Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 9

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 8

Archive 9

Archive 10 →

Contents 1 A nice clean discussion of the lead 2 A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break 3 A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break 2 3.1 A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break 3 4 Iran-Contra question 5 Removed info 6 Reaganomics 6.1 Supposedly 7 Parliament Speech 8 Similarities between this article and the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article 9 Reagan popularity issue 10 First Try at Rewriting a Section That Already Has a Wiki Article 10.1 Why dont we focus on this? 11 Alzheimer's while president?

A nice clean discussion of the lead

So, um. What's wrong with this edit? Let's just make this clean and to the point. Cowman109^Talk 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And put discussions of WP:CONSENSUS aside, as consensus can change. Cowman109^Talk 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of starting conversation, here's a quote from User:Arcayne above as an example:

"...the statements do not follow WP:LEAD in that they do not give an appropriate overview of the article, and instead hyper-focus on matters of policy that were utilized during 8 years of the man's 90+ year-long life. As well, musch of the substance of his edit have already been incorporated in the body of the article, where it belongs..." - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So... any other comments? Cowman109^Talk 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe does anyone agree with the edit? Cowman109^Talk 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. Before that edit, it said that his platform contrasted with that of the Democrats, but didn't give any clue as to in what way. What he advocated so much were these things, in his campaign and in office. This was revolutionary rhetoric for the time. Advocacy of small government was against the big government, high taxes acceptance of the mainstream and that's something that was revolutionary and critically important in any summary about Reagan. It's a sharp departure from the status quo in politicians of the time. It's one of the main things Reagan was known for. I don't any reason why that wouldn't be considered essential enough to be there. I don't find Arcayne's objection convincing at all. Operation Spooner 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have frankly been stunned if you had, Spoon, I have only been reinventing the wheel every single time for you, in explaining it. LOL.

Briefly setting aside the fact that Spoon's self-written edit fails to follow LEAD, it is written in partisan puff-piece language. Spoon admits his preference on his own Talk page. Partisan views are to be avoided in arguemtns, as per neutrality. Cme one, Reagan's policies weren't at all revolutionary and they weren't widely accepted, They are Republican precepts, existent since well before Reagan even jumped ship fromthe Democrats to join the Republican Party, and the polices he came to espouse were in no way a "sharp departure" from others of his time. He was just more successful at getting his way than his party fellows were. He was called the Great Communicatoor for a reason. Should his limited accomplishments be omitted? Not at all. They belong in the body of the piece. They must be explained in the body of the piece before we can even consider adding them to the Lead...as a summarized item. Perhaps reading WP:LEAD would lend a hand here; its only been suggested what, four different times before?

This isn't rocket science. This isn't even mildly difficult. The Lead summarizes the article. It does not present new information to the article. It doesn't introduce information which requires reliable citation (which of course either doesn't exist or can be countered by citable arguments opposing the view). The current edit addresses the fact that some of these polices met with limited success, which is an accurate summarization of the article as it currently exists. As I see it, Spoon is defending the LEad he wrote, and I am defending the article. Part of the Lead is mine, but it is also the work of other editors. The operative part of that was the it was a collaborative effort. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see anything convincing there. To say in the introduction that "Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats," without giving any kind of clue what that platform was is negligent and sloppy. Operation Spooner 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead is a summary. It is not going to explain everything about Reagan; its purpose is to give a condensed version of the material in the rest of the article. There is only a cursory mentioning of Reagan's "advocating less government regulation of the economy" and "speaking against the welfare state" and therefore it should not be included in the lead.--Rise Above The Vile 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree with Spooner that it is irresponsible to have a sentence stating that without offering more information. Despite the lead being a summary of the article, it's at a length right now that a little more information wouldn't make it obscenely long. But aside from that, someone who has no idea what "Republican" and "Democrat" mean can't read the lead (or the entire article really) and figure out why Reagan's policies were critical to the Republican Party. But I don't necessarily think any more info is needed in the lead, per se. How about just making "Republican Party's platform" a link to the U.S. Republican Party, and the "Democrats" a link to the U.S. Democratic Party? Then if someone would like to know the policies that Reagan did and did not represent, he could just lick on the link...My other suggestion would be to expand the "cursory mentioning" of Reagan's avocations within the body of the article. Stanselmdoc 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think there is not enough information in the body of the article about what Reagan advocated economically to justify noting it in the introduction, that can easily be remedied. I'll start working on a thorough paragraph that discusses that. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I did not support the Featured Article thing for this article. This article is not very good overall, in my opinion. Operation Spooner 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The information that Spooner wants in the article is in the article. That's a fact. Spooner wants it in the lead, where the majority of the editors who have shown up - who happen to be the ones who have made the majority of the edits to the article - do not agree it belongs, and neither does wiki policy. Reaganomics is certainly warranted, and it's already in the article. The lead isn't the place for an explanation of Reagaonomics (though a mention is warranted, which is why it's there), any more than an explanation of SDI belongs, or deficit spending, or his adventures in Central America - each at least as important - more important, I would argue - than what Reagan thought about taxes. However, they all belong in the article, not the lead. On a side, but no less important, note, I'm having a hard time going through this exercise - for what, the third time? - when countless admins on Spooner's talk page have clearly explained that he is incorrect and that he is doing something that will get him blocked. We have made our cases, and yet Spooner refuses to accept them. The admins have made their cases, and Spooner refuses to accept them, and asks where in the rules say he's wrong. The admins have shown him where exactly in the rules it says he's wrong, and Spooner refuses to acknowledge what is written in plain English on the screen. I was all for carrying this through, to help Spooner "get it" andd reinforce our acceptance of wiki policies. This is now past the point of absurd. I hope he stops, and comes back to the fold, but if he doesn't, and doesn't get blocked as a consequence, then this becomes absolutely pointless. Info999 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Try sticking to the subject instead of taking us off in a tangent about policies and demonization of me. Operation Spooner 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not putting in an explanation of Reaganomics. Reaganomics are the economic policies that were put in place. I'm putting in Reagan's rhetoric, i.e. his advocacy of small government, low taxes, reduction of the welfare state, and less regultion of the economy. This rhetoric is one of the major things he was known for. Operation Spooner 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It says in the introduction "He portrayed the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and publicly supported anti-Communist movements worldwide." So, why ignore the other half of his rhetoric, i. e., his economic rhetoric? He publicly condemned high taxes, welfare statism, and government intervention in economies through regulation. He was not only anti-communism but also pro-laissez-faire. Only saying he opposed communism is just one half of the picture. Operation Spooner 02:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spooner, the information you are wanting in the lead is true; very true in fact. Maybe, just maybe, Spooner has a point. He says "He was not only anti-communism but also pro-laissez-faire. Only saying he opposed communism is just one half of the picture."--I think we can work with this. The arguing isn't getting us anywhere, so maybe we can work with him, because he does make a good point in saying that being anti-commuinist was only half the picture. Now, the entire statement about Reagan's beliefs is definetly a no-no in the lead, but it can probably be summarized or the most important part can be chosen...I don't know. My point is that it's a fact arguing isn't getting us anywhere, and thanks to these admins if we ever want to edit Ronald Reagan again we're going to have to compromise. Spooner, what is the most important part of his philisophy that you would want to put in the lead? Maybe, just maybe, we can compromise and come to something. Spooner, Info, Arcayne...I don't really see that we can do much else. Best, Happyme22 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we are spending too much time on one user's edits. Frankly, if three experienced admins cannot make a dent in Spoon's attitudes, I doubt we can - rather the source of my trepidation here. At least he seems to be getting the point that info in the Lead reflects the body of the article, and I guess that's something.

I guess I question how the things that Spoon is saying Reagan espoused is different from most Republicans. I don't see much of a difference between what he espoused and what any other Republican shortly before or since have considered to be platform policies. I think if the focus is on the rhetoric, then focus on how it was specifically crafted. It's pretty much an accurate statement to note that the personal edit that Spoon kept adding (and adding) was incorporated into the article already (sans the over-the-top hero-worship-y stuff).

Be advised that rhetoric is not immediately encyclopedic. Things like, "Mr Gorbachave, tear down this wall!" is a good example of his skills as a communicator. and inclusive as well as noteworthy. i know that isn't what Spoon was talking about, but understand that trying to add the 'drink-the koolaid' true believer stuff is probably going to end badly. As well, I would advise Spoon to think verycarefully before prematurely changing the Lead until the body material he wants to enter is cool with the majority of us. It's an FA article; the less back and forth edit-warring, the better. I would go so far as to suggest we deal with the edits here in the Discussion page, considering how interaction between Spoon and the rest of the world have gone in the past.

So long as Spoon understands that he will be the one working with us. It isn't the Spooner Show, its a community effort. I feel the need to point this out to Spoon, to make sure this is crystal clear. I am not going to tolerate another month-long slo-mo edit war. I'm just saying this because there is some AGF which is going to have to be earned here. Let us proceed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne that the AGF is missing and needs to be earned; it won't be earned by us "giving in" and rewarding Spooner for his bad behavior (which it is, and has been confirmed by more than a few admins). Further, not one of Reagan's immediate predecessor/successor article leads contains fine-grained details about their political philosophy or "rhetoric" (an ironic choice of words, as the record shows it was little more than that). Spooner has a point, but he made it inadvertently: from the standards that have been set for other presidents, there is far too much information in the lead, which would mean cutting it down, not expanding it and making it worse. As long as each important item is clearly, fairly and adequately covered in the body, the only - only - objection for taking them out of the lead can be for partisan reasons. Each one of these is crisp, to the point, non-partisan (and, sadly for the POVers, not gushing or sweeping). Note that while the Carter lead mentions his moral standards, it doesn't quote "rhetoric" nor does it give specific examples (Afghanistan, Olympics, etc.).

From Jimmy Carter:

"Carter's presidency saw the United States crippled by stagflation, suffer massive fuel shortages, and struggle through several major crises. His administration also saw the creation of two cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He established a national energy policy, removed price controls from domestic petroleum production, and advocated for less American reliance on foreign oil sources. He bolstered the Social Security system by introducing a staggered increase in the payroll tax. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Carter advocated a policy that held other countries to the highest moral standard possible, a standard by which, he believed, Americans would want themselves to be judged. The final year of his term was dominated by the Iran hostage crisis, during which the United States struggled to rescue diplomats and American citizens held hostage in Tehran. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter for the Democratic Party nomination in 1980, which Carter won, but lost the election to Republican Ronald Reagan."

This is the entire lead from the GHW Bush article. It does not even mention the Persian Gulf War, "read my lips" etc...because while important, they do not belong in the lead.

From George H.W. Bush:

"George Herbert Walker Bush (born June 12, 1924) was the forty-first President of the United States, serving from 1989 to 1993. Before his presidency, Bush was the forty-third Vice President of the United States in the administration of Ronald Reagan. He has also served as the member of the United States House of Representatives for the 7th district of Texas (1967–1971), the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974), Chief of the United States Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (1974–1976), and Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977).

"Bush is the son of Prescott Bush, who served in the United States Senate from 1953 to 1963, and Dorothy Walker Bush. He is the father of George W. Bush, the 43rd and current President of the United States, and Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida.

"Upon the passing of Gerald Ford in 2006, Bush became the oldest living United States president"

In the Clinton article, there is a mention of Third Way and New Democrat, but - gosh! - it doesn't explain what those are! What is to be done? Well, um, read the rest of the article, where that stuff belongs.

From Bill Clinton:

"William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III[1] on August 19, 1946) was the forty-second President of the United States, serving from 1993 to 2001. Before his presidency, Clinton served nearly twelve years as the 50th and 52nd Governor of Arkansas. He was the third-youngest person to serve as president, behind Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, and is known as the first baby boomer president. Clinton is considered to have served during the American transition from the political order of the Cold War.[2] Clinton was a New Democrat politician and was mainly responsible for the Third Way philosophy of governance that came to epitomize his two terms as president."

The argument has been won on its merits, and on the basis of wikipedia policies. I vote not to reward bad behavior. Info999 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to me to be able to actually see various versions, side by side, if such a thing is possible. I could copy to Word and study them. Brian Pearson 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why we can't just wikilink the words "Republican" and "Democrat" in the sentence in question to the U.S. parties they pertain to. That way, anyone wondering what they represent would be led in the right direction, without adding anything to the lead. Because I would prefer to see the lead not expanded, but reading the rest of the article does NOT help someone who is clueless to what the parties represent. Or better yet, why not wikilink the word "Reagan" or change it to read the words "Reagan's presidency" and wikilink it to Presidency of Ronald Reagan? I know that there's a link in the article directing to that page, but the lead of that article is exactly what Spooner wants to see in this article. Is there SUCH a problem with doing this? Stanselmdoc 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, Stanselmdoc, because it not only solves the issue, and does it in a wiki way (split into more than one article), but it will allow us to remove the rest of the items from the lead that inordinately discuss his presidency, which was only a part of a larger, long life. If we can pare the lead down as a result, I would support this compromise. And thanks for showing me that the other article even exists already! Info999 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am only suggesting the link for this sentence. The length of the lead is fine, and I do not think anything needs to be "pared" off just because it is mentioned in the secondary article. Again, I would like to reiterate that the length of the lead, IMO, is fine. Reagan's lead sits at 287 words, according to my Word doc. Just look at the length of some other recent Presidents' leads: FDR (492 words), Theodore Roosevelt (548 words), Lyndon Johnson (188 words), John F. Kennedy (395 words), Nixon (203 words), Jimmy Carter (288 words), Gerald Ford (232 words), Bill Clinton (372 words). Even presidential candidates have large leads: Hillary Clinton (344 words), Barak Obama (283 words), Giuliani (269 words). I think that Reagan's lead sits pretty much as average, and sometimes things are better left alone. The lead looks good as it is. Stanselmdoc 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with simply putting a link the Republican. I think too many here are giving in to what I see as bullying from Arcayne and Info999. I standing up against it. There is no reason at all to not include a note that Reagan wanted lower taxes, less regulation, and less welfare in the introduction. It's true. He's famous for it. And, it's not as if it takes a lot of space to mention. Operation Spooner 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with you, Spooner, that it sometimes seems like Arcayne and Info999 are "bullying". I was worried even to start discussion on this page because of what I felt was their attitude toward editors who would disagree with them. However, I have found both of them (for the most part) to be solely interested in keeping NPOV on this page. Do I disagree with their politics? Um...on pretty much everything haha. But the way to make changes or to defend the article is not to engage in edit warring. The way to change or defend is to discuss the issue, and do it well. I understand your argument here, and I agree with it, but when the issue can be resolved with compromise (and an NPOV compromise at that), I don't see a problem with it. Stanselmdoc 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioning anything at all about it in the intro is too much of a compromise. I initially put a much longer and more informative statement in the introduction, which you can see here: [1]. I had comprised earlier due to objections from Arcayne by cutting it down to just the essentials of taxes, regulation, and welfare. It's not me that has been refusing to compromise. It's Arcayne and Info999. These claims we've been seeing that I've been refusing to discuss things on this page and compromise are totally false. Operation Spooner 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I had not even commented on your edits at the time of your link that you provided (my first one being 10 hours later). However, I have less patience that the other admins, so i am simply going to ignore your little railing "at the unfairness of it all", and only correct you when it affects the article, or when you are simply incorrect. You are going to self-destruct without my help, so I am just going to stay far enough away to avoid getting spattered with goo. Enough said on that particular subject. The onlyu edit-warring that has really occurred in this article within recent memory is the OCD inclusion of a single statement and the Kitty Kelley allegations. I take a bit of pride that we hjave been able to write a fairly neutral article on as controversial a figure as Reagan. It means that the vigilance is paying off.

