Talk:Ronald Reagan

The Talk pages were getting too big - it's archived here - Talk:Reagan Archive 2004 06 27 and here - Talk:Reagan Archive 2004 07 19. - Sparky 19:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reagan and S&L Scandal

I'm wondering as to why there has been no mention of the Savings and Loan scandal/crisis? I didn't want to blindly add it without first consulting interested parties. *g* — Ryguillian

Because the "crisis" didn't come to a head until 1989: it wasn't a major issue during the time Reagan was in office. Certain pieces of legislation which were key factors in precipitating the wave of S&L failures did pass under Reagan (the 1982 deregulation law, the 1986 tax reform act which changed the ability to write-down certain investment expenses) but the particular impact of those laws are more properly discussed in the S&L article. Ellsworth 21:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. Ryguillian 19:19, 11 May 2005 (CST)

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 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 Jean Chretien called an election weeks later and it helped him and his 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.

Bbpen 18:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Reagan and the Mob's Hollywood Man

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 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 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." - Sparky 19:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Selene Walters allegation 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. Trey Stone 00:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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. --Vasile 06:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

occurred within 3 years of the same decade.

Why does no one feel his abandonment, infidelity, and rape is important? I'm stunned. - Sparky 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 Presidency of Ronald Reagan, leaving two to three subsection summary under ==Presidency== and a Main article: Presidency of Ronald Reagan link under that heading. Any other ideas on how to split? --mav 21:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You could do as you suggested above, or simply include items 3 through 7 in your proposed 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 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? --avnative 02:57, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. It could be worse: there's George W. Bush, as well as an article on his 2000 campaign and his 2004 campaign. Same goes for Al Gore and John Kerry. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:59, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC) P.S. There's also 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. --mav 07:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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! --avnative 04:30, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

This can be something larger. Currently, all 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. --Jia ng 07:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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. --mav 02:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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 02:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 19:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 00:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 04:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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? 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... 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. BMWman

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 23:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court Nominations

Any objections to me adding such a section? 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 02:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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 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 21:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Link section has now been trimmed, so follow that link to major speeches. Ellsworth 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 ∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 00:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

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. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

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 13:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This PDF document (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. 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 here (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/91785c.htm) and here (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/20686c.htm) - Reagan discussed AIDS in a 1985 press conference.Ellsworth 00:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it took him four years, not six. :-) Jliberty 13:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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 21:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 23:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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 00:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 link (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 06:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"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 10:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 20:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 02:37, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense - about the quotation, I mean.Ellsworth 17:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.[1] (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". --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ksnow's massive edit

User Ksnow, for POV or other misguided reasons, removed large amounts of valid information from the article on March 11. This should be reverted. 63.209.14.211 00:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was rather concerned by Ksnow's edits, as well. But, if you closely examine every edit that she made, you'll notice that many were valid. (I wish that she would have put some sort of description of her edits, but I guess that's a moot point now; she hasn't made a single edit description in her last 1000 edits, and I don't see her starting now.)

I went through and restored some things which I believed should not have been taken out. A wholesale revert of her changes should not be done, however, since she did fix some grammatical errors, POV statements, factual inaccuracies, unencyclopedic comments, etc. --BaronLarf 00:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

oops

I should have been clearer when I labeled an edit of mine an edit for "NPOV." The POV issue was the sentence "One of the most loathsome things for him about Soviet communism was its atheism and denial of its people's chances to know Christ." It lacked any qualifier, and I changed it. I also made an unrelated edit to shorten the quotation, which I felt was too long and was just as well-served by just including the last paragraph.

Sorry to both people I've confused so far. Dave 08:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, no problemo. However, it is not POV but fact that Reagan found the USSR's atheism loathsome.138.130.201.204 09:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which is why it still says "He argued that communism's enforced atheism was one of its worst features." The issue with the original wording was that it lacked the "he argued" part. It just said "the soviet union was bad."

