Talk:Ronald Reagan

Template:Maintained

Reagan and KAL 007

The paragraph had been deleted from Reagan's first term section on grounds that it was already mentioned in the Cold War section of article. I have reinstated it. The incident is not mentioned in the Cold War section.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph you inserted is indeed not mentioned in the Cold War section verbatim, however the incident is there:

"After Soviet fighters downed Korean Air Lines Flight 007 on September 1, 1983, Reagan labeled the act a "massacre" and declared that the Soviets had turned "against the world and the moral precepts which guide human relations among people everywhere."[119] The Reagan administration responded to the incident by suspending all Soviet passenger air service to the United States, and dropped several agreements being negotiated with the Soviets, wounding them financially.[118]"

The paragraph you inserted did not contain any citations, and, being a featured article, every statement needs to be verified. Furthermore, I think that what we have in the section clearly describes the incident and Reagan's response, and I think it will suffice. Do you agree? Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. I can't find your quote in Cold War section or in any other. Am I pulling up an old cached version or are you? Maybe you can find out what's happening.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is in this article, a subsection of the "Presidency" section, a subsection of the "First term" section, the fifth section down entitled "Escalation of the Cold War", the second paragraph toward the end of the paragraph. Happyme22 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thank you for this discussion! Best wishes, Happyme22 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Civil Rights

According to an article by Harold Evans in today's (Irish) Sunday Independent, reproduced from the UK Daily Telegraph, Reagan "vigorously opposed" the three main Civil Rights bills of the 1960's. Millbanks (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, though there is some truth in the matter. The section "Civil Rights" deals with this at Political positions of Ronald Reagan. From there I quote: "He opposed the 1965 Civil Rights Act, supported by Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.[32] His opposition to this was based on his view that the federal government should not overtly provide for people.[32]" --Happyme22 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.71.225.223.143 (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1980 Reagan said the Voting Rights Act "shames the South," although he later supported extending the Act. He opposed Fair Housing legislation in California, but signed a law expanding Fair Housing laws as a lame duck President in 1988. Reagan supported South Africa in spite of apartheid because South Africa was anti-communist. Reagan also appointed the first female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan gave a "States' Rights" speech in Neshoba County, Mississippi when running for President in 1980 and said (while campaigning in Georgia) that President Davis was his "hero." At first Reagan opposed the Martin Luther King holiday, complaining about too many holidays before supporting it. It might be interesting if something was added to the article about Reagan and civil rights.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of this should be made in the main article, with linking to a sub-article for details. Also, I don't thing "Reaganomics" would be the appropriate place for this..Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template Name Change

The United States Presidents template names should conform to standards of all such templates. There does not appear to be any justification for special treatment. I am in the process updating these templates to use the article name, and I noticed the request here for this president for discussion first. I am honoring this request. My edit summary is this: per MoS and template instruction, per undue weight per reliable sources of names; official documents are primary sources only. Modocc (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC) After looking at the archive, and having had discussions elsewhere with editors involved here... I proceeded as I've other stuff to do right now. I'll check back later just in case... Thanks. Modocc (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This was being discussed at Talk:Barack Obama, where it became a big issue because of negative connotations surrounding his middle name of Hussein. I contributed to that discussion quite a bit. All that I want is for everything to be consistent. Happyme22 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is needed. Name usage among secondary and tertiary sources can conflict, but that doesn't me we can't settle on the best one to use in each case. For instance, the conflict between Clinton's presidential name and his common nickname is exceptional. Given the presidential name usage, it's pretty much a no-brainer to use it (and not his birth name). Checking out Reagan's entry in Britannica turns up Ronald W. Reagan as its article title. I'm not all that familiar with the sources, but using his middle initial here is fine (the page could also be moved to it if there is consensus for it). On the whole, I am against establishing any hard brick wall (rule) applied to these presidential boxes though. Modocc (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaganism?