I think that Stans' idea of wikilinking Republican and Democrat is ideal. Reagan didn't espouse anything that any other Republican didn't say earlier or since. His political views were not and are not unique. His ability to communicate them was extraordinary. That is what should be covered in the article, not fawning over policy. I didn't even know there was an article specifically dealing with his presidency. It seems well-written, and both Happy and Spoon have worked on it. It seems relatively unnecessary to go into excessive detail about the minutae of his presidency when the brevity of providing a wikilink that does precisely that is available for viewing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think that wikilinking Republican and Democrat is a good idea. And, there is a section on the Republican Party (United States) page entitled "The Reagan Era"... why not add the info about his philosophy there? If it pertains to more than one Republican (which it assuredly does) why not put it higher up in the page; maybe with the beliefs, or even in the lead? Also put it in Presidency of Ronald Reagan... the info is already in the body of this article, so I think that's the best thing to do, then we can wikilink Republican and Democrat if users want to read more. Happyme22 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have wondered at about the stubbornness of the lead issue. My opinion is that there are a few things listed, which to me are analogous to bullet points, which can be expanded on in the body of the article. I see no reason for friction over this. Brian Pearson 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either why there's friction over including mention that Reagan advocated low taxes, deregulation, and less welfare. Arcayne seems to be arguing that since it's not an unusual position today that it shouldn't be mentioned. Unusual or not, that was his position and it's one of the major things he was known for. Operation Spooner 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe every article about any man who's been President of the United States should say what he advocated, all the way back to Washington. We can see to it that all are treated in the same manner. Partisanship, if that is a problem, should not enter into it. Brian Pearson 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break

As the information about his stances followed that of the Republican Party, we can say that how was a close follower of RP platform. I mean, there is an article that discusses his preseidency, and there is the intention to link it within the article. And I know you don't understand it - its why you added the same statement you wrote over and over again. Try harder to understand, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Party platforms are going to change as the decades go by. Democrats use to be conservatives, for example. Brian Pearson 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did, over a hundred years ago, It hasn't changed that much in the last 35-40 years. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that. This is also not a partisan issue - I'm a Republican! You spoke above, Brian Pearson, about it being essential that every presidential article have that presidents beliefs and what he advocated in the article; this one is no different and does have statements about Reagan's belief and values including the one Spooner wants to put in the lead. Concensus says that the lead is not the correct place for it. I still go for adding the philosphy to the page Republican Party (United States) and Presidency of Ronald Reagan and wikilinking those articles in the lead - the material and his philosphy are already in the Governor section! If we ever want to get this resolved and edit Ronald Reagan (a featured article) again than this debate has to end! Happyme22 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus says no such thing. Even if it did, it would not matter, because consensus is always changing. And, you're asking him to tailor his views to align with the "consensus" simply because it is the "consensus?" That makes no sense whatsoever. Operation Spooner 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, talk about doing "no such thing"... Please don't put words into my mouth, because I didn't tell him anywhere to "join a concensus." And I'm going to ignore your little comment about concensus, because you have distored the meaning of the word soooo far that I think Jimbo Wales would be confused reading this. Anyway, I see that you are not going to give on this (even though a not-changing for now concensus has been established), so in order to end this war and preserve Ronald Reagan's featured status, I for one am willing to compromise with you. Can I ask you what the most important part (try to sum it up in a sentence) of Reagan's philosphy is? We know he advocated lower taxes, that people should keep most of what they earned, etc. - as a Republican, I believe that too. Can you sum up his philosphy in one sentence or choose the most important part? I have to say, you made a good point when you said that being against communism was only half.... get back to me on this page ASAP and we might be able to work something out. Happyme22 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You and I already debate on this point and I compromised for you. My original statement was this: [2] We narrowed it down to this [3] and you were fine with it. Now you change your mind because Arcayne says he doesn't want the statement there, and you're afraid that that conflict will remove Featured Article. But, there is conflict either way, because I'm here. So, you want something that satisfied he and I both. Arcayne wants no mention at all. The statement is just a few words. How much more can I compromise? I don't think much more, without removing the whole concept of the statement. Maybe you can make a suggestion. Operation Spooner 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well how about something like this:

"Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy and arguing people should keep most of what they earned,^[1]but it is arguable to what extent this vision was achieved while in office. After surviving an assassination attempt during his first term, enacting economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics," and ordering a military operation in Grenada, Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair."

Again, Spooner made a good point when he said being against communist is only half of it. I think less govt. and lower taxes (keeping most of what they earned) sum up the longer sentence Spooner wanted. What about something like this? Editors? I think this is the best it's going to get, Spooner, and again, you can add the "full version" to Presidency of Ronald Reagan and Republican Party (United States). This is a compromise - any thoughts from editors? I truly and honestly think this is the best we're going to get, for Spooner isn't going to budge and the full content is a no-no so please comment on this and, hopefully, we can end this damn edit war. Happyme22 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this:

A champion of entrepreneurship, Reagan advocated less government regulation of the economy, spoke against the welfare state, and argued that people should keep most of what they earned. The economic policies enacted during his presidency were dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt during his first term and ordering a military operation in Grenada, Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. Brian Pearson 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would actully characterize that as being too POV, especially for the lead (i.e. the "champion of entrepreneurship" part), and delves into too many unnecessary details. I think the version I wrote was better gramatically and flowed easier, plus it sums up what Spooner wanted and keeps everything else everyone else wanted, the words "Democrat" and "Republican" are wikilinked; I think the other flows better. Happyme22 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was taught to try to use fewer 'ing' words, myself. It seems more dynamic. I was only thinking about the second paragraph, so I wasn't worried about Republican and Democrat not being wikilinked. Brian Pearson 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it could be made to flow a bit better -- maybe the entrepreneurship thing could be refined. Brian Pearson 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As champion of the free market and entrepreneurship, Reagan advocated less government regulation of the economy, spoke against the welfare state, and argued that people should keep most of what they earned. The economic policies enacted during his presidency were dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt during his first term and ordering a military operation in Grenada, Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. Still POV? Better flow?Brian Pearson 05:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It flows better, but I think the "champion on entrepreneurship" thing is slightly POV and consists of weasel words, and I'm a Republican! I think it includes too much that's not summarized. Then there's the stand-alone sentence of Reaganomics which is odd. And the "arguable to what extent" sentence, which added the other side, was removed. Plus, this is supposed to be a compromise with Spooner; he doesn't get all he wants and we don't get all we want, so we agreed to summarize it, something I thought I did well... I like your effort, but I think the one I wrote better summarizes all Spooner wanted and puts it in context of what the Republicans believe by stating that he helped define the party. If we were to add all that into your version it would be too long for a lead. Great effort, though, and kudos for trying. Best, Happyme22 05:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would change the 'stand alone' sentence to: The economic policies he enacted were dubbed "Reaganomics." I don't understand why those words would be 'weasel words'. I imagine that's how he would've said it. Well, it's already tomorrow, so I'll see ya'll later today. Brian Pearson 05:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't see how anyone could call that POV. And it's indisputably true and referencable by many sources. Operation Spooner 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict 2x (outdent) If a single stubborn editor refuses to avoid the consensus of the group, I am certainly not going to give them any rhythm, offering to placate them - WP is not about that. As Info or Hap said, you don't reward bad behavior. If they cannot work with a group, they will be blocked or banned. Articles are written by people working together, not the group working to placate one editor too who refuses to play well with others. You don't compromise with someone who chooses not to grasp the meaning of the word.

Now, on to something interesting and that actually matters. Looking at the alternate Lead paragraphs, I am uncomfortable with the first sentence of the suggested leads:

"Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy and arguing people should keep most of what they earned"

First of all, it is incorrect to paint Democrats as people who are arguing that people should keep less of what they earn. It is irresponsible to suggest such; it is thinking like that which ushers in partisan, pov-editing, much like the liberal left who paint him as an enemy of gays and the poor. Any responsible political historian will point out that Reagan's economic policies generally assisted the wealthy to hold on to their wealth, whereas middle and lower-income folk receive little in the way of tax incentives - they didn't actually get to keep more of what they earned.

As well, he may have advocated a smaller government, but in practice, it actually increased significantly during his terms in office. I agree with both Brian and Happy that the structure of the econd sentences do not really flow all that well, and the statements seems squooshed together. This is a slightly expanded edit, and it certainly doesn't cater to any editorial tantrum, instead serving neutrality and accuracy:

Reagan helped to sharply contrast the Republican Party's political platforms with those of the Democratic Party; the economic policies enacted during his presidency were dubbed "Reaganomics," due to his ability to garner support from those who had the least to gain from them. Reagan was reelected to a second term in a landslide victory in 1984 after surviving an assassination attempt in his first term and ordering controversial military actions in both the island nation of Grenada and bombings of Libya. Soon after, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

I'm not too ecstatic about the phrase, "due to his ability to garner support from those who had the least to gain from them," it sounds as if its claiming Reagan tricked people into supporting him. As I've said before, I think it would be more informative to mention what he actually did as opposed to mentioning what he advocated. Instead of saying, "arguing people should keep most of what they earned" why not just say that he cut taxes? They were one of the largest (if not the largest) tax cuts in recent history and Reagan is well known for them; I don't think it would be wholly inappropriate to mention it in the lead.--Rise Above The Vile 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, gone for a night and look what happens. A very interesting discussion. First, I want to thank these editors. Also, I agree with Rise that the lead should talk about what Reagan did, not what he advocated, since actual policies and actions are more important than rhetoric. Other Presidential leads discuss the specific policies and bills signed into law, not just what they advocated. Also, I think the sentence "Reagan was reelected to a second term in a landslide victory in 1984 after surviving an assassination attempt in his first term and ordering controversial military actions in both the island nation of Grenada and bombings of Libya." is too long haha. It sounds a little run-on. Maybe we could split it into two? Like, "Reagan was reelected to a second term in a landslide victory in 1984. After surviving an assassination attempt in his first term and ordering controversial military actions in both the island nation of Grenada and bombings of Libya." ? As per the discussion about compromising with people who don't listen to consensus - I'm on both sides. Because I think that Spooner does make good arguments, despite disregarding consensus. I guess you could say I'm willing to compromise either way. Stanselmdoc 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Stan. Brian Pearson 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, "...and arguing people should keep most of what they earned" isn't saying Democrats believe people should be have less, it just means that the status quo was unacceptable to Reagan. It's always been true that there are often unintended consequences to a persons actions. for example, when the Congress or a president advocates simplifying the tax code and works to that end, the code inevitably gets more complicated. They then try to make it more fair, but people adapt by moving money or companies offshore.

What I had proposed was a distillation of what the man believed and was the basis for his actions, whatever the ultimate consequences were. Brian Pearson 13:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We're on the same page with that. What a person is aiming to acheive is at least as important to what he achieves. There has at least a few words in the lead describing the economic beliefs that he so often voiced, which were a sharp criticism of the status quo method of solving economic problems, which was to increase taxes, regulation, and welfare. In addition there should be at least a paragraph on this in the article where it can be more fully developed. Operation Spooner 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Working backwards through the comments, I think it's important to avoid the "...and arguing people should keep most of what they earned" statement, because arguing implies that there are people arguing the opposite (in this case, the Democrats). It's inaccurate and partisan. We should avoid it.

I agree that the sentence was too run-on, and should be split up. As well, I agree that I should have focused more on what he did and not what he advocated in my alternative. As for the compromise thing, I don't mind good edits; in fact, I think it's important to require them. I will never advocate compromising with someone who expects others to compromise with them without offering the same give in return. That sort of person gets precisely zero rhythm with me.