Dave 09:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're right, your revision was more NPOV. 138.130.201.204 08:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

Will people please stop the POV censorship? Reagan's wishing a deadly food poisoning on hungry people is an important clue to his personality behind the avuncular mask. Hardly "unencyclopedic". If any current leader said that today, we'd probably have a special ARTICLE about the quote. Is Daniel Quinlan also concerned that whole articles like You forgot Poland may be unencyclopedic? 63.209.14.211 14:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the POV here is yours. Hit and run edits, adding negative out-of-context trivial quotes made by people you don't like... sounds like POV. Get past your hate. Daniel Quinlan 22:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

What, pray tell, is a "hit and run edit"? First of all, I didn't originally add this. It stood in the article all the time until Ksnow removed it along with about 20 other relevant items. I first reverted Ksnow's entire edit, but was reverted by BaronLarf. Then I tried to reintroduce two deleted items, and you reverted me. Now I'll just try one by one. As to this item: it is not at all "out of context" since the context is precisely given (the Patti Hearst abduction, in which context he made the quote), nor is it trivial, since it was widely reported at the time and indeed if it were just trivial it wouldn't matter much either way if it's mentioned in the article and you wouldn't be so eager to censor it, seeing that Wikipedia is full of much greater trivialities. And if it's "negative", well, it's nevertheless a fact, and I don't see why facts should be censored because they reflect negatively on a person. Otherwise the article should not have any quotes. 63.209.14.211 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I try to follow the 3 revert rule, and I think I've more or less hit it now, so others will have to take this one on. I'm just trying to keep this crap article from becoming even worse POV vs. POV crap. Daniel Quinlan 23:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a compromise version for the end of the paragraph, I came up with, to put the quote in greater context (missteps). Since I'm holding off on editing this, I leave it to others:

After police had used deadly force suppressing the violent People's Park protests and he sent 2,200 National Guard troops into Berkeley in 1970, he famously mused in a public misstep, "If it takes a bloodbath [to end the disruptions], let's get it over with." Another misstep was when reacting to a food giveaway program made as a demand by the kidnappers of newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, Reagan facetiously suggested that it might be a good time for an outbreak of botulism.

Daniel Quinlan 00:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion (now archived) on the appropriateness of a quotations section. Since it seems that inclusion/exclusion of quotations is going to result in edit wars, why not just let the curious follow the Wikiquote link?

Apropos that: I just dropped the following quotations from the article:

==Quotes and witticisms ==

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." [2] (http://www.authenticgop.com/)

The link is just a merchandising site.

On August 11 1984, Reagan's sound check for his weekly national radio address was taped and later broadcast by reporters. He said: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." The remark was almost universally regarded as a joke, however the Soviets were not amused and some critics wondered if it did not express Reagan's truest wishes.

Again, this is just debate fodder.

"What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. (Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 1883)."

The date leads me to suspect that the quotation was placed there as a troll. On the other hand, it could be just a mistake. Anyway, I stand by my position that quotations should be left off the article since the have their own Wikiquote entry.
Ellsworth 00:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weapons to Iraq

The following is a direct quote from the WaPo article; I think it clearly says the US authorized sales of weapons to Iraq: "A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."--csloat 08:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That quote doesn't support the claims the article makes — it merely says "authorize", while the Wiki article says "provided". Also, the quote above does not necessarily suggest that they provided weapons to the Iraqis — since the material was dual-use, I would expect it would not be shipped by commercial companies in a weaponized form (although I won't claim to be an expert, of course). I think the WaPo story supports the claim that the US govt. turned a blind eye to the export of potentially dangerous substances to the Iraqis, but I don't think it supports the current claims the Wiki article makes. Please adjust the claims, or find more evidence. Neilc 12:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are we talking about here when we say "weapons"? In terms of modern warfare, I suggest that "weapons", unmodified, means guns, bullets, tanks, mines, bombs and other materiel whose primary purpose is to kill people and break things. If that's not the meaning, what do you propose? If it is the meaning, isn't it clear that the Soviet Union and France provided the weapons (e.g. France with the Mirage bombers and Exocet missiles, the Soviets with MiG's and ground warfare items). Ellsworth 14:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to come up with a compromise statement on the disputed para. that comes just short of saying "the US supplied weapons to the Iraqi military". Check it out. Ellsworth 00:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent article

