher and more sustained GDP growth, lower interest rates, higher wages, higher savings rate, lower deficits, lower national debt, lower credit card debt, etc. - than at any other time in American history - would you note that in the article? If yes, that means that you would "care about" those previous and later decades - but only because of the positivity that would accrue to your guy in relation to those who came before and since.

I would say yes, but I would make sure and note the negatives to everything also. I guess I have been somewhat POV, but let me say this: I think that a comparison in eariler decades is ok, but maybe in one sentence near the beginning or near the end; maybe something like this: Although Reagan's economic policies did this and this and this (etc.), they did not contribute to a greater economy as much as those of the 1960s did. Of couse that's very general (and worded a bit strangely), and you can come up with something of your own, but a comparison to another decade after every sentence is not necessary. Happyme22 20:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the points you mentioned can be argued with a source like this, but I don't really understand why they were added except to try and give a negative slant to the page (something I don't think you were trying to do, but that's what I get from it). You were trying to provide both sides - well, we have. Read the two paragraphs under the second one and you will see that there are nine (9) criticisms of Reagan and his policies. This section was not as POV as you think, but I think it's a little more now, and we need to reach a concensus on what was added. Best, Happyme22 16:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - that site that you mentioned is really completely opinion and no data. Granted, I rushed it yesterday, and my source wasn't so complete. But your article starts out with the premise that Reagan was great, liberalism was bad, Carter was horrible, and Reagan saved everything. The writer's entitled to that opinion as are you. Just not here. And certainly not as a source to back up your claims that the writer is correct. The only way we can avoid the POV is to either not discuss economic facts, or to only discuss economic facts - and remove opinion. If you don't want to include comparative data for context, then you'll have to remove opinion statements such as "Reagan focused on reviving the economy through his economic policies..." - that not only doesn't have a source, it isn't clear as to what "reviving" means. Plus, stating it without context suggests that he did just that; the record says otherwise - or is at least more complex than "Reagan revived the economy."

Also, it's fine, when discussing his policies to include critics of them; in fact, I think it's mandatory for balance. However, claiming that he accomplished something as a fact - and then inserting a comment about how some people don't think this was a good thing - inserts your opinion. Instead of worrying about how he sounds - positive or negative - let's start with what data we'll include as part of his record (what's relevant and what's not) (and only government statistics, not opinion journals from either side) and leave out the opinion as to whether or not this was good or bad, or whether they are "accomplishments." Is that a place we can start? Thanks, Info999 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Definetly - I'm looking deeper into the source and see that it is indeed biased - my apologies. I'm looking forward to working with you! Happyme22 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reagan's economic record (from the previous discussion)

Ok here we go: The Real Reagan Record

From our previous discussion, we said we were going to start with Ronald Reagan's real economic record. Here's what I think Reaganomics record consisted of (feel free to challenge):

• large income tax cuts see here or here
• somewhat small-moderate deregulation, although it could be argued this was started under Jimmy Carter
• lower inflation rates
• unemployment peaked at over 9.7% in 1982 the dropped for the rest of the Reagan years (see your source here)
• GDP grew at an anual rate of 3.5% per year, a rate greater than the 70s but not as great as 1994 and further, like you said (we can say this somehow) see here
• about 16 million new jobs
• a soaring national debt that trippled from the previous years
• large budget deficits from Cold War related defense spending

I'm going to say that those are the basics of Reaganomics. Please add comments/facts and we'll come up with something. Happyme22 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "Large tax cuts". Sources like "presidentreagan.info" or a report by House Republican members might not give us the full picture. Any reference to tax cuts should be qualified as "income tax cuts". Payroll taxes and excise taxes were actually increased during the Reagan Administration. The results were higher total federal effective tax rates on the lowest and 2nd income quintile (mainly on the lowest) and lower rates on the 3rd, 4th and highest quintile. As a percentage of income, those in the highest brackets saw the greatest gains. I think that these facts ("tax cuts" changed to "income tax cuts", mention of payroll and excise taxes and who the cuts were targeted towards) should be mentioned in this article.

Payroll tax rates per employer and employee:

1980 - 6.1%

1988 - 7.5%

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Table 1A - total federal effective tax rates

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5324&type=0&sequence=0

2. "Lower inflation rates". The intro to this article states 'Dubbed "Reaganomics," they consisted of large tax cuts and moderate deregulation, resulting in lower inflation'. Thus, it's attempting to attribute causation of the inflation drop to specific tax or deregulation policies. However, lower inflation is mostly attributed to aggressive monetary policy changes that began in late 1979.