Here's a new edit:

Reagan helped to sharply contrast the Republican Party's political platforms with those of the Democratic Party by enacting economic policies during his presidency which were subsequently dubbed "Reaganomics."Reagan was reelected to a second term in a landslide victory in 1984 largely due to having recovered very quickly after being injured in an assassination attempt during his first term. He is known for his efforts to provide significant tax relief for many Americans suffering from a recession which preceded his term in office. He is also known for his hawkish stance in foreign policy, ordering controversial military actions in both the island nation of Grenada and bombings of Libya. Soon after, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

This takes into account the advice/comments provided, and reads better, but as always, comments are welcome. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(it appears that this was nixed during the edit conflict. My apologies, Rise. I reinstate the inadvertantly-removed posting here) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan helped to sharply contrast the Republican Party's political platforms with those of the Democratic Party; Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics," were the largest in U.S. history up to that point. After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected to a second term in a landslide victory in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

-

--Rise Above The Vile 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC

It seems all invasions are 'controversial'. :) Brian Pearson 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like D-Day in Normandy. The Germans were going to picket the invasion, but the Allies kept shooting at them. ;)

Seriously, Grenada, while a real conflict, was pretty much a one-sided brawl. And the bombing of Libya was protested via the UN for almost 20 years. I think it qualifies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the UN counts. It's their job to be controversial. :) BTW, even though France, the country, opposed Libya, at least 60% of the citizens were for it. Libya had been causing problems for some time. Brian Pearson 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying I didn't approve of it. It was, however, controversial at the time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Even I have to say the invasion of Grenada was very controversial; even Margaret Thatcher didn't approve! I like the latest version of the lead, but it could use some minor work. How about something like this:

Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, implementing the largest tax cuts in American history, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

I'd say this one is better worded and flows easier. Any comments? Happyme22 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with it because it says nothing of his economic philosophy. First of all the President doesn't have the power to lower taxes. He can put forth his vision and try to pursuade Congress to do it, and that's all. What's important is what he advocate economically. He promoted drastic changes in economic policy, in regard to taxation, welfare, and regulation. Operation Spooner 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Above, though, User:Rise Above the Vile said it would be better to talk more about what the president actually enacted (what actually happened) instead of what he advocated/believed, which doesn't always happen. It's true that Reagan advocated less govt., but it actually grew during his terms.... Give me a few more minutes and I'll try adding something else to it and wording it differently. Happyme22 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I've added the gist of what Spooner wants, I've got what Rise, Info, Arcayne, and I want, and it's neutral, fair, and balanced. I think this is it. Comments?

Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy and implementing the largest tax cuts in American history, part of his economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

--Happyme22 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something more like this:

Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats; Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics," were substantial and across the board. After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected to a second term in a landslide victory in 1984. However, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

Notes on the changes: Incorporating important parts of Hap's version, I felt it important to retain some parts of the version culled from other versions (mine included). Among these were the rewording of the "the largest tax cuts in American history", which sounded a bit over the top, so I said the same thing in a more neutral voice. I am trusting that there are citations for such a bold claim in Hap's version from neutral sources; the article text only speaks to "large, across-the-board tax cuts" (in the section '"Reaganomics" and the economy'), even though I am fairly sure that the 'across the board' part of that statement is rather inaccurate. I think that the Lead needs to reflect the article, and not make claims in the summary that are not backed up in the actual text. Next, I restructured the contrast betweenthe landslide victory and the scandals that tended to undermine a lot of the mandate that seemingly came from that. I set them up so as to contrast one another. Lastly, I retained the word 'victory' after landslide, as folk in other countries might not understand the colloquialism of a landslide (kind of a bad thing to be associated with outside of American slang). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now Spooner's not going to approve, so why not add in one statement about something he "advocated," and add back your "arguable to what extent the vision was achieved" statement for balance. Maybe like:

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 arguable to what extent this was achieved while in office. Implemented were significant tax cuts, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a significant number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

I think all we need to say is that his success in advocating less govt. regulation is debatable, the tax cuts were significant, he survived an assassination attempt, ordered military operations, was reelected, and then proceeded to see scandals. Is this still not what you were looking for? Happyme22 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really care for the term "across-the-board", for the same you reason you don't care for "landslide", Arcayne. I think across-the-board is awfully colloquial too, right? I mean, I'm not even sure I could define what it means, as an American. What board? What went across it? Hahaha. Also, I would say that the sentence Implemented were significant tax cuts, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics. should read Reagan implemented substantial and broadly-effective tax cuts in 1981; his economic policies were dubbed "Reaganomics." Notice that I changed the word significant to the word substantial. I think the word "significant" is a weasel word both times it is used. No one can really determine what number/amount equals "significant", so it might be more NPOV to just leave out the word altogether and just say "administration saw a number of scandals", because the term "a number of" already implies that there were a significant amount. Stanselmdoc 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think Hap has a winner there. I think that the statement "advocating less gov't regulation of the economy" is more accurate than not. It's good! I would only retain the word 'however' at the beginning of the statement about the scandals, for the reasons I mentioned above. However, Stans is right that significant is probably unnecessary to the sentence. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I say the final one is:

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 arguable to what extent this was achieved while in office. Implemented were substantial tax cuts, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984. Soon after, however, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

This material was taken with recommendations from User:Arcayne, User:Info999, User:Southern Texas, User:Stanselmdoc, User:Rise Above the Vile, User:Brian Pearson, myself, and of course, User:Operation Spooner. I think this is a winner! I've made two slight changes; I changed "significant" to "substantial" per Stanselmdoc's recommendations above and removed "significant" when talking about the number of scandals. I don't really care if the word "significant" is in there or not, but according to the page Reagan administration scandals (which could use a complete rewrite, by the way), the Reagan Admin. had the biggie Iran-Contra affair, 3 somewhat-big scandals, and one that wasn't that big of a deal. That's not really significant to me, but I have to say it's probably less POV without it. So, Stanselmdoc, Arcayne, Spooner, Rise... can we apply for unprotection? Or is there anything else to discuss? Happyme22 01:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to bully you all some more with my mean ol' OWN issues, but - sigh -okay. J/K, J/K! LOL!!

Let's apply for unprotection. Is this the only bone of contention? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not completely satisfied with the wording of the first two sentences, however my contention is with the structure of the sentences, not the material therein. As long as we can get a guarantee from Spooner that his edits to the lead will be constructive and not simply reverts, I would most certainly support unprotection.--Rise Above The Vile 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bugged by the wording here"...although it is arguable to what extent this was achieved while in office." though I can't quite put my finger on why. I understand perfectly what it means, but it seems somehow awkward. Also, there's another awkward sentence following that, which is more noticeable. "Implemented were substantial tax cuts, part of his economic policies dubbed "Reaganomics." See? Brian Pearson 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, by advocating less government regulation of the economy. It’s debatable how much of this he achieved while in office. Substantial tax cuts were implemented, which were later dubbed, “Reaganomics.” After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984. Soon after, however, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. Brian Pearson 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know this isn't new, but I disagree. I think the previous version was better, because this one seems a bit too chopped up (i.e. "...by advocating less government regulation of the economy. It’s debatable how much of this he achieved while in office." - this could easily be combined and would flow better). The tax cuts were not dubbed Reaganomics, the policies were as a whole, so that would actually be factually incorrect. I'll reword the sentence, so I think this should be the final version:

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 arguable to what extent this was achieved while in office. Substantial tax cuts were implemented, part of Reagan's economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984. Soon after, however, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

I'm applying for unprotection. Happyme22 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it seems 'dubbed Reaganomics' refers to tax cuts. I'm not really trying to be a pest. :) Brian Pearson 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above statement. Why single out regulation? Wanting to reduce welfare is equally important, as was advocating drastically lower taxes. Operation Spooner 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree with you in that sense. It just seemed, grammar-wise, that 'dubbed Reagonomics' points to tax cuts. Brian Pearson 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break 2

Taking into account the faults Brian perceived and what Hap was aiming at, here's an option (bold text denoting changes):

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. The substantial tax cuts that were implemented as part of Reagan's economic policies were dubbed "Reaganomics." After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984. Soon after, however, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the second sentence doesn't make sense. It was better in the previous version. "The substantial tax cuts that were implemented as part of Reagan's economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics." - that's an incomplete sentence. I'm still goin' with the one above. Happyme22 05:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with this lead (even though the word "as" after the word "debated" is unnecessary, grammatically). :D Stanselmdoc 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to rain on this party but this is worse than the proverbial camel (a horse designed by a committee).

1. "Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats" I could nitpick (it's platform not platforms), but I don't see the point of the sentence. When have the Republicans not been different than the Democrats? Are we suggesting that the Ford platform was the same as the Carter one? There really doesn't seem to be a point to this, and if there is, it isn't obvious.
2. "advocating less government regulation of the economy" this is certainly a very small part of the difference between the Rs and Ds and simplifies Reagan's policies to the point of stupification.
3. "although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office." What is the point of this? There's no conclusion drawn - it just seems snarky, like it was added just to have an "on the other hand" for the first part of the sentence. So far we could rewrite everything as: "Reagan was a Republican. He advocated less regulation of the economy but had a hard time getting it through the Democratic congress."
4. "The substantial tax cuts that were implemented as part of Reagan's economic policies were dubbed "Reaganomics." This is misleading. Tax cuts were only one of the four goals of Reaganomics. To say that Reaganomics = tax cuts is incorrect.
5. "After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering controversial military actions in Grenada and Libya" I suppose "controversial" here is meant to provide balance? It just makes the sentence look silly.
6. "Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984." Finally, a clear statement of unconvoluted fact. Nothing to complain about with this.
7. "Soon after, however, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair." Is that how we are going to summarize the entire second term? "A number of scandals"? Then we only mention Iran Contra, leaving the reader to look forward to a juicy list of scandals later in the article which he will never find.

This is certainly no better than the current lead, and in many ways it is worse.--Paul 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Paul, let's see what we can do. I'll respond to the points I have a response to hahaha.

• Would you be okay with the sentence, "The substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981 were a part of Reagan's economic policies dubbed 'Reaganomics'." ? or "Reagan's economic policies were dubbed 'Reaganomics', and a part of these policies included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981." ? What do you think?
• In regard to "although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office." Yes, this statement is to provide balance, because it is debated. The lead should include both sides.
• Do you have a different suggestion for number 1? I can't think of a way to rewrite the sentence, but it is not self-evident that the Republican platform is vastly different from the Democrat platform. Particularly, editors who come from countries which enjoy a large number of prominent political parties, it can be difficult to understand American politics, and our generally two-party system. I think it is important to include something about how Reagan's beliefs and policies influenced the Republican platform. I'm open to a rewrite of the sentence.
• I don't really care for the word "controversial" either. Seems to me that basically anything a president does will be controversial hahaha.
• What would you like to see mentioned about Reagan's second term? Can you pick something you believe is most important to include?

Let's see what we can work out. Stanselmdoc 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a pass at this, but can't do it until much later today. Real life intervenes.--Paul 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at what Paul presented,let's address his points:

1. The point was that Reagan sharply defined his Party's platforms, taking htem a bit further to the right that the relatively centrist views that were held by the majority of his party at the time. He didn't really truck with that, and went more right than a lot of them.

2. No, but this point is what is addressed in the body of the article (which the Lead is supposed to represent); as well, it is a major difference in how Reagan Republicans and typical Democrats differed.

3. Your over-simplification (and snarkyness aside), please describe how the statemetn is inaccurate. Are these policies not debated, or were they all universally successful? Some were successful, some were not and the rest are debated,

4. You did see that the sentence said "as part," right? No one is saying 'Reaganomics = tax cuts. However, the article isn't going to go off on a tear about the specifics of Reaganomics, as there is a separate article, wikilinked to this one, which does precisely that.

5. No, the wording wasn't meant to provide balance. It was to provide accuracy. Are you of the opinion that the actions weren't controversial?

6. Agreed, no problem there.

7. I would agree with this as well, were there not a wikilink to the scandals article. There were quite a few, and I hardly think anyone is going to argue that Iran-Contra wasn't a vry serious scandal. Had things gone another way, Reagan anf Bush may very well have been impeached. I would call that pretty significant.

I realize that you are trying to help, but perhaps you can do so without insinutating that we are a committee of morons. Using your comparison, a camel might have been designed by a committee seeking to make a horse, but the result actually holds up a lot beetr than a horse, and in more climes as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 :/ Upon rereading the lead though, I have to say I agree with Paul in his assertion that this sentence implies something else, at least grammatically: The substantial tax cuts that were implemented as part of Reagan's economic policies were dubbed "Reaganomics." The main sentence (sans subjunctive phrases) is actually saying, The substantial tax cuts that were implemented as part of Reagan's economic policies were dubbed "Reaganomics." That's why I proposed some rewrites above. I actually thought of another one: "Reagan's substantial tax cuts that were implemented in 1981 were part of his 'Reaganomics', or his economic policies." Stanselmdoc 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your latest alternative sounds fine, Stans. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"As part" is fine instead of "were part" if we remove the "that" after "substantial tax cuts", because if left in, a sentence fragment is created. So it would read, "Reagan's substantial tax cuts were implemented in 1981 as part of his 'Reaganomics', or his economic policies." Stanselmdoc 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul, and possibly someone else, mentioned (I'm paraphrasing a lot) that the paragraph in question implies nothing else happened in the second term aside from scandals. I had also had that impression early on, but the memory of it got lost in the shuffle. I was thinking we should consider incorporating this: Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Soon after, his administration saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. into the third paragraph, so we have one paragraph for each term. Brian Pearson 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Arcayne and Stansel have done a good job of trying to do what Paul now wants, but let me jump in too. Let's go through what Paul said:

1. Please read Arcayne's statement above; this should stay.
2. You should see the debates we've had over this sentence; I think everyone (but you) has finally agreed that this should stay, so if you, Paul, can provide a better generalization of what Reagan advocated, please do. I'm going by concensus here.
3. This is to provide balance.
4. "Reagan's economic policies, similar to those of supply-side economics, were dubbed "Reaganomics" and included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981." -- I think this reads better; there's a little more info but everyone here has been trying wayyy too hard to get this to read correctly. I think this is it.
5. These military operations (especially Grenada) were controversial, and like I said before, I'm a Republican but even Margaret Thatcher didn't approve! I don't care if controversial stays in or is removed.
6. Paul, I think your best point comes here and I have to agree with you; the scandals should be moved down into the second term lead paragraph. And to answer your question Stansel, you asked above, "What would you like to see mentioned about Reagan's second term? Can you pick something you believe is most important to include?" Well I can and it's already in there; his foreign policy including negotiations with Gorby and a huge contribution to the end of the Cold War! That's in there. How about something like this:

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. His economic 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 contoversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984.

Reagan's second term was marked by significant steps toward ending the Cold War, but his administration also saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. The president instituted a policy of "peace through strength" in an arms race with the Soviet Union, rejecting the previous patterns 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 help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War.^[2] Reagan left office in 1989 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. He died ten years later at the age of ninety-three.

