Ronald Reagan

The Talk pages were getting too big - it's archived here - comedy ringtones Talk:Reagan Archive 2004 06 27 and here - Mindy Vega Talk:Reagan Archive 2004 07 19. - Nextel ringtones Sparky/Sparky 19:04, 19 Jul 2004


Reagan and the Berlin Wall

Being an inhabitant of East Germany, I find the following sentence inapprobriate and offensive:

''Schröder later said about his presence at the funeral: "It is appropriate that the German chancellor says, 'Thank you,' and that is what I'm doing," perhaps thanking Reagan for helping to reunify Germany with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which happened after he left office.''

The sentence gives the expression, that he teared the wall down, while we consider Ronald Reagan's role
in this part of history as secondary.

Reagan and the 2004 U.S. Election

I've moved the following paragraph from the main article. The assertion in the first sentence is not supported by the following three sentences. Someone may want to argue that there was a similar dynamic at work, but that would require rewriting.

Reagan's passing helped Bush win re-election. Many people felt that the experiences of the Canadians during the six emotional days in September 2000 that marked the passing and state funeral of Planet Corrina Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was prime minister when Reagan became president (Mulroney didn't become prime minister until 1984) may have been the factor. Then-prime minister Free ringtones Jean Chretien called an Planet Katie Canadian federal election, 2000/election weeks later and it helped him and his Mosquito ringtone Liberal Party of Canada/Liberals win another majority government. Both cases make one point clear: Reagan inspired Bush to be president, like Trudeau inspired Chretien to be prime minister.

Planet Mandy Bbpen/Bbpen 18:46, 4 Nov 2004

: Yeah, I think this is pretty off-topic anyway and shouldn't be part of the article. Secret ringtone Neilc/Neilc 04:48, 5 Nov 2004

Reagan and the Mob's Hollywood Man
Planet Summer Mafia fixer '''Sidney Korshak''' the lawyer seems quite the character - but he wouldn't diss Nancy. He does admit to being quite the rake with '''Ronald Reagan''' between the man's marriages having Cingular Ringtones sex worker/whores visit the two of them in the same hotel room back then.

Doris Lilly and Jacqueline Parks
This ties in with Doris Lilly's raised nearly 1949 opinion of Reagan before he transforms himself from a ''very hayseed type of a man'' into a ''swinger''. This might explain his treatment of Jacqueline Parks who said in 1991:
: "When I told him I was pregnant, he said he didn't want to have anything to do with me anymore. He just ran out on me. He was a swinger in those days. He went out with this girl and that girl. But the moment he married Nancy and became a Republican, he was reformed, and there's nothing more boring than a reformed swinger." - citing other Sparky/Sparky 19:29, 19 Jul 2004

What the hell is the Selene Waters allegation doing in that part of the article. It basically goes: "Author Kitty Kelley claimed he raped this person..." and then just goes on to talk about how he got Alzheimer's in the same paragraph. Pretty misplaced. francisco gros Trey Stone/Trey Stone 00:24, 29 Jul 2004
: That part of the article is about his retirement. It's just a coincidence, the allegation and diagnostic placed in the same period of time. alike understood Vasile/Vasile 06:11, 29 Jul 2004

article size

This article is already 60KB and growing. I think that it is time to think about how to best split it up. The Presidency and Foreign Interventions sections and their subsections could be moved to exceptional incident Presidency of Ronald Reagan, leaving two to three subsection summary under Presidency and a ''Main article: democrats was Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' link under that heading. Any other ideas on how to split? not bring Maveric149/mav 21:28, 30 Jul 2004

* You could do as you suggested above, or simply include items 3 through 7 in your proposed schneiderthe schneider Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. If you include all items relating to the Reagan presidency, that might be more consistent. I'd drop off where he wins the presidency (while including a note to readers saying "for information on the Reagan Presidency, see loria would Presidency of Ronald Reagan." Then I'd continue where Legacy and Retirement from Public Life begins. The paragraph in Early political career discussing the 1984 campaign vs. Walter Mondale can be inserted in the new Presidency article. The Presidency article also will need a note letting readers know about the Ronald Reagan article for more information on his life pre and post presidency.

