Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

NPOV issue

Ronald Reagan's economic policies have been called many things. Even before he was even President, his future VP called it "voodoo economics", a name that stuck. (Note that this means it's not a neologism.) During his presidency, it was often referred to as "Reaganomics". Another term, applied by Reagan's own budget director, is "trickle-down economics". All of these terms are notable, all of them have their place in this article.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an effort to keep only the most positive, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Now, I'm one of a few editors (see above) who has asked repeatedly about why these terms keep getting removed from the article, and I've found that there have been no credible answers. By this, I mean answers that comply with Wikipedia policy ask opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So, before I go to WP:NPOVN, I'd like to open up this section to more legitimate explanations. Have at it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of the word 'no' are you having trouble with?
It's been explained to you eleventeen different ways that the term has no relevance in this article. You just won't accept the explanations. If anybody has a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue here, it's you. And it wouldn't exactly be the first time, now would it? Belchfire-TALK 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The part where "no" isn't an answer according to Wikipedia policy. This is precisely the sort of non-answer I was referring to, so I should thank you for providing confirmation. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken.™ "No" is most definitely supported in Wikipedia policy. Very much so. What isn't supported is not taking no for an answer. Belchfire-TALK 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That's funny, WP:NO is about New Orleans, not a policy that allows arbitrary refusal. In fact, there is no such policy. Rather, all preferences must be supported by reference to policy and sources, else they have no weight. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
My turn
1. The name did not "stick" as you implied. I've already disproven this. Bush abandoned the term, academic and archived newspapers have used Reaganomic both to approve and disparage Reagan's economic policies and have pointed out that it was a very short-lived term.
2. It is neologism because Krugman is probably the only person to consistently use it these days. After all, he appears to the one that resurrected the term in order to disparage against Supply-side economic because he's a Keynesian advocate which is natural.
3. You're one of two editors, not few.
4. Apply the same page WP:IDONTLIKEIT to yourself in regards to the answers given. Interestingly, in the same article it says I just don't like it and its inverse, I just like it are not arguments to use in talk page discussions.
5. This is a featured article which a lot of editors do see this page so I doubt there is a NPOV issue here. ViriiK (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. It did stick and is in current use. Google "reagan voodoo economics" and drown in reliable sources.
  2. A neologism is a NEW word. This term was coined even before Reagan was president, so there's nothing new about it. Perhaps it's a paleogism.
  3. You've miscounted. Try again. There are roughly as many editors asking why it's gone as there are insisting that it must not be restored.
  4. If only there had been some answers given that had any basis in Wikipedia policy.
It turns out that JSTOR is not the only place to find reliable sources, and since access to it is limited, it's not ideal. As for the rest, your only answer has been circular: you claim that it must be a good thing since this is a good article since there's a consensus that makes it good. This is not persuasive. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
"If we exclude you, we've got a consensus. I say we exclude you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)" Works just as well here. Viewmont Viking (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
See point 3, above. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Voodoo economics comes up with 176,000 on a Yahoo search while Reaganomics hits nearly 1.9 million. Its a fringe term that has no place in Wikipedia outside its context. Count me as one of the ones who think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.--JOJ Hutton 14:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Google returns 481k for voodoo economics, 211k for Reaganomics, with Reagan trickle down returning 157k.