I like this. Thoughts? Happyme22 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. Brian Pearson 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I showed it to my wife, who is a pretty sharp editor. She said it needs work, but that she's two tired for it, now. She said there's more to it than just grammar and flow. Brian Pearson 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! That's awesome. Here, I'll be a wife too, and say that some editors are more concerned with grammar and flow (this would be me), because the content is already debated enough by other editors. In general at this point, I haven't disagreed with any changes or suggestions for quite some time. However, I am very interested in the integrity and clarity of the language used. Also, I think it's obvious that any writing on WP "needs work", as it's a living document, and constantly changing with the tides. Stanselmdoc 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, we can say the same thing, but say it better. Brian Pearson 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, and as Pearson agreed as well, there is no good reason to single out deregulation when advocacy of reduction of the size of the welfare state and reduction in taxation were just as essential. Operation Spooner 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your comments and interest in my opinion! I'm flattered. Here is my take at a balanced, and informative, yet succinct final two lead paragraphs:

Reagan's presidency is sometimes referred to as the Reagan revolution because he was the standard bearer of the Republican conservative movement and brought those principles to governance. These ideas included staunch anti-Communism, tax cuts, reduced government spending and regulation, plus the stated will to apply military power in the service of US interests. These policies represented a sharp break with the past and lead to spirited debate and opposition. His economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," lead to substantial tax cuts in 1981. After surviving an assassination attempt and approving military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984.

Reagan's second term was characterized by an emphasis on foreign policy and included significant steps toward ending the Cold War. The second term suffered from a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. The president instituted a policy of "peace through strength" in an arms race with the Soviet Union, rejecting the previous patterns 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 help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War.^[3] Reagan left office in 1989 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. He died ten years later at the age of ninety-three.

I continue to be baffled by the intended meaning of "although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office" and have recast that part of the text to show that Reagan was a policy revolutionary, and that there were a lot of people who had principled and deep disagreement with his policies. I look forward to your comments on my effort. (Brian Pearson I'd be interested in what your wife thinks of this version). --Paul 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good. But, I would add he wanted a reduction in the size of the welfare state as well. Operation Spooner 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't get everything in the lead. Welfare reform had to wait 10 more years until Clinton, so I don't think it is really that significant a point during the Reagan era. --Paul 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But, it was spearheaded by his advocacy. Operation Spooner 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe there are certain elements not given proper credit for their impact, such as the work of Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan. Also, if you go through some of the links, as I did, there was a suggestion by "Robert Mundell told Ronald Reagan that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates, and by lowering tax rates on capital gains, national output would increase so much that tax revenues would also increase." Also, it's been argued that deregulation by Reagan was a continuation of a trend began by President Carter. Also, if we look at the Reaganomics link, there are "four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to 1) reduce the growth of government spending, 2) reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital, 3) reduce regulation, and (4) control the money supply to reduce inflation." Also in the Reaganomics article is mention of the Democrats' broken promises to keep spending down, followed by remarks about debate on whether the economy improved because taxes were cut or because of deficit spending. The question implied by Spooner is, how can we decide what was most important vs what is not important enough to keep in the lead? Admittedly, some of what I've mentioned may have more to do with the body of the article, such as changes brought about by Volker and Greespan. Still, who was Reagan? vs What Reagan accomplished? -- is one or the other? a bit of both? Or are both of those unfair? I'll be gone for while... Brian Pearson 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to determine what are the most important things he advocated to list are to consult sources to see what they say is the most notable. The source I've been presenting focused on reduction of taxes, welfare, and regulations. We don't really have to decide for ourselves what's important. We would debate to no end. Operation Spooner 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you need more sources. He was more than a collection of policies, Sigh..why does it feel like I (and most everyone else here) I keep having this conversation with you? Oh, that's right - you keep pretending not to get it, lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't sleep, Spooner. I had this idea that we could separate Reagan the man from Reagan the President. With the man, we could, for example examine his life and determine where his philosophies and motivations came from. With the president, we could go more into what he did. When he was an actor, there was the thing with communism, which may have been when he became anticommunist, for example. Just a thought. Back to bed... Brian Pearson 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what is lacking in this article. That's why I think it's too superficial. Reagan is president who more than most in our time had some real philosophical motivations behind what he was doing. In economics, for example, he was influenced through his readings the classical liberal laissez-faire economists. He didn't advocate these things because it was politically popular, because it wasn't. He thought limited government intervention in the economy was the path the prosperty and spent much of his life trying to convert others to what was radical until it became mainstream. Operation Spooner 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding on this Reagan love-fest, but a lot of that is opinion. Your opinion, to be exact. Let's all say it together now: WP doesn't use opinion. Allow me to cut to the very heart of your arguments, Spoon: why did he advocate these things?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the version that we have all hammered out here together:

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. His economic 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 contoversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984.

Reagan's second term was marked by significant steps toward ending the Cold War, but his administration also saw a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. The president instituted a policy of "peace through strength" in an arms race with the Soviet Union, rejecting the previous patterns 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 help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War.^[4] Reagan left office in 1989 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. He died ten years later at the age of ninety-three.

With all due respect to Paul, that version sure didn't come across as even mildly neutral, fair and balanced. It is several step away from where we we have been trying to go with this article. While the writing isn't as smooth as I would like it, such is the process of editing within a community (recalling how the camel is actually a more durable animal than the horse in many climes).

Brian is absolutely correct in that this article is about the man, and not the president. There is an article about his presidency. There is an article about his economic policies. There is an article about the assassination attempt. There are even articles about the films of Ronald Reagan - and he wasn't that good an actor! I imagine there are likely another half-dozen articles about Reagan, not including those of his wife and children. Were politics a part of the man's life? Yep. Were they the only thing noteworthy about the man? Hell no.

This article is not supposed to be about the man's political philosophies, or his ups and downs while in the White House. It simply isn't. Thanks to the wealth of these other articles on or about Reagan, we can use this article to focus SOLELY upon the man, since the article is called "Ronald Reagan," and not "President Ronald Reagan". I guess I am getting a bit flabbergasted as to why people aren't willing to focus on this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, please explain how my proposed version is not "even mildly neutral." I assume you mean it is not factually correct, or is pushing a point of view? If so, can you be a bit more specific? Thanks. --Paul 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your Talk page. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• So you have responded on my talk page. However, I think it would be more valuable to have your comments here where they can add to the discussion. I hope you don't mind my including them...

Actually, I rather do mind you including my comments made on your Talk page here. I presented them there to explain why they were off-topic for this discussion page. I would ask that you never do that again, as it is extremely poor form, esp. as I specifically said that I chose to respond on your talk page and not here. I've removed that text of mine which you placed here in an attempt to further an argument of yours. Again, i would ask that you not do that again, as common courtesy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. BTW, I've responded to your points in bold, above. --Paul 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne on what the lead should look like and what the article should be about. He's completley correct in saying this is about Ronald Reagan "the man"; there are seperate articles dealing with specifics on his presidency, etc. I'm not saying don't include anything about his philosophy, but don't include much about his philosophy in the lead, which is a place of generalization so readers will be intrigued to read on. Happyme22 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want this article to be about Reagan "the man," then that's a very strong reason to expand on his philosophy in the body and in the introduction. A man is his philosophy, in my opinion. Operation Spooner 05:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, Happy is right here. The idea that a man is his philosophy is not just an opinions, its sophist nonsense. And using it foist in more political carping is both disingenuous and lame.

That aside, I think it would serve the article to have the links to these other articles placed within th article at the appropriate sections immediately (ie, "For more on the Reagan Assassination Attempt" or "For more on the Reagan Presidency," etc). These other articles are devoted to the subjects by which they are titled, and do a much better job than this article should. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course a man is his philosophy. A person's philosophy is the underlying reason for everything one does. If this article is going to be about "the man" then it has to have full explanations of his philosophy and its main components necessarily have to be encapsulated in the introduction. Operation Spooner 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, actually, yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Spooner on this one. First, if the article is about the "man" Ronald Reagan, then it should definitely include his philosophies and beliefs. (Particularly when there is no article called "Reagan's philosophical beliefs") I certainly wouldn't want an article written about me that mentioned nothing of the driving forces behind all my actions and beliefs. It's like writing on the "woman" Mother Teresa - her actions were super important, almost as important as what was driving her to do those actions. But I think we're all getting way too far away from the real discussion here. The discussion is about the lead. I agree with Arcayne, the current lead has been argued about for a very long time to get to where it is now. I don't think it needs a major overhaul, only minor tweaking. If we decide to add something about welfare reform or something else, that's fine, but please...let's not try to rewrite completely something that's already come so far. Stanselmdoc 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This Article is about President Reagan. That is how he is refered to to as a historical figure. President Reagan is notable as Studio System actor, president of the Screen Actors Guild, governer of California, presidential candidate, and two term president of the United States. This article should include all aspects of President Reagan, the man. The only contraints to content should be for article size. Controlling size is what sub-articles are for. Th bulk of information should be in the main article. Every aspect and major fact needs to be,at least, mentioned in an NPOV way in the main article. We need to avoid any forking of information to a sub-article that removes a key facet of President Reagans life or beliefs. At this time, I think we have acheived this balance between information and main article size. Mytwocents 13:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There's another full article about the president, which is my point. The title of this article is Ronald Reagan, therefore it should be about the man. We could have links going to the presidency of Reagan, where appropriate. So, this article can be more about the man, what drove him, and why, what his philosophies were and where they came from, only touching upon his presidency. We've been knocking heads over this article, trying to blend the man with the presidency, when there's another full article devoted to the presidency. This article, about the man, woud enable us to delve a little more deeply into his life, beginning when he was young. Brian Pearson 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break 3

Okay, fair enough, Stans. I wrote that while tired (a mistake). Yes, a man is the sum total of his experiences and philosophies. However, i utterly refuse any notion that the man was nothing more than a political machine, with no motivation or idea that existed outside the Republican Party.

The questions we need to be asking ourselves is WHY he had the political stances he did, what formed them. This is what we should be doing, instead of focusing on one, narrow sphere wherein those philosophies were acted upon. What kind of man, of husband, of father, of friend was he? Did he have any sort of commentary on his progressively debilitating illness? What were his interests outside of politics? These are the sorts of questions that need to be asked of the MAN, not the POLITICIAN. He wasn't a statue, and he wasn't activated from a pod to become a 'standard bearer for the Republican Party'.

There are articles that talk about these aspects of the man, and they should only be touched on here, not explained in the excruciating detail that some would seem to want. User Mytocents is incorrect; the article is NOT about President Reagan. It is about Ronald Reagan, the man. The article about President Reagan is here. OperationSpooner is incorrect; the article is not about Reagan's economic policies and related philosophies, and the article about that is here. There are lots of articles about what Reagan did. Let's focus on who Reagan was. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When have I ever asked that there be discussion of Reagan's economic policies? Do you not understand the difference between economic policies and economic philosophy? If this article is to be about "the man," then it must focus to a significant degree on his philosophy, and his economic philosophy is tremedously large component of that. Operation Spooner 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant that, in addition to excluding to a large extent the seconomic and political policies, that these restriction be applied to his political philosophies as well. Your opinion that that "his economic philosophy is tremedously large component" of who Reagan was is a disservice to the man. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Iran-Contra question

In declassified documents, Reagan supported the Sandanistas.[4] He wanted the maintain stability to surrounding countries. It would seem odd that he would be, at the same time, supporting the Contras. It appears that Reagan and other elements of his administration were working against each other. Brian Pearson 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of people that believe this was a matter of public face/private face, and served as the basis for the Iran-Contra Scandal. If you believe the October Surprise (articles here and here) theories, the releae of the Iranian hostages was predicated on the sale of arms to that country for use in their war with Iraq, the money from those sales being funneled to the Contras. These actions of course, were very much against the law (specifically the Congressional rulings about funding death squads, etc), and in the strictest interpretation of the law, treason (no one makes treaties with foreign powers bu the President and his designeés), as it happened before Reagan was elected to the office. Since this couldn't be advocated publicly, the Sandanistas were afforded the usual diplomacy, while at the same time, the Reaganauts (yep, they were actually called that; funny how they all have jolly pirate nicknames for themselves), working through shell corporations (which avoided direct governmental connection) worked to increase "democracy in Central America," a Reagan stated goal.

That much is true. Now, as to whether Reagan and Bush knew about the details, Bush has since admitted that he knew about it in an unguarded moment on the campaign trail during his own bid for election (or re-election). Reagan was thought to have known about the operation, and his winking at the camera during his legal deposition probably didn't help matters at all, but finally, Adm. John Poindexter, SecDef Casper Weinberger and Lt.Col Oliver North claimed sole responsibility. As Poindexter's falling on his sword removed the key path that would have conclusively proven that Reagan was aware of the shady dealings, Reagan couldn't be indicted. It is worth noting that none of the men served that much in the way of time for their crimes; Weinberger was pardoned, Poindexter's and North's convictions for multiple felonies were overturned on a technicality.

So, they weren't really working against each other - they were working with a public face and a private one. It just so happens the private one was breaking the law, bigtime. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds iffy. Why would Reagan sign classified documents stating his position if he was working the other side, too? Or, maybe Bush was doing something unknown to Reagan. As an aside, Reagan asked Ford to be his VP before asking Bush. Brian Pearson 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

>shrug< Who knows? Reagan was criticized by the Tower report for turning a blind eye/being totally oblivious as to what was was going on every day for over 3 years. Yeah...oblivious, that's the proper label (not). It just stank to high heaven, and someone higher up the food chain than Poindexter needed to serve some hard time.