* Because Ronald Reagan is either (you choose) embraced (or despised) by the US voting public, he generates a lot of rhetoric from opposing viewpoints (and also a lot of detail not present in other similar articles). His death only accelerated that discussion. Hence, the 60 KB length. (and I'm not even getting into what the rest of the world's population thinks. . .) Separating out his presidential years from the rest of his life is probably in the end going to result in acceptable article lengths for both articles. I have hope. . . Your kind thoughts? early voice Avnative/avnative 02:57, Jul 31, 2004

:Go for it. It could be worse: there's shahjahan built George W. Bush, as well as an article on his 2000 campaign ''and'' his 2004 campaign. Same goes for Al Gore and John Kerry. black carp Meelar/repudiated revived User:Meelar/Meelar when prudie User talk:Meelar/(talk) 02:59, 2004 Jul 31 P.S. There's also huge increases Al Gore's views, in an extreme example of bloat

:Sounds good. I'll be gone for this weekend but I'll try to help out next weekend. To be clear, a good-sized summary of his presidency needs to still be left here. The more detailed stuff can go in a separate article. meter on Maveric149/mav 07:10, 31 Jul 2004

::Mav, I agree with your thoughts expressed above. Certainly a summary of his presidency should be included with the main Ronald Reagan article. However, my time is limited towards this (sad to say) and as a relatively new Wikipedian, haven't yet mastered the art of reverting, transplanting massive material to a new article, etc. I took your earlier comments literally, and offered my ''thoughts'' to you. I'd be glad to offer advice to you, though! Just let me know. . . After the transplanting is done, I certainly would be glad to go over it for readability/copyediting (and making sure things are in their rightful place). Please leave me a note at my user discussion page when you need me. Thanks! coat parts Avnative/avnative 04:30, Aug 3, 2004

:OK - the summary is in place and more detailed text moved to speech are Reagan Administration. I'm working on making that into an article in its own right now. searched by Maveric149/mav 08:26, 9 Aug 2004

This can be something larger. Currently, all famous music John Doe Administration links redirect to President John Doe's biography. We could have an article on the Reagan Administration and the same for all other presidents. Jiang/JiaUser talk:Jiang/'''ng''' 07:25, 31 Jul 2004

:Yes, I agree. But this should ''only'' be used to split the president articles once they get too big. Maveric149/mav 08:26, 9 Aug 2004

The "Miscellaneous" section should have its content moved elsewhere. For example, the air traffic controllers strike belongs under domestic. 17:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:That whole section should be integrated into the rest of the article. In time. Maveric149/mav 02:58, 10 Aug 2004

Reaganomics

I changed it, b/c it defined Reaganomics as cutting taxes and increased military spending. That was a compromise; not what Reagan actually wanted. A big part of what Republicans generally want is a reduction of funds for social programs by the Federal Government.

Portrait

Wasn't his Governor portrait defaced/damaged at some point? Rhymeless/Rhymeless 02:17, 18 Sep 2004

NPOV
I notice the NPOV tag is on the page. Glancing through Talk & the archives, I didn't notice a specific dispute in progress justifying the tag.

Would someone mind bringing me up to speed on the specific complaint leading to the NPOV tag? A linki to the appropriate discussion would be fine. Thanks. Wolfman/Wolfman 19:02, 18 Sep 2004

:As best I can tell, no one has made any comments about a neutrality dispute in over a month. Nor has my query been answered. So, I am removing the NPOV tag. If someone still does in fact have specific neutrality objections, please state the specific objection below and reinsert the tag. Thanks. Wolfman/Wolfman 00:13, 20 Sep 2004

Iraqi chemical weapons

The article claims:

:At various times the administration supported both nations but mainly sided with Iraq, believing that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was less dangerous than Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Weapons and tactical support were sent to Iraq, including the transfer of chemical and biological materials, ostensibly for humanitarian purposes. These materials were in fact used to make chemical and biological weapons.

But declines to include any references or sources to support this (controversial) claim. Does anyone have any links to documentation concerning the sale of chemical and biological materials, and the future use of these materials in weapons? Neilc/Neilc 04:19, 1 Nov 2004

: Okay, I did some research into this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true WaPo article is informative. I've updated the article to reflect my understanding of what is accurate. Neilc/Neilc 07:50, 2 Nov 2004

Links

I've noticed that there are more anti-Reagan links than pro-Reagan links, which is odd considering he had 60% of the popular vote and 49 states....It should at least be 50/50. Anyone to help? User:BMWman/BMWman

Like George Bush, one can be popular with half of the US and unpopular with almost everyone else in the world :) Wikipedia is also for Angolans, Iranians, Central Americans... User:Greenman/Greenman 13 Dec 2004

You don't think the man that set an electoral college record should get an equal saying in the links saying? This was much, MUCH more than half the US. It may be for others also, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt have a say. User:BMWman/BMWman

:be bold/Go for it, dude! However you're going to be riding uphill on this, the consensus on this 'pedia seems to tilt to the left. Only way to achieve true NPOV is to try to balance everything out with worthwhile content. Ellsworth/Ellsworth 23:41, 15 Feb 2005