"The success in reducing inflation was largely attributable to monetary policy resulting from actions of the Federal Reserve Board. In October 1979, the Federal Reserve modified its monetary policy by giving greater emphasis to holding the growth of monetary stock within target ranges and allowing interest rates to vary widely. In essence, the Federal Reserve began to target the quantity of money rather than its price. With the supply of money curtailed, interest rates rose sharply. "

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/08/art3exc.htm

After peaking in early 1980, inflation began a clear and sharp decline before Reagan's tax cuts or deregulation took effect.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2

Thus, the attribution of causation to tax cuts or deregulation should be removed.

3. GDP growth. Averaging the 1981 through 1988, I get 3.4% (rounded to the nearest tenth).

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

4. "*about 16 million new jobs" - Rounded to the nearest million, that's factually correct from 1980 to 1988. We also saw very stagnant job growth in the 4 years after that. We also saw about 11.5 million new jobs in just the 4 years prior. Stating "a net job increase of about 16 million" without attribution of causation is fine.

5. "*large budget deficits from Cold War related defense spending" - in addition to supply-side tax cuts. Both statements are debatable to some extent, though. Supply-siders believe that such tax cuts will bring back at least some of the revenue lost, although it generally doesn't come close to paying for itself. Similarly, spending, whether it's domestic or defense-related, is proven to generated some economic growth (and thus revenues) although again it's questionable how much is gained back and the resulting budget deficits from both tax cuts or spending can weigh down the economy in later years.

Gmb92 02:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Ok well I rewrote the second paragraph of the Reaganomics section. It now states:

"President Reagan's economic record is mixed, although his tenure marked a period of economic prosperity for most Americans. Income tax rates were lowered significantly, with the top personal tax bracket dropping from 70% to 28% in 7 years.^[2] Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during Reagan's eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year,^[3] slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%.^[4] Unemployment peaked at over 9.7% percent in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan's terms,^[5] and inflation significantly decreased.^[6] A net job increase of about 16 million occured under Reagan, with the rate of job growth higher than the economic boom of the 1990s, yet lower then that of the 1960s."

I removed many of the date/decade comparisons every two sentences and "clummped" them into the following sentence, which now ends the section: "Although under Ronald Reagan real GPD grew, government spending was partially cut, unemployment decreased and inflation was lowered, the American economy did not perform as well as that of the 1990s."

Do you like this? If there are still things missing/incorrect, please bring it up here. Best, Happyme22 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"The rate of job growth higher than the economic boom of the 1990s" is a little misleading, since the economic boom didn't really start until 1993. We saw about 19 million jobs in the 8 years following. I'd like to remove the attribution of tax cuts to inflation reduction in the opening section and incorporate the CBO link listing effective tax rates. I can take a crack at this sometime but I'd like to get other input. Others can comment on what was removed, although I think reducing the section's size is a good idea, especially since there is a separate article on Reaganomics.Gmb92 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Oh believe me - I've tried to reduce the size of the section many many times, but it is quite difficult if you don't want to leave anything out. The part I'm thinking of removing is the Don Regan quote, but I'm sure if I do, I'll just be called a conservative lier not going with NPOV. We can always add that quote in the Reaganomics section, though. What do you think?