People think i don't like Reagan because he was a Republican. It's not that at all. I actually like some Republicans (this despite the fact that many are for the most part exclusionist, money-grubbing scumwads), like McCain. I dislike Reagan because I believe he knoew about Iran-Contra and knew he was breaking the law enough to make sure he had plausible deniability. He treated the Boland Amendment like toilet paper, and considered the laws of the US mere suggestions. I didn't cotton to that way of thinking then any more than I do now. You tell the truth, and ""Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum" ('let justice be done though the heavens fall'). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up was the term, "the administration". Lately people have been saying this or that looks like a weasel word, here and there. Here in the US, people pretty much see that as a key word which really means 'the President'. While he Reagan may be suspected to have known about the Iran-Contra affair, it has not been proven. My thinking was, maybe it could be qualified, somehow. Brian Pearson 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you were aiming at now. I think that the perception that this is a weasel word is incorrect, at least where it applies to Reagan's Admininistration. His terms in ofice saw a rather notable list of departing key figures in his administration either due to scandal or some sort of personality conflict arising with Reagan (or, in the case of Regan, conflict with the President's wife). Where it concerns one or two departures with mundane reasons, I would agree that categrizing it under the category of the administration would be a generalization, and not very encyclopedic. I think it's fair to say that this wasn't the case with Reagan's staff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Also, there may be the matter of foreign perception of 'Reagan Administraton': "What the heck does that mean?" I'd seen similar discussions about other things (town articles, for example), such as how people in other countries aren't familiar with our states, not to mention counties...and they had to decide how to address what we call the United States -- etc, etc, etc. Brian Pearson 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note. I guess the true test would be if a change were made. I think we are in agreement, judging by your response to why I brought it up, though, and I'd stand by it. BTW, I think the coming weeks will be interesting, if the tide has turned re Reagan the man article vs Reagan the President article -- we hopefully won't be trying to make both articles all things to all people. Maybe we can hold off a day or two to see if there's a response. If not, then it can be archived. (I'm using this note as a bit of bait...) Brian Pearson 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I know you are doing precisely that, Brian, you wily critter. Agreed. I don't mind waiting a little bit, esp as some of the semantical issues are being addressed, and the discussion appears to be moving into a new phase of deciding how the article should be focused. I commented in the similarites section, the idea that we canot parrot another article without deleting one or merging both (both are awful choices) or deciding to write the article focusing primarily on the guy, and not only one or two facets of the guy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed info

This was removed from the article by Stans, and rightly so, but I think the new user didn't know that we needed to cite sources appropriately. Maybe there is something that can be culled from this, and so I place it here:

Castro claims Cuba helped save Reagan

HAVANA - Fidel Castro claims Cuba's government saved the life of President Reagan by giving American officials information about an assassination plot in 1984.

The essay published Wednesday in the Communist Party newspaper Granma appeared to be the first time Cuba has made the claim. It seemed aimed at showing Cuba has cooperated with the United States in the past.

Castro, who has not appeared in public for more than a year, wrote that a Cuban security official stationed at the United Nations told the then U.S. mission security chief about an extreme right-wing group that was planning to kill Reagan during a trip to North Carolina.

"The information was complete: the names of those implicated in the plan; day, time and hour where the assassination could occur; the type of weapon the terrorists had and where they kept their arms; and along with all that, the meeting place of those elements planning the action as well as a brief summary of what had occurred in said meeting," Castro wrote.

He did not say how Cuba obtained the information.

Newsom Summerlin, a special agent with the FBI in Charlotte, N.C., said late Wednesday that he had no immediate information pertaining to Castro's claim.

Castro said Cuban authorities learned the FBI had arrested several people in North Carolina and he said several days after that Robert C. Muller, the U.S. security chief at the U.N., expressed America's thanks to the Cuban official over lunch. Castro didn't identify the Cuban official.

Reagan visited Charlotte on a campaign stop Oct. 8, 1984, accompanied by Sen. Jesse Helms, and he attended a reception for local Republican leaders, according to Reagan's presidential papers.

A database search Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., found no reference to an assassination plot in North Carolina, said Lisa Jones, a library archivist.

"I've never seen anything like that," said Jones, who added that Reagan made only that one stop in North Carolina in 1984.

David Flaherty Sr., North Carolina's state Republican Party chairman in 1981-85, said that he didn't recollect details of the Charlotte event but that he never heard of any potential threat to Reagan during any of his visits to North Carolina.

Federal authorities "would normally alert us if there was any significant warning and I don't remember hearing any warning," he said.

Castro has not been seen in public since mid-2006, when he released a statement saying he had undergone intestinal surgery and ceded power to his younger brother Raul. In late March, he began writing occasional essays, mostly on international themes.

[5]

Reaganomics

Supposedly

A paragraph in the "Reaganomics and the economy" secton reads:

Reagan's economics polices assumed that economic growth will occur when marginal tax rates are low enough to spur investment supposedly leading to increased economic growth, higher employment and wages. Critics called this "trickle-down economics" -- the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor.

I edited it to tighten the syntax, improve the clarity and remove POV as follows:

One of the assumptions of Reagan's economics policy was that low marginal tax rates would spur investment creating increased economic growth and higher employment and wages. Critics called this "trickle-down economics" -- the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor.

An editor has reverted this change multiple times claiming that the first version is more "neutral". I believe the editor is mistaken for the following reasons:

1. The paragraph is structured with two sentences, the first is intended to state the tennent of Reaganomics clearly (a high quality reference is provided for the statement), and the second sentence is provided for balance, stating the position of the critics. By including "supposedly" in the statement of the economic proposition we are misstating the referenced position of Reagan's economic policy, which is that lower marginal tax rates do lead to increased economic growth, not that they supposedly lead to economic growth. Thus the inclusion of "supposedly" makes the first sentence factually incorrect.
2. Including "supposedly" in the first sentence gives the critics two at bats when the paragraph is structured to present both sides of the argument equally.
3. "Supposedly" is introducing editorial POV by casting doubt on the statement of cause and effect in the Reaganomics principle. POV is prohibited on Wikipedia.
4. "Supposedly" is expressly called out as a word to avoid in Wikipedia:Words to avoid#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged,purported where it states:

   Supposed and supposedly, like claim, serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion. Saying something is "supposedly true" makes it seem as though the author believes it uncertain. On the other hand, supposed can sometimes denote intent, permission, or prohibition. In such cases the term will often be neutral, but probably too informal for Wikipedia.

Thus, for reasons of clarity, accuracy and presenting a NPOV, it seems clear the second version of this paragraph should be preferred over the first version. It is factually accurate, balanced, and neutral, while the first version is not. --Paul 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it sounds fine and reads better, and is equally neutral. Instead of saying "this would supposedly happen" it now reads as if they were "assuming" that it would happen; the words seem to be somewhat-interchangable. Although I don't completly agree with Paul's reasoning as to why this is correct, I do think it reads better and is just as neutral. Happyme22 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The first version already had policies assumed; thus the supposedly inserted in the sentence is unnecessary in the sense of "supposed to happen." Appearing where it does: "supposedly leading to increased economic growth" it has the effect of "casting doubt upon an assertion" and looks like POV. I'm not saying that is why the word was used, just that it is unnecessary, and it looks bad. As the Wikipedia excerpt above points out, there is a big difference between "supposed" and "supposedly," though both words are frowned upon.--Paul 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your argument here, rather than continuing to revert. The problem with your revison of he existing statement was that there is an presumption that the trickle-down theory - sorry, Reaganomics - had actually worked, when in fact it met with very limited success. That isn't me speaking, that's almost 30 years' of prevailing economic commentary on the subject.

The theories that Reagan put forth made certain assumptions about the nature of the economy - and assumption is made more in the mathematical sense than in the doubting sense. Among those assumptions were that when tax rates dropped to a certain point - or, in the words of the original version 'were low enough' (where you suggested they had to be 'low', which was vague, as your low may notbe the same as my low, or Hap's low) - that investment would occur. The existing statement that this would 'supposedly' lead to growth is clearly indicating that some of it was guesswork and - as history has shown - did not actually occur. If people did in fact invest, they invested in short return goals, which any economics student will tell you doesn't spur growth at all, it slows it to a crawl, and plays hell with the economy. Ergo, you end up with fun little freak-outs like Black Monday and the bottom falling out of the commodities markets in 1987. Your working ineffectively protrayed the underlying weaknesses of the assumptions as strengths. To do so muddies the waters of Reagan's real accomplishments. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You say "The problem with your revison of he existing statement was that there is an presumption that the trickle-down theory - sorry, Reaganomics - had actually worked" Here is the sentence again: One of the assumptions of Reagan's economics policy was that low marginal tax rates would spur investment creating increased economic growth and higher employment and wages. Please tell us where there is any suggestion in this sentence that the stated proposition is correct, and that the results of the policy were born out by results. Also, would you care to defend the use of the word "supposedly"?--Paul 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed out the problems with your semantical rearrangement. I apologize if you feel my post was in any way unclear. Again: 'assumptions' refers to the theory of Reaganomics. 'Supposedly' refers to what the theory's projected outcome was supposed to be. I hope that puts it into even more succint terms. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is more succinct, but your point is murkier than ever. The first sentence of the disputed paragraph is a statement of one of the four main principles of Reaganomics. It is a hypothesis, like "if you pour water into a hollow vessel, it will assume the shape of the vessel," or "if you sail far enough into the ocean, you will fall off of the edge of the earth." There is no implied or presumed validity to the proposition. It is simply an accurate statement (backed up by an academic reference) of what Reagan and his advisors thought, and what they told us. My "semantical rearrangement" simply removes the word "supposedly" which 1) makes the statement of the hypothesis factually incorrect, 2) breaks the rule of a neutral point of view by "casting doubt upon an assertion" and 3) ignores the WP:MOS proscription of not using the word "supposedly." I understand that you don't think much of this particular economic argument, but that isn't the point. The first sentence states the Reagan policy, the second sentence states the criticism. You don't get to argue that the policy is false, and I don't get to argue that it is correct. Those are points of view. We are only concerned with accurate and verifiable facts.--Paul 06:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be POV-pushing to include this in the article, but in the interest of providing access to the most recent research on this topic for anyone who may be interested, here's a recently published NBER paper from the University of California at Berkeley that concludes: "tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." THE MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TAX CHANGES: ESTIMATES BASED ON A NEW MEASURE OF FISCAL SHOCKS Christina D. Romer & David H. Romer. --Paul 06:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is more to the equation than Reaganomics. I'd give credit to Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan for example, for what they did, though some credit must be given to Reagan for appointing them. It's kind of hard to quantify everything as neatly as we'd like. Brian Pearson 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would posit that the two points of your semantical rearrangement are incorrect, Paul, as you are operating from the assumption that the economic policies in question were successful; I respectfully suggest that this is a viewpoint that is contested by people in the field. Addressing the points specifically, #1) the statement, while perhaps describing the theory accurately, is not accurate in its real world application; #2) the use of the word supposedly accurately reflects the academic and public view of the contentious nature of the impact of Reaganomics, and; #3) there isn't a proscription against using the word 'supposedly' in the MOS.

What I think of the policy myself is indeed not of importance here. I am here to make sure that a) we only touch on subjects covered in other articles, and b) that the article remains an accurate, neutral and reliably factual depiction of the man. By noting that the theories of Reaganomics were considered voodoo by folks (many of those within his own party, including his own Vice-President), akin to the Harris cartoon wherein two scientists are working out a complex calculation on a chalkboard, and there is a space on the board, wherein one of them writes 'then a miracle occurs' whereupon the desired solution is reached. There are factual statements cited over the years that doubt many of the premises of Reaganomics. Supposedly accurately reflects this depiction, and ensuring that the statements do not cloak themselves in a veil of accuracy that isn't really there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm willing to cut you some slack, but you are making it difficult. First whether or not I think tax cut spurs economic growth is irrelevant to the text of this edit change because the paragraph makes no claims as to whether the policy was even implemented, much less whether or not it worked. For the same reason, it makes no difference that "people in the field" contest it. Now on to point to your point #1 - once again, it is irrelevant whether or not you or anyone else thinks that "is not accurate in its real world application." This two-sentence paragraph makes no claims about that one way or the other, and this article is not the place to have that debate. #2 - Despite your claim, it is debatable whether or not "the academic and public view of the contentious nature of the impact of Reaganomics" can be summed up by "supposedly." However, once again, that doesn't matter. The first sentence IS A STATEMENT OF THE POLICY PROPOSITION, NOT A DEBATE ON ITS VERACITY. As HappyMe22 has noted the sentence in question says One of the assumptions of; thus, it does not state the proposition as a fact. Inserting "supposedly" here is POV. Try a little experiment. What if I put in "obviously" in place of your "supposedly," and pointed to the NBER report above as proof. Would you agree to that? What's the difference? Point #3 - the MOS most certainly does argue against using supposedly. Here is the link once again: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged,purported. Perhaps you missed where it says at the very top of the page "This page is part of the Manual of Style"?--Paul 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that I don't need you to cut me any ""slack, it is clear that we are disagreeing on the wording of this statement. You seem to be missing my point, so I will cut you some slack. The statement, as you would have it, presents the assumptions of Reaganomics as fact. It is not me that is saying that these are semantic fallacies, it is 30 years' worth of economists that say it. As well, I think you are incorrect in using 'obviously' as a synonym for 'supposedly.' It is not the facts we are really arguing here, it is the way that the words are being used to describe them. I feel I am presenting them accurately and neutrally, and I am left feeling as if you are touting and presenting them in their best light. That is not how we work here. As well, the link you have provided before only pointed to WP:MOS, and not the subpage -

Certainly obviously is not a synonym for supposedly. Perhaps you meant "antonym"? Obviously was obviously suggested as a rhetorical device to emphasize the inappropriateness of supposedly. Perhaps it was a bit too subtle for some editors? You are incorrect about the WP:MOS links. I supplied the identical link to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged,purported both times.--Paul 07:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't need to be in the article at all. There is another article that discusses this in greater depth, called Reaganomics. As this article is to be about the man, and not just his presidency or political life, lets purge the statement and move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have altered the statement to reflect this conversation, avoiding the pov from both sides. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV is the word "assumed." Thank you for removing "supposedly."--Paul 07:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it is being used in this case, there is, as I have explained. If you choose not to accept that explanation, clarify your reasoning as to why. I see pov, and if I can, the average reader can, too. You will note that supposedly was removed during the rewrite of the statements so as to more accurately reflect the weight of the statements. Please do not consider this to be consensus - that is, unless you agree with the rewritten version. I do not agree with the statement remaining as is without a clarification that the policy was indeed hotly contended. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Arcayne asked me to take a look at this issue. My view, based on the last two or three edits, is that there's so little difference between the two versions, it's silly for you to be spending time and energy on pushing for one over the other. You're talking about what it was "proposed" to do, not what was required for it to work properly. My suggestion would be to refer to the theory and link it to the Reaganomics article, so you don't even have to go into detail here. This is supposed to be a featured article and it would be better if it wasn't the subject of an edit war. -- But|seriously|folks  17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• We are making progress, but we aren't quite there yet. There are now two versions of this paragraph (and since the second sentence is the same, let's just look at the first). We have:

Version A: One of the assumptions of Reagan's economics policy was that low marginal tax rates would spur investment creating increased economic growth and higher employment and wages.