I have almost no idea what Reaganism is, but it redirects here and there is not a single mention on the page. If it's known as something else that's addressed in the article, would it be possible to incorporate the word? 68.82.130.81 (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of Reaganism. I've heard of Reaganomics, perhaps that is what you were refering to?--Jojhutton (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Reaganism" refers to the loyalty of his fans to his leadership and policies. It means a sort of general conservatism or admiration of conservative ideals championed by Reagan.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.31.139 (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

To all who contributed to this page. This is exactly how Wiki pages should appear. You can scroll down and just merely look at the pictures and you almost gain a pictorial timeline of Reagan's life. From early life through to him as an actor, then state politics as Californian Governor, then challenging President Ford for the Republican nomination, campaigning for the 1980 Presidential election, sworn in as President, acts as President and then later life.

Outstanding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.169.32 (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for the compliment! Happyme22 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

I'm surprised not to see a paragraph about ancestry, how long his family had been in the country, any distinguished ancestors (or a statement of the lack of distinguished ancestors and what walks of life his ancestors had been in), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 15:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have a reliable source regarding it, we can consider adding one. Happyme22 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reagan, Ronald (1990)

The page contains numerous references to a "Reagan, Ronald (1990)" as a source. There is no publication information for this source, and it's not clear if it refers to a book or just to something the ex-President himself said. Someone please address this. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the Reagan, Ronald (1990), p. X notes that a page of Ronald Reagan's 1990 autobiography An American Life is being cited. The book information is found at the bottom of the article in the "References" section. Other books cited in the article are done in the same format. Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Since User:SmokeyTheCat has not started a discussion on this matter, I'll take it upon myself to do so. In my opinion, it's a relatively minor matter and one that should be able to be cleared up fast.

SmokeytheCat inserted scare quotes around the word humor in this[1] edit, marking the edit as minor and not giving an explanation. I reverted, saying that they were not acceptable here. This process occurred three more times over the course of four days, with all edits being the same. His fourth change, the first to contain an edit summary, gave the summary of: "Not many people thought that the prospect of WW3 was witty", I guess referring to the "outlawing Russia" joke Reagan made during a microphone test.

Let me explain why scare quotes are inappropriate around the word humor, in the phrase "Reagan displayed humor throughout his presidency". Scare quotes indicate something sarcastic, or something that truly isn't so. There is nothing sarcastic or false in saying that Ronald Reagan had a good sense of humor. If he called it humor and it was really racist jokes or something like that, then the scare quotes would be appropriate if used in a reliable source. But there was nothing like that; in this instance, the article is simply pointing out that Ronald Reagan was had a good sense of humor and joked around a lot during his presidency. Additionally, this portion of the sentence is referring to his humor as a whole, not simply the joke. Scare quotes are inapproriate there. Thanks. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Happy's conclusion here. It's not for us to comment about whether Reagan's jokes were funny or not, or whether we consider them to be humor. All that matters is what the sources say that we are quoting: the cited articles state that Reagan used humor as part of his approach, and he was somewhat known for it, so it is completely appropriate to say so here. Adding quotemarks is, literally, editorializing - an editor inserting his or her own assessment of the content - and that is OR and not ok. If Smokey or anyone else finds reliable sources that question Reagan's humor, then by all means bring them forward and they might very well be appropriate for inclusion as well. So I agree that the quotemarks are inappropriate. Tvoz/talk 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am going to agree with HappyMe22 here, even though I think the statement about Russia should be in cquotes. The article is showing a bit of favoritism, and while Smokey is correct in being disturbed by it, he should not be edit-warring about it (and I'd stop that crap right about now, Smokey).