I've been reviewing many articles relating to politics and some have got me so mad, I've put disputed tags on them. This article is however excellent. It presents the good and the bad with little editorializing. Is it possible those responsible could re-write the George W Bush article which is really a mess. Lagavulin 20:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but since George W. Bush is the current president, it's hard to get anything done on that article. Changes have to be made one by one and hacked out on the talk page, where nothing really seems to resolved. If someone is bold and does a complete rewrite, it will be reverted since it is a contenscious article and *someone* is going to find something wrong with the article. Add to that the endless vandalism on the page which constantly needs to be reverted. I think that a good article on GWB is going to have to wait until he's been out of office for a while and the passion has died down. But I hope I'm wrong. --BaronLarf 20:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I fear you might be right. I've been looking at many political articles and some are just terrible while others - where you might expect controversy - are just great. The Oliver North one is particularly bad I think. Haven't had the courage to look at Bill Clinton's one yet. It's a shame that fanatics of both sides seem to be able to get their way. But congrats to all those who made the Reagan article, it's excellent. And he was as controversial as there ever was. Lagavulin 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Make that "is". ;-> Ellsworth 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

I suggest that the Hinkley stuff be move to its own section since it isn't really a part or Reagan Domestic agenda.

Buchanan quote

I've deleted the following quote: "Reagan's communication director Pat Buchanan argued that 'AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men.'" because when I went to find a source so I could add it to the article I was unable to find one. If a source can be found I think it should be put back in the article provided that Buchanan said it while he was a part of the Reagan administration.

help a girl out

i am doing a project for school and i really need the cabinet officials for reagon. please give me some links. Thanxs bunches.

Try here Reagan's Cabinet and search google using those names.

Succession Box

Should Reagan's tenure as head of the Screen Actors Guild be included in the succession box"? NoSeptember 11:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should. If you head fifty notable organizations, you get fifty succession boxes. --Un focused 22:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editorializing

This article seems RIFE with editorializing. There are a lot of "comments" that seem either lifted directly from a non-journalistic/-encyclopedic source (= plagiarism) or are made up on the spot, which is as poor a practice. At first, this was just a general impression, but the most egregious ones were evident even then, and frankly were distressing upon a closer reading. I recommend that this article be made more compact and topical, and that these comments be removed. I don't want to edit the page further without more input, and the task certainly belongs to someone more qualified in these matters than I.

I reversed your recent edit because it left a gap in the paragraph that caused it to no longer make sense. You removed two sentences without removing the speech link that followed. (Reagan was a loving and devoted husband. One of the most touching speeches he ever made as president was a tribute to his wife.) You can't call these editorializing if they are supported by proof (such as the following link). What you could dispute or change is the way the speech is introduced. I see nothing wrong with the innocuous sentences to introduce the link but perhaps you could simplify them somehow while retaining the fact that he paid tribute to his wife in the linked speech. - Tεx τ urε 22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Solar Panels

The idea that Reagan personally ordered Carter-era solar panels removed from the roof of the White House early in his presidency seems to be a popular one, but I can't find any support for it. On the contrary, this article from BusinessWeek [3] (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898119_mz018.htm) suggests that the panels were removed in 1986 to repair the roof and were simply never put back in place. --Bziobnic 20:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reducing this article

This article is 51KB. Which section as of this moment is the best to put into its own article?? Georgia guy 22:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reagan's grades?

An anonymous editor changed "earned excellent grades" to "earned mediocre grades" -- this should be easy to check; can anyone document whether Reagan's grades in school were excellent or mediocre? --csloat 04:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reagan Bust in Hungary

Apparently, there is talk of putting up a bust of Reagan in Budapest, alongside one of George Washington (see link). If this comes to pass, I imagine it would be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5071695,00.html

Funnyhat 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

public psychiatric hospital system

"During his governorship, Reagan actively dismantled the public psychiatric hospital system, proposing that a community-based housing and treatment system replace it."

I recently had someone bring this up in conversation, and realized I had never heard of it.

Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=reagan+california+%22public+psychiatric+hospital+system%22+-wiki+-encyclopedia+-encylcopaedia) didn't really turn anything up, and even the california governor's page (http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/govsgallery/h/biography/governor_33.html#administration) didn't have much.

What's the deal? What was the name of the system? When was it dismantled? Was it through the legislature? What was Governor Reagan's involvment? 68.167.2.149 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Ronald_Reagan"