As for the removing the misleading phrase that the lower taxes resulted in lower inflation in the lead: go ahead and do it, but I think we should replace it with something good that the lower taxes did result in, for we have something bad that the policies resulted in (national debt) right next to it. I'll leave that up to you. Happyme22 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I removed the taxation = lower inflation phrase in the lead. Happyme22 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been away - still am - and can't get into much right now; but the first sentence - I have to object. Whatever prosperity Reagan brought - still being debated - what is not in question is if it came to "most Americans." It certainly did not. Real wages declined under Reagan. The poverty rate increase 20% under Reagan. There are other specific data points that demonstrate that "most Americans" should not be included in this sentence. Info999 03:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Info999, if you're measuring real wages and poverty during Reagan's term (through 1988), then real median income (a measure of middle class prosperity) increased. [3]. Poverty also decreased slightly through 1988. [4]. However, the 4 years immediately following Reagan's term (largely seen as an extension of Reaganomics) saw real median income decrease substantially and poverty reaching 15%. Thus, the 20% gain in poverty applies from 1980 through 1992. Real median income still had a small net gain though. It's worth noting the expanding gap between rich and poor in this article (if not mentioned already). While the middle class did a little better overall and the poor worse, the wealthy benefited most from the deep supply-side tax cuts, as the CBO link on effective tax rates above shows.Gmb92 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Happyme22, I actually think the Don Regan quote applies more aptly to this Reagan article since it deals specifically with Ronald Reagan the person as opposed to a policy. The argument for removing it would be that's it's probably not at the top of the priority list if space is a concern but such quotes by his former Treasury Secretary are very significant. Saving space could be done by sticking with bare bones factual statements with regards to the numbers. For instance, we could note 16 million jobs without comparing to any other decades nor attributing it or implying attribution to any policies. So what did lower income taxes result in? They directly put more money in the pockets of the top 3 income quintiles but as noted earlier, payroll and excise tax increases ended up resulting in higher effective tax rates for the lower 2 quintiles. Supply-side economists believe it signficantly contributed to economic growth, as we've seen through the various cato/heritage pieces but it would be PoV to state that as fact without adding some sort of "supply-side economists believe..." qualifier.Gmb92 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Ok so the Don Regan quote can stay. I also agree with you - we do not have to compare the net job growth to another decade in that sentence, for I have generalized all the decade comparisons in one sentence in the last paragraph of the section. I will remove it. Happyme22 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the information on payroll taxes and effective tax rates discussed here and in discussion thread 8. I noticed a few changes since I last checked. Although there are no direct statements attributing causation of the inflation decrease to economic policies, it's heavily implied and claimed in links to opinion pieces from cato/heritage.Gmb92 05:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

this article will never be valid or legitimate

it is obviously impossible for the wiki community to write an article with a neutral point of view. even sourced, factual, relevent information is written out by those who dislike it...

For articles on politics or politicians, you may be right. Those with strong political views and opinions on various sides will be tugging in each direction. One way to ease this tension is to avoid .orgs like heritage, cato or faireconomy and focus on brief factual and easily verifiable information. This article is nowhere close to that yet.Gmb92 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

unsourced information

although the following has a footnote, the footnote only reads ^Morris (1999), p. 113 and there is no other reference that it points to. i am inclined to remove it is not properly noted:

In 1983, and again in 1984, Reagan told prominent Israelis and American Jews — notably Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel, Simon Wiesenthal, and Rabbi Martin Hier of Los Angeles — of his personal experience vis-à-vis the Holocaust, saying "I was there" and that that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of Nazi death camps; in fact, he was in a film unit in Hollywood that processed raw footage it received from Europe for newsreels, but Reagan was not in Europe itself during the war.[85]

this information is not to be believed - reagan was already in office for 2 full years as of this time, and his backgroud was well-documented. to think that he would actually try to hoodwink these guys into believe the above supposed-quote is incredulous. it would be like saying:

during their commencement address, reagan told navy midshipmen "I was there during the first moon landing; I walked on the moon"

Your argument is unpersuasive. First, your analogy is not valid, as Reagan has a well-documented history of either lying straight out or simply being confused about events in his life, and this is only one of them. Second, here is an account of him making the statement (and the WH trying to deny it) from the NY Review of Books [5], one of many that can be used as a source. Info999 04:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the "References" section - You will see a book by Edmund Morris called Dutch from 1999. That's the book. 68.96.76.118 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for pointing me to the source... but i still have a couple problems with this... 1) "dutch" is a largely fictional book, including fictional characters, etc. (see the wiki entry for it) and, as such, is not a reliable source 2) the reference from the ny review of books does not suggest that reagan made the claim to have "assisted personally at the liberation of Nazi death camps"

either a new, credible source needs to be found for the material or the material needs to be revamped to dovetail with the ny review of books' version of events, and then that needs to become the source

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

perhaps the information does belong in the article... however, if it's true, there must be a source other than dutch that tells of reagan actually saying the he "assisted personally at the liberation of nazi death camps"... otherwise use the ny review of books version of events and site that... it's a credible source and tells a much more plausible story and includes the white house's denial, all of which make for a fairer entry--71.156.166.51 20:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

perhaps their are plenty of other sources... my point is that the information in the article (specifically "assisted personally at the liberation of nazi death camps") needs a credible source, and it doesn't have one; without the credible source, it needs to come down (and i suggest replaced with information from ny review of books).--71.156.166.51 00:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

i just looked for the source of the line "assisted personally at the liberation of nazi death camps". it was plagerized ver batim from slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/, which is about an unbiased a source as rush limbaugh or al franken--71.156.166.51 01:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

since no one has replied in the contrary, i will remove the plagerized slate material and replace it with the ny review of books version at my earliest convenience.--71.156.166.51 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has a clear Right Wing bias