Version B: Reagan's economics polices proposed that economic growth will occur when marginal tax rates are low enough to spur investment, which would then lead to increased economic growth, higher employment and wages.

An editor claims that one of these is pushing a point of view, and the other is neutral. When one of these versions is in place, it is reverted to the other one to restore neutrality. Frankly, now that "supposedly" is gone, the only difference I see is that one version is 34 characters shorter and is easier to scan. So I am struggling to see how we have not achieved consensus here. We will be done when it can be explained how substituting "assumed" for "proposed" inserts a non-neutral POV, or when we all agree that there is no difference between version A and version B.--Paul 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Version B", as version A reads as if the assumptions were correct. However, if you do not see any other difference than one is slightly shorter than the other, let's go with version B and be done with it. Since there is no further serious issue with version B, should we consider it the consensus choice? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter one because the writing is better. And, as I said, I'm willing to move on, if you, or anyone else can explain how one of these sentences is less neutral, or if you agree that there is no difference. Please try.--Paul 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. Since your only issue is the few characters-longer of version B (which I think reads better for all intents), I'll implement that one immediately. No sense in belaboring the the point anymore. Thanks for agreeing! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. Are you saying that you can't explain how one is less neutral than the other? In that case, it doesn't matter, and I'll implement the shorter one, because it is crisper, and because two out of the three people who have bothered to comment on this wording have preferred the shorter one.--Paul 06:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say tha tI couldn't explain. I was just rather tired about explaining that which has already been rehashed a half-dozen times before. I said before that version b reads better and shows a natural progession missing in version A. Since version B is a good compromise, let's stick with that, and move on. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Parliament Speech

Oh, and on the topic of rendering unto Reagan that which is not Reagan's, maybe you could realize that when you are reverted not once but twice, you come HERE, to the Discussion page, instead of meat-heading it out on the article. It's an FA article, so perhaps you could pay heed to that fact and discuss your changes that you know would be reverted otherwise. In point of fact, Reagan was not the first to point out that Soviet communism was going to fail. We don't cite Wikipedia articles that point out that conservative republicans thought this of him. We don't point to speeches taken without analysis that do not say what you are claiming. It's called OR by synthesis, and we don't do that here. Hope that explains matters for you. I know you like the guy, but perhaps you could rein in your enthusiasm for the guy just a bit. As well, Reagan could not fly, and did not end communism. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The caption you deleted never claimed that Reagan was the first to foretell the collapse of Soviet Communism, yet your edit summary (and presumably your reason) for deleting "...and famously predicted communism would collapse" was "lots of people had been predicting the same thing for 30 years, starting with Kennedy and Truman." I have added two references to the caption proving a) that Reagan said communism would collapse in the speech to parliament that is depicted in the picture, and b) it became a famous statement. I was reverting your arbitrary deletion of existing material. If you have a good reason for deleting the caption, please let us know what it is.--Paul 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree that the USSR fell because it was broke? I'm just trying to get a feel for your position. Brian Pearson 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on why the USSR fell apart is irrelevant here. The question at hand is very simple: whether or not

Reagan addresses the British Parliament in London famously predicting communism would collapse.

is an appropriate and accurate caption for a picture of Reagan addressing the British Parliament placed in the Cold War section of the article.--Paul 13:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I must apologize for removing the statement completely; I think my disagreements had escalated enough that I had bypassed Good Faith and decided you were one of those little Reagan worshippers who think that Reagan could do no wrong, and that sort of stupidity just systemically shuts down my capacity to put any faith into what the person says. Maybe you aren't like that; either way, i shoudl have tendered you some more good faith, because I would want that extended to me. I am not going to say that we aren't going to have more issues, but for my part, I will try to give you more credit than I have. Every once in a while, it takes getting reminded that edit-warring is intrinsically stupid to point that out. I certainly hope you feel the same way, but what you feel is entirely up to you.

I think my main problem was not with his prediction that communism would fall - many people had said it prior to him, and a bit more publicly; Reagan was just parroting that. I think I found bias in the characterization of having 'famously' done so. I would suggest that it be removed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'famously' from the captioning. As it can likely be perceived as peacocking as well as not entirely accurate, its a bone of contention tha tneed not be there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored "famously" until there is a discussion and a conclusion.--Paul 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, as you had seeminlgy not chosen to respond to the matter. Please discuss your problems with it now, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with the POV word "famously": First, Reagan is not famous for any speech to any parliament. Ask the average American what Reagan said during his "speech to Parliament" and they wouldn't have a clue. Outside of a narrow band of academics and partisans, the speech is not famous. Reagan is famous for a lot of things (including a handful of specific speeches), but predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union during a speech to the British parliament isn't even in the top 100.

Second, he isn't even famous for predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union - because it isn't what he said would happen, and because it wasn't a "prediction." A prediction would be something like, "within the next five years, the USSR will break apart, and the former members will become free, independent nations." It wouldn't have to be exactly that, but it would have to be specific as to what and when, and probably how, to be not only a "prediction" but to be "famous." What Reagan said was that if the Western alliance remained strong it would produce a "march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ashheap of history." What that is saying is that the political philosophy underpinning the USSR will not outlast democracy. That sentiment was not only not unique or particularly prescient, Reagan wasn't famous for espousing it - previous American presidents, along with many academics and pundits, had expressed the same opinion.

This argument doesn't pass the partisan smell test: the word in contention is not relevant or vital to understanding the subject of the article, and one "side" is insisting that it be used no matter what, even in the face of good faith arguments against it. When you're in the middle of one of these things, I know it's hard to see this, and we all need a reality check now and then, so here it is: this is so not worth this level of effort. Drop the word, keep in that he "predicted" (even though he didn't - that's what a compromise is) and move on. Info999 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this; the prediction isn't famous at all, but it was indeed a prediction. It isn't out place to slam how he may have arrived at the prediction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan's June 8, 1982 speech to the British Parliament was one of the two or three most important speeches of his presidency. It may have been one of the two or three most important speeches by a western leader during the entire cold war, equaling Churchill's Fulton, Missouri "Iron Curtain" speech. I'm sure I can prove this with a few days of research, but I won't have time for that until next weekend. Here's an example of how famous this speech is:

He predicted the demise of the Soviet Union, most notably in a speech to British members of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster on June 8th, 1982, in which he said the Soviets faced "a great revolutionary crisis" and would wind up on "the ash heap of history". In another historic speech, on June 12th, 1987, in front of the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall, Reagan urged: "Mr Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ten months after Reagan left office, the German people dismantled the wall. On Christmas 1991, Gorbachev stepped down and the Soviet Union and the Cold War passed into history -- Irish Times, June 7, 2004

There are hundreds of articles calling out this speech and the "ash-heap" phrase. It will just take a bit of time to pull all of the proof together. How far away to do we have to get from these events before partisans can see history clearly? However, I'm not wedded to "famously" here. I'd settle for some other adjective that communicated the importance of this speech, perhaps even the much-argued-about "controversially" --Paul 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Similarities between this article and the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article

I know that the section on the Reagan presidency in this article and the article on his presidency deal with the same subjects, but I am wondering why they are identical - word for word identical. If we have a link to the article that deals in depth with the Reagan presidency, why are we parroting it here? Perhaps we could perhaps summarize the matter more succinctly, allowing the link to spell out in more detail the policies therein, and instead focus on the man during the presidency, and not just his political decisions. How did he deal with his son's very public break from his own political views, becoming quite liberal, and even going on SNL? I know the answer to this, because I remember the interview when this came up, but I am thinking that these are the sorts of issues that we should be addressing on the article about the man, and not the editorial bronzing of the guy into some political icon. Clearly, he is that to conservatives and Republicans everywhere, but - just as we don't allow fancruft to be inserted into articles about musicians or fictional characters - we shouldn't allow partisan fancruft intent on focusing solely upon Reagan's political life in this article. There are other articles that deal with this aspect of the man's life, and allowing it here is ignoring the flesh and blood guy who put his shoes on one foot at a time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. And disagree with you. And I hope I didn't misread what you wrote, because this post will be pointless if I have. Let me know. I agree that this article should concentrate on the man Reagan, because of all your reasons. But I don't think that discussing his icon-ness (wth did I just say?) is a type of fancruft. A person either is or is not an icon. And then, discussing how that person is an icon (obviously as well as discussing how the person is not an icon) is discussing him fairly. Mother Teresa is an icon to many, and her page should discuss her in a light that represents her fairly to both sides. Martin Luther King Jr. is an icon as well who is represented fairly. Of course, Reagan may be more controversial than these examples, but he is an icon, so he should have some representation as such. Editors here shouldn't deny that Reagan has a following because it would be "paying tribute to his partisans". I understand the allowance of more criticism of him, but to say we shouldn't allow "partisan fancruft" is labelling something that it is not. Respecting a person and recognizing him for what he represents is different from bowing down and worshipping him. It all depends on how the information is written. Stanselmdoc 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan is notable because he was president and what he did as president. Thus that should be the primary focus of the article. He is not notable because he was a "flesh and blood guy who put his shoes on one foot at a time". What he did as president isn't fancruft: it's why he is important. Nathanalex 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. if we continue editing both articles so they are the same, then there's no reason to have both articles. We may have to rewrite most of the article to get more of the "who Reagan was" and how he got there, and linking to the presidency article where appropriate. Brian Pearson 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stans, I agree with what you are saying about Reagan's iconic status amongst his proponents and fans, but a person is not an icon - they are perceived as icons by others. This perception doesn't change who the person basically is, and I am not saying that this perception by his proponents his should be excluded from the article. We have a section on Reagan's legacy - and I think that that is where info about the iconic status (cited, of course) should be added. It shouldn't be used as a filter to any- and everything. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and biographical subjects of articles are treated the same way. Reagan is to be given the same level of editorial respect as Hitler, Gandhi, MLK or Pol Pot. Understand that the comparison to the less than sutiable examples of humanity being used next to shining examples of people trying to do the right thing is not meant as a jab at the latter group - in an encyclopedia, they get treated the same way. Anything over and above that is indeed fancruft (or hatecruft - I think I just coined a new wiki-word).

Nathan, you also make a point - the reason we have an article about Reagan is because he was primarily known as a US President. He was also an actor, and a Californian governor. I think we have articles that cover in detail almost all of these aspects of the man. I posit to you that if you feel that the Reagan presidency is the most notable part of Ronald Reagan, you should consider either nominating this article for deletion, or for merging with all of the half-dozen (and likely more) articles about Reagan. Clearly, this is not going to be an acceptable option to either proponents or opponents, and certainly not appropriate to the principles of Wikipedia, either. Clearly, Reagan had an impact across a multitude of fields and subjects, from economics through defense and into fashion trends and entertainment. We have articles about Reagan for all of these subjects, so why not use this article primarily for discussing the man?

I think that the wikilinks to the articles about the presidency, reaganomics, the assassination and virtually every other facet of his professional life that are already present allow the reader to explore those options in detail; the focus of the Ronald Reagan article should be Ronald Reagan himself. Not the US president, not the actor, not the figurehead of the Republican Party. I think that people reading this article have the right to expect that this one particular article will tell them about the man, while providing links to those subject they might wish to explore about the multifaceted Reagan.