The best way to address a problem (and this is for everyone) is when your edit is reverted, mosey on over this here discussion page and hash it out. I can guarantee that no one is going to be convinced by edit-warring about it. Seek a consensus. If you feel you are gettting cabal'd by a group of editors, seek out an admin's help, or pursue WP:3O. The third way is to get blocked for being a disruptive jerk, and no one wants that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Arcayne, I'm just wondering why you feel that the article is showing a bit of favoritism on this matter? It is stating as a fact that Reagan was known for his humor, then proceeds to tell of one notable gaffe regarding the Cold War. What he said, in essence the full quote, is there. What constitutes it being in cquotes? I think it is fine as is. Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, step back from the article a little bit, Hap. Look at the article and note how many times that c-quotes are used. Each and every instance is when Reagan gave a speech (often written by someone else). However, when he cocks up something, we list the quote, but don't c-quote it? By Jove, it's one of the more notable things Reagan ever said. 9 times out of 10 if you start the quote, someone else will not only be able to finish the quote, they would be able to tell you who said it. Those are the quotes that need to be given the c-quote treatment, not just the ones that conservatives cling to in their messianic frenzy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that he is well known for it. Arcayne may have (just maybe) changed my opinion, but what do others think? :) Happyme22 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I may be the wrong one to ask - I would do away with cquotes altogether. (But Arcy has a point.) Tvoz/talk 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: SmokeyTheCat has once again inserted scare quotes in the article, this time around the word joke in "...including one notable joke regarding the Cold War". This discussion has been open for three days and despite repeated attempts to get Smokey to discuss his edits, he has yet to comment at this discussion. I've filed a WQA at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:SmokeyTheCat. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Ronald Reagan's legacy is mixed? This is quite a stretch. Just look at the page on presidential rankings (both by historians and recent polls). It is obvious that he is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Why try to hide this? When you compare his legacy to that of other presidents, every poll puts him in the top 10 of all time. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What can we say - the man has good PR. <grn>

Kidding aside, the man's legacy is mixed. He did some good things and some bad things. He set some good things into motion, and some bad things as well. There are solid citations on both sides of this issue, and objective neutrality is going to serve us well here.

That goes for the 'scholar' wording, too - scholars makes it sound like they are unimpeachable sources of intellect. When half of the sources calling him Mr. Wonderful are conservative or partisan in nature, its time to re-evaluate how neutral we are being. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's overall legacy is largely mixed. His influence on the country, for better or for worse, is undeniable, however. He is rated somewhat-highly by scholars, but he is rated very highly in public approval ratings of the American public. Happyme22 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not just by scholars. As a controversial president (yeah, I know, but no weaseling was intended), we should stay neutral and avoid the problem noted in my last post. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty absurd if you ask me. Historians aside, Reagan's legacy is one of great popularity. Public polls conisistently put him in the top 10 (and many in the top 5). Every president's legacy is going to be "mixed" (99 out of 100 could be considered "mixed"). However, Reagan's legacy is much less mixed than that of other presidents. Just look at the polls and put your personal opinions aside. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to those living in denial: [[2]] 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm a Reagan fan, but his overall legacy is somewhat mixed. Many say that Iran-Contra screwed us with the Middle Easterners and the Central Americans and lowered our credibility, that not enough was done about AIDS, that the national debt quadrupled, etc. Those are all lasting effects of the Reagan administration, just as economic recovery, restoration of morale, and the near-end to the Cold War are also lasting effects. So there's a mix. My personal opinion is that the good outways the bad, but that's just my opinion. He is ranked very highly in public opinion polls, particularly ones taken more recently. Happyme22 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly the bit about public opinion polls. We can say that. I'd prefer to avoid the nuances of "scholars". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another point, legacy does not mean domestic view only, but international view also. For examples Mao's legacy is widely negative in the west, but he is a hero in China. We need to provide full information regarding international view (i.e. major countries associated with him including China, Russia, Iran etc) for an appropriate coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you name one leader who has a positive legacy not only in his/her own country but also every other foreign country? There are too many countries to try to consider when taking into account a President's legacy. Foreign views from other countries are basically irrelevant to a President's legacy. For example, you can say JFK's legacy is tarnished because countries like Cuba and USSR view him negatively. For this reason, a country's own perception should be the barometer used in a President or Prime Minister's legacy. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This page doesn't include any information on US foreign policy during Reagan's administration concerning Reagan's support, both financially and politically, for corrupt dictators who the US gov't supported in third world Cold War battles. Where is information on Reagan's support for Samuel Doe in Liberia, or his support for the government of El Salvador? Liberia has had brutal civil wars as a result of the US government's assistance to Samuel Doe ($400 milliin between 1980 and 1985)- approximately 100,000 people have died in the ensuing rebel fighting. Why doesn't this page give a more balanced perspective on Reagan's legacy? The moral implications of "winning the Cold War" are mostly overlooked, and the cult of personality surrounding Reagan ignores serious human rights violations that were committed with US support under Reagan's leadership around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.20.182 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you took foreign view into account there would not be one person with a positive legacy. This is fact, not opinion. Reagan's legacy is overwhelmingly positive no matter what barometer you use. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, absolutist statements like that are not conducive to discussion - it is essentially suggesting that we are cretins if we don't share your opinion. I for one don't. While I don't think the worldwide view of RR is necessary, we aren't talking about that - and, frankly - weren't. To refocus, we were discussing the usage imapct of the term scholars as opposed to public polls. Big difference in both impact and meaning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Happyme22 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was clear, but apparently to some it was not. I agree that "scholars" opinions shouldn't count for much. If you read into what I said, it is a response to those who want to take into account foreign countries' opinions when analyzing a US President. I am not forcing you to say that Reagan was a good President, you are entitled to your opinion, but rather to acknowledge the fact that he ranks at the very top in every modern poll; and also to acknowledge that no President's legacy could be anything but "mixed" at best if other countries opinions counted. Your thoughts are welcome. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gubernatorial election recall