Supreme Court Nominations

Any objections to me adding such a section? User:BMWman/BMWman

:Certainly, such information would be welcome. If you want to add a lot of detail (more than a paragraph or two), please consider making a separate article on his nominations. Then a summary and a link to the nomination article can be included here in the Reagan biography. In fact, a general article on Reagan's judicial nominees at all levels would be a nice addition. Wolfman/Wolfman 02:31, 15 Dec 2004

::I started a section on that topic at Reagan Administration. Ellsworth/Ellsworth 15:32, 18 Feb 2005

Links to speeches

The reagan2020.com website has got links to all his major speeches at /speeches.
Maybe we could condense the links section a bit? Normally I'd WP:BB/go for it but as all editing to this artcle seems to stir up contention (deservedly or not) I thought I'd solicit some opinions. Ellsworth/Ellsworth 21:05, 17 Dec 2004

:Well, on second thought, I decided to just note on the link pipe that there are numerous speeches collected there. Ellsworth/Ellsworth 01:04, 19 Feb 2005

labor union

The phrase "labor union" gives the wrong impression. Yes, Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, but that's not what most people think of when they hear "labor union". There is probably a better way to express this that doesn't put Reagan in the same camp as Joe Hill or Jimmy Hoffa or Walther Reuther. Jpgordon/jpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon/∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 22 Jan 2005

It's a labor union. He wasn't a Republican at the time. He fought and won minimum wage claims for members and better conditions etc. He was a labor union leader in the classical sense I think. I don't mean it as praise or a put-down just an important fact. Ollieplatt/Ollieplatt 01:29, 22 Jan 2005

AIDS
=Sources=
I've updated the section on the criticism of Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis, which was woefully inadequate. Sources include And the Band Played On as well as The Truth About Reagan And AIDS (http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2004/bronski0104.html), Reagan's AIDS Legacy
Silence equals death (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL) Ronald Reagan on Health Care (http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Health_Care.htm) The Speakes Transcript (http://www.aidsnews.org/2004/06/reagan.html) Jliberty/Jliberty 00:39, Jan 25, 2005
=Attitude towards=
Anti-Reagan advocates have portrayed Reagan as "not caring" about HIV sufferers and being hostile to homosexual people. Pro-Reagan advocates claim that Reagan "cared". I'd like the article to describe this dispute fairly.

I remember reading online somewhere about funding initiated by Reagan, as well as statements he made about the importance of preventing, detecting and/or treating AIDS. I vividly recall Reagan's reply to his daughter about some actor (Rock Hudson ?) whose on-screen kiss looked strange. Paraphrasing: "I think he'd rather be kissing a man", he said, matter-of-factly. Ed Poor/user:Ed Poor/Uncle Ed user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 16:10, Jan 25, 2005
=Government funding for=
Dropped sentence:

:It recommended an unprecedented increase in funding for research, which the administration wouldn't accommodate.
This is incorrect - AIDS funding increased steadily during Reagan's second term and afterwards, see Talk:Reagan Administration.
:: Actually, you are incorrect in your facts. AIDS funding was increased by slashing other projects, and the Reagan administration did not implement the funding recommended by the commission. This is easily verified. Please restore the sentence, or reword to make it more accurate. Jliberty/Jliberty 13:33, Jan 28, 2005
:::http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/96-293.pdf shows the increases in AIDS funding. As for "slashing other projects", that may be true (source?) but it doesn't change the fact that AIDS funding increased. User:Ellsworth/Ellsworth

Also dropped sentence:

:By the time Reagan addressed Aids directly, in May of 1987 (six years into the epidemic) over 20,000 Americans had already died of the illness.
See the link at the bottom of the article - Reagan discussed AIDS in a 1985 press conference.Ellsworth/Ellsworth 00:25, 28 Jan 2005
::I stand corrected, it took him four years, not six. :-) Jliberty/Jliberty 13:33, Jan 28, 2005