There is a clear right wing slant in this article, particularly in the section titled: Legacy. Although this section does an excellent job of displaying his accolades and how he is well remembered as a great president, it does little or nothing to share criticism of the man. I do not deny the fact that many Americans consider him to have been one of our greatest presidents, but we should also consider that many believe him to be the worst in history. In the next few days I will edit this section to include some of these oppinions. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter? Notecardforfree 06:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do make changes, please keep in mind Wikipedia NPOV Undue Weight. People who believe that Reagan was the worst President in history are a very small fringe minority.--Paul 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way would be to split off the criticisms, and make that into a separate subsection. I'll give it a try.Ferrylodge 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoah whoah whoah it was recommended in a failed FA candidacy for Ronald Reagan not to have a criticism section anywhere. The comment said the following: "Per Jimbo, criticism sections should be avoided, and balanced into the overall text." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ronald_Reagan/archive3). There are plently of critical statements thorughout the article, and in the Legacy section, such as:

• his economic policies caused huge budget deficits
• tripled the United States national debt
• it could be argued that the policies caused hostility towards the disadvantaged
• that the internal disintegration of the Soviet Union

There are four main critical statements. There are three main successes that can be attributed to Reagan. How is this showing POV? Everything in the"Honors" section is true, so let's not go there. But again, POV?!?!?! Happyme22 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I didn't know about that recommendation. No separate criticism section then.Ferrylodge 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the sound of this. Instead of simply adding criticism and instigating a near-certain edit war, it would be better to present the proposed changes here first and open them to discussion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I reversed recent vandalism inserted into the article by anonymous users. Jpetersen46321 19:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC) This is becoming a problem, and I propose the following:

1) Editors attempting to correct what they view as "Right Wing bias" identify themselves and their edits.

2) Submit proposed edits to the discussion page for review and consensus building. Should a consensus arise as to the proposed edit, then it should be included.

New article

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

Good article pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Chupper 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

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

The Conservatives have highjacked this article

It paints too positive a picture of Reagan when his administration was anything but. I know repubs worship this man but he was a horrible failure.

You might want to review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The purpose of the article is not to paint a positive or negative picture; it is just to assert verifiable information about him. If you feel you can bring it closer to that goal, do so. Leebo ^T/C 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I've restored the longer lead for two reasons. One, I don't see a conflict with WP:LEDE - such a long article can have a longer lead. Two, the lead "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article", and I believe it does so only in this variant. The reader should know, at a glance, something of what he did in 8 years as California Governor. Furthermore, the 1980 election was crucial (almost a realigning election), and a truly basic question about Reagan (or any other elected President) is: why was he elected? In the stripped-down version, we are told nothing. Here, we get a concise overview of that. Carter-Reagan was a huge affair; let's not bury it deep within the piece. Biruitorul 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen we've had very long debates about the lead in the past. The lead is supposed to be short, concise, and sum up the article - The current one does not do that. The purpose of the lead is to encourage readers to read the article - not give them all the info there like this one is doing (just like WP:LEAD says). The old version of the lead did that; this one doesn't. You say, "Furthermore, the 1980 election was crucial (almost a realigning election), and a truly basic question about Reagan (or any other elected President) is: why was he elected? In the stripped-down version, we are told nothing. Here, we get a concise overview of that. Carter-Reagan was a huge affair; let's not bury it deep within the piece." - If we generalize it, readers will be encouraged to read the longer section about the 1980 election, therefore all the long details are not nessecary in the lead. The current one is maxed-out in size (way to long), it will not pass an FA candidacy like this (something it is up for now), and the old one was easier to read. It featured more neutral writing as well. Again, it was less detailed because readers are supposed to actually read the article find out what was spoken about in the lead. Take a look at some of the past discussion archives, as well as WP:LEAD, and you will see what I am talking about. Happyme22 01:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree: a lead that is short, concise and sums up the article, in Reagan's case, needs to be proportionately as long as the article, and "your" lead fails to offer a clear-enough explanation for some key facts in his life. I certainly don't propose "giving [readers] all the info there" - just the most basic facts that "my" lead contains. We need to strike a balance between facility of reading and scholarliness, and "my" lead does that while "yours" goes too far in the former direction, leaving the reader in the dark about issues that deserve to be spelled out from the beginning. I'm certainly open to addressing perceived POV issues, but the main point is that a good lead to a Reagan article goes beyond mere mention of his CA Governor service and especially of the 1980 election.