Brian essentially hit the nail on the head. If this article is going to parrot what is int he Presidency article, then we need to either merge the articles, delete one of them...or recognize that this article has to tell the readers who Ronald Reagan the human being is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason Reagan is so controversial and these discussions are so contentious is because he was the President of the United States for eight years, and he said and did things that were different than what the establishment was used to. If Reagan had only been an actor and the Governor of California, this article would be one-tenth the size it is now, and there might be a "Start Class" tag on it. I may be wrong, but I detect a strategy to talk about "the man" so that we don't have to talk about what he believed. Ideas matter, and in Reagan's case they matter more. This article is in danger of being so sanitized of any of Reagan's principles that unknowledgeable readers are going to wonder what all of the fuss is about. Reagan's first wife left him because he was so interested in politics. He became president because of his political life, not because of his boat trips with Nancy. Reagan's politics and ideas are what you most need to understand in order to understand Reagan and his times. Dismissing this as "fan-cruft" is either showing a deep misunderstanding of Reagan, or a justification for keeping Reagan's ideas out of this article.--Paul 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that what a man believed is what the man was. As a side note, has anybody noticed that Presidency of Ronald Reagan isn't in the disambiguation page? Brian Pearson 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, but wasn't going to make the change until this matter was discussed. As for who the man was, I rpeat that I am not advocating ignoring his presidency. I am saying that there are articles that already spend heaps o' space doing just that, and they are linked in this article. Instead of duplicating info, it should be paraphrased here, and material about the man, his family life, etc. should be expanded upon. Paul noted that his first wife left him because of his interest in politics, but nowhere in this article is Reagan's first marriage addressed, and nowhere does this statement appear in the article. While Paul is deeply misunderstanding the motivations behind the push for both neutrality and singular focus, he does make a valid point that the reader is going to want to know what is important about Reagan. The presence of wikilinks explain the acts of the man. The article needs to focus on the man. The wikilinks in place allow the curious reader to explore the other aspects of Reagan, but this aticle should focus on the man. His first marriage, his marriage to Nancy and his children, his background which led to his interest and pursuit into politics, his battle with Alzheimers', etc. These are vital components to the man's biography, and if fancruft is the appropriate term to utilize to address the hyper-focus on information repeated in numerous other articles instead of the aforementioned vital components, then fancruft it is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Presidency of Ronald Reagan article should be deleted and important information there should be incorporated here. Arcayne has recently pointed out that the Cold War section of this article doesn't mention the 1982 speech to Parliament, except in a caption. As an example of the correct focus of this article, expanding on the importance of that speeeh, and it's relationship to the "Evil-Empire Speech" and the "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall" speech is much more important than an anecdote about why the Reagan's marriage failed in 1949. If no one has formally suggested deleting the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article, I'm happy to do so.--Paul 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, allow me to state yet again that no one is suggesting that his political accomplishments aren't important. It's simply a matter of having an article that already discussed that information in depth. Are we to next suggest that the article Reaganomics be incorporated into this article? How about the one concerning his governorship? The assassination attempt? How about the other half-dozen or so articles about Reagan - are we to incoprporate all of them into this article? Obviously, no. The existence of these separate articles allow for a more manageable study of the various facets of Reagan. I think its rather foolish to dismiss the personal aspects of the man by adopting the rather silly approach that Reagan somehow sprung, Athena-like, fully-formed from the Republican Party to sieze the US presidency. The man's background isn't an "anecdote" - its the path demonstrating how the man arrived at his political views and accomplishments. Anyone who considers this background to be unimportant does a disservice to the man and to biographies in general. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that an assumption is being made that is plainly false. And that is: that anyone who attempts to eliminate POV or to include a balance must therefore be anti-Reagan. This is a self-serving assumption, and allows those who are Reagan fans to feel better about their struggle to make this a fan article by claiming that it's just a struggle between those who like Reagan and those who don't. This is false. If you look at the edits that I have made to this or other articles in wikipedia, you will not discern a partisan slant, nor a focus on a particular person or narrow group - as you can perhaps discern from some of the editors who I believe are pushing a pro-Reagan agenda. The fact is that this article plays by its own rules compared with the articles for other recent presidents - which is bad thing for wikipedia. There are numerous items that should be dealt with in separate articles, chief among them the Reagan presidency; that's not a partisan argument or something contrived to let the wind out of the Reagan fans' sails - it's the way things work in wikipedia: this article is about the person, not the president. Likewise, it is about the person, not the presidential library, nor the eight other related subjects for which separate articles exist. On top of that, not only should these subjects be properly dealt with in separate articles, their mentions in this article should be significantly decreased, and limited to simple mention and direction towards the relevant article. That is the wiki standard, not a partisan move. Info999 16:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in this discussion has asserted that 1. This is a matter of eliminating POV, or 2. People in favor are anti-Reagan. I don't think Arcayne's suggestion comes from a desire to eliminate POV, but more from a desire to concentrate on a different aspect of Reagan. A different aspect which I think could be a breath of fresh air, and I am pro-Reagan. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to concentrate on the "man" Reagan was, because that incorporates: 1. His life, 2. His beliefs, 3. Events which happened to him that were out of his control, 4. Life-shaping/changing events, 5. His careers, 6. The effect of his careers on his family, 7. How the world perceived him both as a man and as a politician, 8. etc. What I think is getting confused here is that concentrating more on the "man" Reagan does not equal eliminating all mention of his presidency and governorship, because these are aspects of his life that shaped him. But it does mean adding more information about who he was and what he believed, and whether or not his actions were dictated by those beliefs. While I understand the hesitance of Paul, Brian, and others, I think this could and should be a non-partisan effort to enjoy discussing who Reagan was, the bad and the good. Plus, the more editors we have (from different political arenas), the more likely it is we can come to a true NPOV consensus. Stanselmdoc 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Info, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that all of the people disagreeing with the scaling back of the presidential stuff are pov-pushers (just most of them - lol, j/k). I think that the concerns you are feeling are shared by people like Paul and Brian, who conversely think that editors like me are trying to marginalize Reagan's accomplishments by advocating a stricter interpretation for this article. Even if I wanted that to happen, there are simply too many articles about Reagan out there to hamstring them all, and fan sensitivity radars are far too sensitive in WP for that to go unanswered for long.

I don't like Reagan or his policies, but I certainly don't condone the Reagan article being gutted by anti-fans or fancruft frpm artificially inflating it; it cheapens the subject of the article and casts doubt upon the entire process altogether. If we allow or condone this sort of editing behavior, we detract from the biographical subject's actual unvarnished accomplishments, which weakens the article.

This article needs to be about Reagan the person, since we have more than enough info about his other facets. Stans has the right idea about the course it should pursue. Include a greatly scaled back view of those subjects better covered by articles already existent and wikilinked within the article. If this is something we cannot agree to follow, then perhaps the time has come to pursue Dispute Resolution, up to and including RfC or ArbCom. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't go forward with this, the way you've outlined it. It doesn't look like a cakewalk, though...call it a gut feeling. Brian Pearson 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is such a bizarre argument! First, the presidency article is not word-for-word. It contains info that is too detailed for the main article. This allows the minutia of his presidency to be put there, for anyone who's interested. I suspect that when the Reagan article was written, the stuff about his presidency was copied to its own article, and that's where you find the similarities. Perhaps the article could be renamed "Reagan Administration" or something like that. But this is just a bizarre suggestion, which seems to be coming out of left field. It would be akin to having an article about, say, a musician, and then getting upset when there is info primarily about his music career.

It is beyond bizarre. No one has explicitly suggested it, but let's imagine we take out some "Reaganomics" so we have more room to explore Ron's marriage to Jane Wyman? We don't need that "fan-cruft" stuff, let's have some soap opera! Of course, that's ridiculous, isn't it? But reading this section of comments, is it really so hard to imagine? Being President of the U.S.A is a Very Big Thing and it overwhelms most other accomplishments. Very few of our Presidents deserve broader coverage of their non-presidential lives, Washington, Jeffereson, and T. Roosevelt probably, but not many others and certainly not Reagan.--Paul 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At a practical level, I don't see what could be included that couldn't be included anyway. So just include the info about Reagan's reaction to his son's ideology (though this information is really more relevant to the kid's article). What you suggest about having separate articles for the various sections: they already exist! That so much work was put into this article becoming a featured article, and then wanting to completely change it, seems inappropriate and unnecessary. Nathanalex 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To use your analogy: it would be like an article about a musician in a band who was also a producer, songwriter, novelist and poet but getting upset when there is information primarily about his brief (in relation to his long life) solo career. Reagan was president for less than 10% of his life...no one would argue that it wasn't the most famous time in his life, and even perhaps the most important. Several of us are simply arguing 1. that it wasn't his entire life (as the article now makes it seem to be) 2. that much of his presidency is dealt with extensively in other articles and 3. there is no non-POV reason to duplicate information from those other articles. No one is suggesting that the complete record of his life won't be included on wikipedia - it's just a question of where is the most appropriate place for each item? Info999 22:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting frustrated reading this. I agree that this is a bizarre topic to be talking about, but the two articles are somewhat similar, however I am not in favor of deleting the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. They are similar, yes, but deleting info out of this article so it's not like the Presidency article is a stupid thing to do because 1.) good facts presenting a very important part of Reagan's life are being removed, and 2.) it will risk destablizing the article to an extreme amount (with users wanting some info put back in, more taken out, something worded differently) that the FA status will probably be quickly lost. Info's point is a good one: the presidency was only for eight years of his life, but it's arguable that those eight years were the most important and most well known of his life. Why not elaborate on what's in the Presidency article to make that longer, or worded differently if it really means so much? Happyme22 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because:

1. the title of the article is Presidency of Ronald Reagan, whereas this one is called Ronald Reagan. One article focuses on the eight years of his presidency in detail, whereas this article is actually supposed to focus on the person - as per the title.

1. the Ronald Reagan article is long enough as it is, and we are parroting the info from another article (actually many other articles), which is a Bad Thing, according to WP. We can summarize the topics better dealt with in othjer articles far more efficiently and use the extra space to add the info about the person.

2. A great deal of the information presented in this article is duplicated from other articles (the assassination information is actually duplicated across three articles);

3. no one is advocating that we pretend his presidency didn't exist - just that it wasn't his entire life,and his personal life outside of the presidency is in itself notable;

4. if people aren't lunkheads and try to add the same edit in over and over again, and actually work together rather than the nonsense that has plagued the article for some time (which I don't attribute to you, Hap), the changes would be mostly orderly and effectively discsussed before inclusion.

I am not saying it's going to be easy. I am saying that it is what needs to be done in respect to the other biographies in WP and other presidential biographies. While some editors seem to think that to actually write about Reagan as a person can only be accomplished by immolating his presidency in favor of triviality, I think that is indicative of extraordinarily narrow vision. Reagan as a person wasn't trivial. I find it odd that some folk are so resistant to accurately portray the man outside of the presidency. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who copied the info from this article and put it in the other articles, because the info on this page was much better written than that on the other page(s) and I guess I didn't know Wiki's rules. It seems like I've caused quite a problem. I'm not resistent to portray the man outside of the presidency; I want it to keep it's FA status that we've all worked so hard to get, and I don't want to rush into undertaking a major projects. Plus, what you are planning on doing will take a great deal of work and cannot be done by one person alone. I was the one who, back in March or April, expanded the presidency section a great deal, and throughout that time new facts have been added, taken away, paragraphs and sections have been rewritten, and we have worked together as a community to produce what I feel is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I agree that there are some subsections that could be cut down, especially the "Reaganomics" section, but talk about a grueling experience! Just wait until some editors that know about economics jump in! Let me ask you: what are you specifically wanting to get rid of in the presidency section? Why is it such a problem? Let's start there. Happyme22 02:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan popularity issue

Some discussion on this issue is in Archive 8. The lead currently ends with "and ranks today as one of the most popular U.S. presidents.". I thought there was reasonable consensus on removing this sentence from the lead. The only change from a few weeks ago appears to be the addition of "today" as opposed to during his presidency. There are still a few issues with how it reads. I've copied a few things from the archive.

I read Happyme22's arguments. One argument is that Reagan is more popular now than when he was in office. I agree. Note, however, that other presidents have increased in popularity since their presidency (Nixon being an exception). Carter's rating is over 60%, for instance. Clinton is somewhat higher. Bush Sr.'s rating has increased too.

Most of the polls cited are of the "choose your favorite president" polls variety which Reagan wins the most votes in or is 2nd. The problem with using this as evidence is the fact that the percentage of votes allocated to anyone, including the winner, is fairly small. It says nothing about the strong majority that voted for someone else. This merely says that he was very popular among a relatively small minority of the population.

Happyme22, I also noticed you removed the link to the Siena scholars poll. Why was this? Initially, I linked it to the Wikipedia entry on the topic but I believe Arcayne removed this, citing rules that a Wikipedia article cannot reference another. So I pulled a recent poll with a large random sample size instead. Please explain your reasoning for removing this.

Gmb92 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I really have no recollection of removing a Sienna Scholar's poll... I'll check the archive, though. Happyme22 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back, the reason I removed that poll is because you use the phrase "most historians rank him lower" (italics mine) and cite one poll. I could argue most historians rank him as number one and cite one poll, and it wouldn't be true. Try wording it differently; maybe say "hisorians in the SIenna Scholars poll rank him lower, however." Also, you remoed the statement abut his popularity in the lead, something I did not add in. It does belong, though, because per WP:LEAD the lead should provide an overwiew of the article and one of the main point of the "Legacy" section (and subsection "Popularity) is that Reagan is popular today. You cannot really dispute that fact. As president he wasn't everyone's favorite, but it is true today. Happyme22 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any scientific poll of historians that rank Reagan as #1 but I'll change the wording to be more specific. Reagan is more popular than average today and more popular than when he was in office (like many presidents). Those would be both true statements. The phrase "one of the most popular presidents", however, is clearly POV and debatable. Many disagree with including it as is apparent in the discussion from the archive. Why include a debatable phrase that many disagree with?

Gmb92 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Why include a debateable phrase that many disagree with?" I'm sorry, but are you serious? Wikipedia is full of debateable phrases! "Nancy told Vanity Fair, 'Our relationship is very special. We were very much in love and still are.' " is a debateable phrase. Should that be removed? "His political loyalties soon shifted to the Republican Party, however, for he thought that the Democrats had created a larger government." Should that be removed? That's debatable. Some here may not think Reagan is popular today, but it is a fact that, as the sentence stated, "today, he is one of America's most popular presidents." [6] [7] Look at this source - a CNS News poll. I'll even quote it: "Ronald Reagan's average job approval rating while in office between 1981 and 1989 was 53 percent, but looking back, 73 percent of Americans say they approve of how he handled his term in office." According to the article, that's higher than Bill Clinton who got a 55 avg. while in office and is now ranked with a 51. I could go on and on. The term "today ranks as one of the most popular U.S. Presidents" is backed up by reliabe info from reliable polling sources. You may not think Reagan is popular today... for one thing, more people turned out to view his casket when he died than did Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Ford. He is popular. This site here from CBS News even challenges "Reagan was not very popular as president." He ties here with Clinton at 68%, above that of FDR. Do you see what I'm saying? It is debatable saying he is one of America's most popular presidents, but most polling sources seem to say the same thing. Happyme22 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

CNS (Cybercast News Service) is ultra-conservative and will spin things as such. Most polls put Clinton in line with Reagan today, the latest at 71% approval. Should the same statement "...today ranks as one of the most popular U.S. Presidents" be included on the Clinton page? We certainly have similar evidence to support his popularity yet I don't think that phrase should be included there either. First, it's vague. What does "one of the most" mean? Top 3? Top 5? Top 10? Historians on average rank Reagan in the 2nd quintile (about 10-20). Second, as mentioned on the archived thread, presidential approval polls have only reliably been in use since around WW2. Thus, we can only accurately apply this data to FDR and beyond - 11 presidents (12 if you include the in-progress administration).Gmb92 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In that source, Clinton is ranked above Reagan in only one poll. However, they are similar, and if the facts show that Bill Clinton is considered to be one of America's most popular presidents (which they do) then I'd put it in his article as well. But that's not the point. The source you listed for me says it all:

• USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007

"Who would you regard as the greatest United States President?"

Abraham Lincoln: 18

Ronald Reagan: 16 (in second place)

• USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 8-10, 2006

"How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?"

Ronald Reagan: 12/8-10/06 24 40 26 6 4 1

Out of the five former presidents listed there, Reagan ranks the highest

• Gallup Poll. June 1-4, 2006

"From what you have heard, read, or remember about some of our past presidents, please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following handled their job as president. How about..."