This deseves a bit of discussion, I rather think it belongs. The man did end up being president, and was a polarizing influence (though not nearly as much as Bush the Lesser). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, he was a polarizing influence. As a Californian myself, however, I don't think it belongs. There have been 38 governors of California, and, according the citation[3], 31 attempts to recall them have taken place over time. Quote from the source: "There have been 31 efforts to recall a California governor, including an attempt to replace then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1968, but none of them qualified for the ballot." -- It seems the author of that article threw Reagan's name in there simply because he is a big name, probably the biggest name of any California governor.

The difference between Reagan and Gray Davis is that Reagan was just one that never had so much opposition as to make it onto the ballot, whereas Davis was so opposed by the public that an attempt at recalling him did make it onto the ballot and passed -- thus Arnold Schwarzenegger. The amount of people who signed on to recall Ronald Reagan is unknown; if there was a substantial amount of people who favored his recall, then it would have made it onto the ballot. But there is opposition to every public figure and, in this instance, there are too many unknowns. It's not notable to me. Happyme22 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to pose a question: how many governors of California have there been? I am guessing that number is more than 31, right? (it's actually 38) If there is "opposition to every public figure", it begs the question as to why these 31 were chosen to be the subject of a recall effort, and not the other seven. Out that unfortunate group, Reagan is by all accounts the most famous of them. Every other facet of his political life is explored in this and other articles. Why only the nifty stuff and none of the downer stuff? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a good question and the answer is, simply, I don't know. I'm not nitpicking between 'favorable' and 'unfavorable'. I would just like to know why a failed attempt at recalling him by an unknown amount of people that's happened 31 other times is notable. To me, it's not. If you disagree, we can wait a litle while and see if anyone else comments. Happyme22 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

help

i want to know more about ronald reagan because i am researching him and i need help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.25.142 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistently ranked by scholars

I replaced the phrase "ranks highly" with "consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents" It was immediately declared that I was "hero worshiping" I think that is rather silly, considering that Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Truman, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and other highly ranked presidents have this phrase included. So I'm going to put it back in there.

Kabain52 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

And I just reverted it back out. Look up, oh, about six lines, and see the conversation occurring about this very subject. Maybe contribute to it, instead of expecting us to simply shrug our shoulder and agree that you know what's best. Okey-doke? Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sense of humor

Reagan described the Contras as 'the moral equivalent of the French Resistance', they were his personal crusade yet The Catholic Institute for International Relations summarized Contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."

Guatemala in 1983-4 under Rios Montt was a pariah state shunned by the world community. Some 200,000 Guatemalans died in this period and Rios Montt is wanted for crimes against humanity in Spain yet Ronnie said that: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice." And he continued to supply Guatemala with millions of dollars worth of military aid to continue the slaughter

Both of these facts may be found on Rios Montt and Contra pages.

Yeah, good old Ron was just hilarious.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...And the useful point in that is....what, precisely? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)