Also, may I ask what is the problem with mentioning Reagan's coattails gaining the Senate for the GOP? That's sourced to at least two locations: p. 44 of David B. Magleby's Outside Money: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 1998 Congressional Elections ("Holding on to Ronald Reagan's coattails, Republicans picked up twelve U.S. Senate seats in 1980 and regained the majority...") and p. 87 of John Karaagac's Between Promise and Policy: Ronald Reagan and Conservative Reformism ("Riding Reagan's coattails. Republicans won control of the Senate in 1980..."). Biruitorul 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I respect you, and I want to work with you, not against you, but we disagree here. I am going to go through "your" lead line by line:

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Reagan was born in Illinois, but moved to Hollywood in the 1930s, where he starred in numerous "B" movies and became President of the Screen Actors Guild. [too many details - born in Ill. should stay, as well as his moving to California; the "B" movies isn't needed because it's mentioned in the actual section; SAG should stay] He was a prominent Democrat who supported the New Deal Coalition in the 1940s, and was a leading opponent of Communism in Hollywood. [the New Deal Dem should stay like I have it, and actually saying that he was opposed to Communism is ok - feel free to add that in] Reagan moved to the right in the early 1960s; he became a Republican in 1962 and supported Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. [Goldwater doesn't have to be mentioned because he is mentioned later in the text; like I did, we should say that he went from Dem to Repub in one sentence] After Goldwater's defeat many conservatives supported Reagan, who, after delivering his famous "Time for Choosing" speech, was persuaded to seek the California Governorship. [too detailed - get rid of the after Goldwater's defeat, because it's mentioned later] He defeated the liberal governor of California in 1966; Reagan was re-elected in 1970 after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators tring to shut the university. [ok you can mention a bit about his Governorship but "the liberal Pat Brown" doesn't have to be there] Defeated for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976, he easily won the nomination in 1980. [easily won is POV] Incumbent President Jimmy Carter attacked Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war, but Reagan won a landslide victory in the 1980 election by denouncing what he called Carter's failures: runaway inflation, soaring interest rates, persistent unemployment, a series of humilations abroad, and a weakened military in the face of growing Soviet power. [I would recommend slightly modifying this sentence and actuall putting in the 1980 campaign section - it's generalized.] His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House. [already said, doesn't need to be said again]

There you go, feel free to take those suggestions, but don't go into so much detail. Best, Happyme22 02:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues with last paragraph in Reaganomics section

Some of this has been mentioned in other threads.

"It can be argued that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy, however there is some speculation about deficits from Reaganomics being a contributory factor to the economic recession of 1990 – 1991,[67] and being the reason that Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reneged on a campaign promise and raised taxes. Although under Ronald Reagan real GDP grew, government spending was partially cut, unemployment decreased and inflation was lowered, the American economy in the 1980s did not perform as well as that of the 1990s, but Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman wrote that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s." Similarly, fellow Nobel Prize winning economist Robert A. Mundell wrote that the tax cuts "made the U.S. economy the motor for the world economy in the 1990s, on which the great revolution in information technology was able to feed."[68]"

1. The source for "some speculation about deficits" is an article entitled "Taxing our way to prosperity: The Democrats' strange version of fiscal responsibility" from mormon.org. A less partisan and more objective source for these deficits slowing economic growth is [[6]]. Also, it's more than "some speculation". Why not "many economists believe" or something less POV? Also, it's a fact that Bush Sr. raised taxes as a direct response to high deficits. Why else would he raise them?

2. Government spending wasn't "partially cut" overall. Domestic spending was but it was more than offset by large increases in military spending.

3. The final 2 quotes from Friedman and Mundell are being selectively pulled from the Business Week link. The paragraph following that is:

Other economists, however, are far less willing to give Reagan credit for the boom. They argue that the big deficits generated by the drop in tax revenues were detrimental to business investment; had the red ink continued, it would have been much harder for companies to fund their spending on info tech in the 1990s. Instead, these economists believe far greater kudos go to President Bill Clinton for raising taxes and bringing down the budget deficit. "As for Reagan being responsible [for the 1990s boom], that's far-fetched," says another Nobel prize winner, Robert Solow of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "What we got in the Reagan years was a deep recession and then half a dozen years of fine growth as we climbed out of the recession, but nothing beyond that."

Thus, shouldn't these arguments be incorporated as well if we are to include the first one?

4. Grammatically, the paragraph doesn't read to well (run-on sentences).Gmb92 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)