And dropped this sentence:
:For example, during the onset of the epidemic, the Reagan administration slashed the budgets of the CDC and NIH, and allocated no funding at all for AIDS research, while stating publicly that the scientists had all the funding they needed.
This is incorrect, as the report cited in the supra link shows, discretionary funding for the department of HHS related to AIDS ramped up rapidly beginning in FY 1983 (which began on September 1, 1982). Ellsworth/Ellsworth 21:23, 28 Jan 2005
::I will leave your changes as they stand because I can't right now do the research, but I will tell you that the facts as described in great detail in the book "And the Band Plays On" contradict the report you cite (which, as I remember is not exactly a neutral audit when time allows I'll try to find further documentation or perhaps someone else will provide other details. Jliberty/Jliberty 23:56, Jan 28, 2005
:::That's fine, I'm open to revising my opinion on this. Obviously, there are multiple ways of characterizing government spending: for instance the cited report shows discretionary HHS spending on AIDS was $200,000 in FY 1981 - I'm not sure the term AIDS was even coined at that time. Maybe that represents a certain item in the CDC epidemiology budget, or something like that. Ellsworth/Ellsworth 00:08, 29 Jan 2005
:::: AIDS funding did increase under Regan, but it was non-discretionary: this included increased spending on the common cold, as both were linked to a degrading immune system, when in fact,funding into HIV research was poorly alloacted. Here is a http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/917/917_reagan_bronski.asp it's also cited in ''And the band played on''. The Regan administration also tried to stop AIDS prevention education in schools, as mentioned in that article as well as in ''And the band played on'' (R, Shilts).
::::- PSYCH/PSYCH 06:05, 21 Feb 2005
:::::The PDF document I cited supra breaks out AIDS spending into discretionary and non-discretionary categories. Discretionary AIDS spending (research, prevention, education) went up, and the Advocate article you cited doesn't refute that. The Bronski article also repeats the common error that Reagan didn't publicly mention AIDS until 1987.Ellsworth/Ellsworth 14:28, 25 Feb 2005
:::::: ''"The Bronski article also repeats the common error that Reagan didn't publicly mention AIDS until 1987."'' Yes, but the sources that propose Reagan mentioned AIDS before 1987 are from the Reagan Library. Not exactly neutral sources. And as I mentioned, in the book and the band played on, it clearly demonstrates that funding for AIDS wasn't actually reaching HIV research. - PSYCH/PSYCH 10:10, 25 Feb 2005
:::::::I note that you are not challenging the accuracy (as opposed to the neutrality) of the sources on the timing of Reagan's AIDS comments.In any event, do you propose changing the section of the article on AIDS? Ellsworth/Ellsworth 14:28, 25 Feb 2005

=Disputed quotations regarding=
Hey JL, why'd you drop the Morris quote from ''Dutch''? Not that I disagree with the edit. I just feel that as Morris has acknowledged that ''Dutch'' contains numerous fabrications, any quotations from that source should require corrorboration. Ellsworth/Ellsworth 20:36, 1 Feb 2005

::Because once the quote is disputable the dispute distracts from the key points made in the paragraph. There is plenty of undisputed evidence of the failures of the Reagan administration to deal with aids without dealing with a disputed (or at least disputable) quote.Jliberty/Jliberty 02:37, Feb 2, 2005

:::That makes sense - about the quotation, I mean.Ellsworth/Ellsworth 17:57, 2 Feb 2005
:::For the record, the last extant version of the quotation is:
::::According to ''Dutch'', a memoir of Reagan by authorized biographer Edmund Morris, Reagan said, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." The conservative columnist Deroy Murdock of National Review has speculated that this latter quotation, along with much of the rest of ''Dutch'', could have been a product of Morris's imagination.[http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp].

Fairly characterizing the AIDS/homophobia dispute

There is clearly a dispute over the character and degree of Reagan's sympathy for homosexuals. Generally, the two sides fall into the categories of pro-Reagan and anti-Reagan.

The anti-Reagan side criticizes Reagan for:
* not supporting the "right" of homosexuals to "be gay", and/or calling heterosexuality as "the only true moral position"
* being "homophobic" (in the sense of active hostility toward homosexual people)
* failing to respond quickly or emphatically enough to the HIV/AIDS crisis; particularly, not providing "enough" government funding for research, education, prevention and so on

The pro-Reagan side defends Reagan by:
* asserting that there's nothing wrong with standing up for a particular view on morality, Biblically-based or otherwise
* denying rumors that Reagan ever expressed hostility toward homosexual people; they use the discussion with Patti (?) as an example of his mildness and tolerance
* recounting the rapid and enormous increases in HIV/AIDS funding during Reagan's 8-year administration.

I don't think the Wikipedia should draw any conclusions about this, but simply mention that there are two sides to the story. The easiest to verify are, of course, the data about funding the various HIV/AIDS initiatives.

We should mention his public statements and other conversations (as with his daughter) to give perspective on his supposed '''mildness and tolerance''' vs. his supposed '''homophobic attitude'''. But this will be harder, since the word "homophobia" is often used deliberately to blur the distinction between "principled criticism of homosexuality as a general practice" and "unprincipled hostility toward homosexuals". Ed Poor/user:Ed Poor/Uncle Ed user talk:Ed Poor/(talk) 15:41, Jan 28, 2005