John F. Kennedy: 84

Ronald Reagan: 71 (in second place)

• Quinnipiac University Poll. May 23-30, 2006

"Thinking about the United States presidents we have had since World War II which one would you consider the best president?"

Ronald Reagan: 28 (in first place)

Bill Clinton: 25

• Quinnipiac University Poll. May 23-30, 2006

"Which of these eleven presidents we have had since World War II would you consider the worst president?"

George W. Bush: 34

Richard Nixon: 17

Bill Clinton: 16

Jimmy Carter: 13

Lyndon Johnson: 4

George Bush Senior: 3

Ronald Reagan: 3

Gerald Ford: 2

John Kennedy : 1

Harry Truman: 1

Dwight Eisenhower: -

No opinion: 5

• ABC News.com Poll. Feb. 16-20, 2000

"Who do you think was the greatest American president?"

Lincoln: 19

JFK : 17

FDR: 11

Reagan: 9 (comes in fourth)

• NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R): Sept. 9-12,1999

"Which one of the following do you consider to be the most important president of the 20th century?"

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 32

John F. Kennedy: 22

Ronald Reagan: 15 (comes in third)

• ABC News Poll. Sept. 11-15, 1998

"In your lifetime, which president do you think did the best job?

Reagan comes in first

I don't know why we're disputing the facts. How about rewording the sentence: "Reagan ranks in the top five presidents today according to popularity, but historians on average rank him lower." Happyme22 01:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy, you haven't addressed some of my key points. First, most of your polls cited are "who's the best president" polls. The only things these polls indicate is that a small minority of people think Reagan's the greatest. Take the Feb. 2007 poll. 16% think Reagan is greatest. It says absolutely nothing about what the other 84% think. They are not very relevant to this sentence under contention. The approval polls are also limited to WW2 presidents and later since reliable approval polls aren't available before that. As a concession, I would be willing to go with something like "Today, Reagan has a higher than average approval rating for post-WW2 presidents" but I really don't think it need any further inferences.Gmb92 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change. By the way, John F. Kennedy's page mentions that he is considered to be one of the most popular presidents in the lead, which is true. If you look at our source, he ranks very closley to Reagan, off by maybe one or two, and in the top five. Happyme22 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this has changed since your post, but the Kennedy intro reads "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.[1]" which is accurate and similar to how the Reagan intro reads now.Gmb92 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First Try at Rewriting a Section That Already Has a Wiki Article

As an example of how we can make edits that shorten the article, remove POV, and point to the appropriate articles for more information, how about this for the section on the 1980 election? It leaves the quotes and most of the stats where they belong - in the main article - and removes unnecessary information and peacock words. Please look at it from this perspective: nothing has been "covered up" or "removed"; the information is covered in wikipedia, albeit in a separate article. It meets all of the requirements of the letter and spirit of wiki regulations while not being full of breathless fanspeak.

1980 presidential election

Main article: United States presidential election, 1980

In addition to domestic concerns, the Iran hostage crisis overshadowed the 1980 presidential election. Reagan's showing in the televised debates against the incumbent, President Jimmy Carter, boosted his campaign, and he selected his opponent in the primaries, George H. W. Bush, to be his running mate.

Reagan won the election, carrying 44 states with 489 electoral votes to 49 electoral votes for Carter (representing six states and Washington, D.C.). Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote while Carter took 41%, and Independent John B. Anderson (a liberal Republican) received 6.7%.^[5]

Comments?Info999 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should talk more about his campaign and what he planned to accomplish as president. It's a start, however. Happyme22 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's great - why don't you use the article that's about the campaign to do just that? Do you see what we're getting at? That there's absolutely no good reason to duplicate information between articles? That there's no reason to talk more about his campaign and what he planned to accomplish as president in the Reagan article, since it will be covered in the other article? That goes for the other sections, too. Think of it this way: if you only had a few hundred words to cover all of Reagan's life, you wouldn't leave out huge chunks, right? You'd cover all of the stuff, only not go into so much detail about any one thing; if you felt that some things were just so important that you couldn't be held to the word limit, you'd break them off into separate articles...which is exactly what we're suggesting (and exactly what wiki policy is suggesting - though more forcefully, since it's really a policy and not just a suggestion :) ). Info999 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what your doing. I guess that's ok, but this article needs to be kept to a higher standard because of its FA status, so try and keep the prose engaging. I'm going to change the article to read mostly like this. Happyme22 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Think of it this way: You have 10,000 words to write an article about Ronald Reagan that is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral regardless of whether there is are daughter articles or not. Summary style says you move unnecessary detail that makes the main article too long to the daughter article. It does not suggest you take everything out of the main article that is in the daughter article. Editors seem to be suggesting that if some detail exists in a daughter article it doesn't need to be in the main article, as that is duplication. This is a principle for database design (its called normalization), not a principle for writing a Featured Article. The suggested rewrite of the 1980 campaign section squeezes it down to an absurd 90 words, and wrings all interest and information out of it. There is no mention of the "misery index," no mention of "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" no mention of "...recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his," no mention of "typee canoe and Tyler, too" OOPs, wrong campaign, but you get the idea. This concept of revamping an existing featured article to concentrate on "the man" and remove "fancruft" and "peacock words" is very misguided. The effort is in conflict with the FA criteria of comprehensiveness and stability, and potentially that of neutrality. I forecast, that if it is pursued, it will lead to monstrous edit wars and the de-listing of this article as an FA.--Paul 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I agree with the entire strategy that some on this page are, but Info's version is more concise, cut down on the kb count, plus presented it in a factual manner with no questions of POV. Do I support this for the entire article? No, but we can get into that when the time comes. Happyme22 04:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy - I appreciate your being open to the suggestion. A few points on your edit: first, Carter wasn't Reagan's challenger - he was the President of the United States; Reagan was the challenger. Second, while I don't think you were meaning to insert this, phrases like "launched his campaign" are not only unnecessary (he was the Republican nominee, so of course he received the Republican nomination, and every presidential contender launches the campaign once they receive the nomination of their party), but also inject a...how do I put it?...a...spirited voice that isn't neutral (after all, didn't they both "launch" their campaigns?  :) ). Third, there were at least three serious opponents for Reagan during the primaries other than Bush...perhaps instead of "...he selected his opponent..." it could read "...he selected one of his primary opponents..."? Fourth, I have tried to weed out passive language when I could, and your edit added it back in (..."was conducted..."). And, it wasn't "amidst" the crisis, it was "during" it ("amidst" is a showy word, and doesn't mean what we want to convey here). Further, placing the Iran hostage crisis second actually gives it more weight, following the "In addition to domestic concerns,..." I think mostly without realizing it, you're trying to add majesty and a little pomp to the wording, which comes across (to me, and to some others who have written about it) as POV. But I think we're on the right track with ruthlessly paring it down. I personally don't think the Congressional numbers belong, because I think that they should be in the separate article and I think we need to cut, cut, cut (the article is ridiculously long, not only as a stand-alone article about a single individual (because the iran-contra crisis wasn't just about Reagan, and neither were the campaigns, nor the controllers strike, nor Reaganonmics, nor Lebanon and Grenada, and on and on), but also in comparison to most all other articles about presidents), but again, I won't fight the Congressional numbers. Info999 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Happyme22 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need cut, cut, cutting, as it is only 8,000 words of prose which is about 2K below the suggested maximum. It is smaller than the Carter article and it within 10% of Nixon, GHW Bush, GW Bush, and Johnson.--Paul 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering -- is there some rule about the KB count? I think some articles will demand more information, while others won't need as much. Certainly we don't have to worry about overloading the servers. Brian Pearson 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LENGTH suggests 6,000 to 10,000 words or about 32K to 50K of "readable prose." This article is currently just slightly over 8,000 words. --Paul 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 99% Paul, but all I'm saying is that Info's alternative version to the 1980 campaign section was probably better, more neutral, and cut down on some unnecessary details and the kb count. The only other section I would even consider doing something similar to is "Reaganomics and the economy," but that very, very long discussion is for another day! Paul makes very good points: the article isn't too long, nor is it false, and things can be repeated in other articles. This is my view: This article should not drastically change, but other "mother and father" articles could be expanded. The information can be similar, but this article must be well written and comprehensive, or bye-bye FA. Happyme22 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's better. It is shorter, but it has removed information and interest, and the article isn't too long anyway. As to more neutral, if you think that removing all of the quotes from Reagan - because there are no quotes from Carter - makes it more neutral, then I suppose so, but I don't think that's neutrality I think it's rhetoric cleansing. It's now a yawn, with not even a nod towards "compelling and brilliant prose." --Paul 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we focus on this?

Instead of attempting to rewrite/remove things for right now, why don't we concentrate on adding things about the man Reagan? Because maybe if we find lots of other interesting stuff to add to the article, the information that could be removed will become more apparent, and it'll be easier for us to make decisions on what to cut, and maybe it would cut down on the arguing over little things.  ???Stanselmdoc 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can work with that. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alzheimer's while president?

If I hadn't worked on this article and read the lead section, I would think that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's all throughout his presidency because of a sentence (or two) stating: "Reagan left office in 1989. In 1994 he disclosed that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease." Now, I know that there had been spectulation that he had the disease during his presidency, and some statements might point to that, but nothing is for sure. Take a look at this page, and there is a quote by Dr. Larry Altman, a Senior Medical columnist for the New York Times, who once investigated whether he did have the disease as president. Quote: "I was unable to find any evidence by any medical criteria that is known to the medical profession that Mr Regan had any symptoms or signs of Alzheimer’s when he was President. The signs and symptoms developed several years after he left office, but interviews with senior Cabinet officials in his last term, with his doctors who treated him on a regular basis, and other people who knew him, could turn up no evidence that there was any incidence or incidents that suggested that he had Alzheimer’s. And even his biographer didn’t find any evidence of it."

Then there's this from www.timesunion.com, with, "At times during Reagan's stay in the White House, he seemed forgetful and would lose his train of thought while talking. However, doctors said Alzheimer's was not to blame, noting the disease was diagnosed years after he left office."

Dinesh D'Souza, a biographer of Reagan's (and, yes, a conservative) also says this isn't the case: "There is no evidence that Reagan had Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency." (from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/authors_corner/july-dec97/dsouza_12-19.html)

In Nancy Reagan's book, I Love You, Ronnie, she says Reagan was diagnosed in August 1994, and released it publicly in November 1994. Basically, she says they went down to Mexico in July 1989, where Reagan was thrown off his horse. They flew home and got his head x-rayed at the Mayo Clinic where they said he had to be operated on. According to Nancy Reagan, the doctors believe that is what triggered the onset of Alzheimer's. (Source: Reagan, Nancy. (2002) I Love You, Ronnie. United States: Random House. ISBN 0375760512, page 179-180)

Therefore, the sentence is misleading. I think it should read: "Reagan left office in 1989 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994." I know this is a place where some editors may think I'm being POV, but this is the truth. Best, Happyme22 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. What I was trying for in that edit (pretty sure that was me) was that he had disclosed the information in 1994 - that it was something that he did proactively. You could even put in a short phrase that it was done in an open letter in his handwriting. But in any case, regardless of speculation on either side of the argument (the doctor you cite never examined Reagan, never ordered tests, etc.), there is no way to be sure, from an encyclopedic standpoint, exactly when it was actually diagnosed. This isn't just any piece of information - it's something that has been speculated on since during his second term (especially once his videotaped deposition was aired). The only thing that can be cited from a trusted source perspective is that the disclosure occurred in 1994. The "truth" is that it was disclosed - the only source we have for what you call the "truth" are people with something at stake, and therefore not reliable on their own. If that doctor had said, instead of what he did, that it was his opinion that Reagan had the disease all throughout his second term, I have the feeling that you would say that the doctor never examined Reagan, never ordered tests, etc. I think we should stick to what we can source for sure, but I won't fight anyone on this point. Thanks. Info999 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

....there is no way to be sure, from an encyclopedic standpoint, exactly when it was actually diagnosed. I'm not so sure this is the case. We could take Reagan's word for it. The note says "My fellow Americans, I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease."--Paul 08:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely the other side haha. I'm going to see what other editors think, though. Happyme22 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there is mention of it in his recently published diary. BTW, in 1985 he declared a proclamation that June was to be Alzheimer's month, if I remember correctly. No puns intended. Brian Pearson 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Reagan left office in 1989. In 1994 he released a hand-written note to all Americans disclosing he had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. This note marked the end of his political life." --Paul 06:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps an alternative to that could be: "After leaving office in 1989, he revealed in 1994 that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and was retiring from public life." That seems to cogently tie up all the parts and more succintly state the same material. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not too fond of that. By putting both things in the same sentence, it makes it seem that he left office, hibernated for five years, and then woke up and revealed he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Also, the fact that this was announced in a hand-written note addressed to all Americans was suggested by Info999 above, and is not irrelevant.--Paul 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Paul. I see the gaping hole after he left office and might want to know what he was doing in the interim. Apparently, he fell off a horse at one point, which prompted the medical attention and subsequent diagnosis. This is precisely the sort of information that this article should focus upon. I think that the inclusion of the hand-written note was to act as an attempt by Reagan to be a bit more personal about his departure from public life, as opposed to a formal press release. I think this points to the man, and not so much an addition of sentimentality. Do you understand what I mean by that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make some changes to the lead and the "Alzheimer's" section momentarily and see what you think. This is a great source, even with qotes from his doctors. I'll start with what Nancy said in her book, and I'm going to work with this new source later tonight. Happyme22 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering -- suppose we made no comparisons, and just wrote what Reagan believed and espoused? Brian Pearson 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that, in itself is not encyclopedic. Some people believe that telepathic mind witches based on the Martian Face control our actions and take to the streets to smellily espouse these beliefs. In context with outside interpretation and commentary of their beliefs makes them more encyclopedic and neutral. I think we should put what Reagan believed and espoused, but to devote the entire article to politics or presidential policy-making cheapens the man's legacy and memory, turning him into a two-dimensional recruiting poster. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)