I'll add that George H.W. Bush is many things, but he's not fringe. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I got a different number on Google. Want to link your results so we can compere? Did you add the parenthesis? --JOJ Hutton 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Google doesn't use parentheses. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Per Google results Voodoo economics 345,000 hits, Reaganomics over a million hits. Don't know where you got your results from, but I'd like to see them if you please.--JOJ Hutton 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but it's obvious that the URL reveals private information, such as what browser I use. Therefore, I'm only going to give you my search terms and counts, as well as mention that I turned off personal search and safesearch.
voodoo economics - 504k
reaganomics - 223k
reagan trickle down - 803k
trickle down economics - 6,640k
By the nature of Google Search, the numbers are going to vary over time and geography, but the figures above are accurate for me as of right this moment. I would expect that you would get very similar answers. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Without links, there is no way to verfify your search results, especially since there are linked search results that refute your claim.--JOJ Hutton 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
When I click on your links, I get different numbers. I also see what you did wrong: you added quotes. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Only one Editor has been arguing to include this since August 15. I think it is time to close this.Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be both inaccurate and unwise. Look at the edit history; I may be the only one patient enough to explain why we shouldn't remove this, but if you ignore me then there are clearly some editors who would show their disagreement by reverting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
One last thing, this specific topic was discussed in Archives 8 and 9. The editors in 2007 seemed to come to the consensus of leaving it out. Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The editors in 2007 don't count: [[WP:CCC]. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Well it doesn't look like consensus is likely to change today, so its best just to drop the stick and move on.--JOJ Hutton 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Using book references ("web page" counts given by Google are notoriously inaccurate, by the way) "Voodoo economics" has 13,500 references, "Reaganomics" has 125,000 references. It is reasonably clear which term is more used. Googlescholar gives 740 uses of "voodoo economics" with "reagan" and 9,200 for "reaganomics". Each palls under using reagan +economics by the way at 120K at GS. In short "voodoo economics" has a nice political history as a term, but it is not a common term for the case at hand. BTW, a very large number of your "voodoo economics" results are about Obama <g>. "voodoo economics reagan" gets not all that many real results, 842 total including references to Labour in the UK etc. A teensy bit less than your asserted "504,000" -- by 99.8%! Next time, don;t look at the initial figure Google spews out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your numbers are way off. Perhaps you're using quotes like JOJ did. You only do that if you're getting false positives, as it otherwise leads to false negatives. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I went through all the hits, Still. They came to 842 total hits" for anything remotely connecting "voodoo economics" and "reagan." That you think I am lying about something anyone else can duplicate with a little time I find a horrid example of behaviour on your part, indeed. Now go off and do the experiment yourself' paging through the valid hits for "voodoo economics" and "reagan". (some of your false positives have absolutely nothing to do with reagan - which makes them of nugatory value). Collect (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you're not lying, so there must be some sort of competence issue at hand. I recommend anyone who is curious to check it out for themselves. Search for "voodoo economics reagan" without the quotes and note how many results Google reports. It's going to be in the thousands, not under a thousand. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you unaware of what the "quotes" do for the search? By adding the phrase in "quotes" the search engine will look for ONLY the phrase listed in the quotes. Without the quotes, like Voodoo economics, the search engine will look for all articles containing those words, but not the phrase in question. Without the quotes, the search results will be bloated.--JOJ Hutton 16:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That turns out to be incorrect. I was able to look at the 100th page of results (in other words, 1000th result) and confirm that, despite the lack of quotes, there were no false positives. Note how this contradicts the claim that there are roughly 840 results. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::And you included "reagan" with "voodoo economics" ? 874. Well under 1000. How the heck did you get to page 100 when Google ain't got one on it. If you add "-Obama" it gets lowered further. So much for the 540,000 claim! Now if you use no quote marks and do not use "reagan" I find such wonderful "positives" for your "search" as [1] on page 91 of the search -- even that does not get to 1000. And such "positive results" as [2] I am trying to keep a straight face! Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Whatever you say. But unless you link your results it's just your word against the evidence. JOJ Hutton 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I've explained how to reproduce the results I achieved. Have you tried to confirm them? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not other editors jobs to search for your facts. You need to provide them, otherwise it can be assumed that the evidence does not exist. This is the second time you've made the comment that I should look things up that support your assertions. You need to provide your own citations and links, not the other way around.--JOJ Hutton 04:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, since you won't check, you have no basis to complain about. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I did check, and I didn't get your numbers, thats why I want to see "your" results. I linked my results. Wheres yours? Without your proof, you have no reason to refute "real" evidence.--JOJ Hutton 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No, clearly you did not. That's why we'll need an RfC here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So prove your research to us. Start linking here. As I've demonstrated in the now-not-closed conversation above which you abandoned that discussion, you are still demonstrating that you do not research accurately nor do you prove your sources as well as the fact that you ignored all factual findings not by myself, not by two editors, but 3 editors one of who Joj is a neutral party and now you are willing to ignore what he's found as well. You know what they call editors like you? Oh right, I've always said it, a tendentious editor. Now cue your cries of demanding an apology and saying no personal attacks. ViriiK (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I won't offer a link for privacy reasons, but I've given sufficient instructions to reproduce my results. In any case, this is for an RfC to solve. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Translation: You got nothing. Got it. ViriiK (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment deletion was accidental; I had intended only to remove the attempt to archive the discussion away. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Privacy" is a bullshit excuse to not disclose your sources. Why is it a privacy concern? That's only code word for "I can't prove my sources". What tools are you using? Are you using quotes to get the exact strings you want or are you omitting quotation marks to collect all pages that have any mentions of either "Voodoo" or "Economics" in no specific pattern which will collect pages that do not relate to the subject whatsoever. Hence why using quotation marks are exactly useful for forcing exact results. If say the search subject was about the "Cookie Monster", you used "Cookie Monster" instead of Cookie + Monster since that will yield irrelevant searches on anything such as "I am such a fat monster because I eat so many cookies" is an example. Competent researchers uses exact words. The only reason they don't use exact words is to find the possibility of related subjects but not based on the subject they themselves are researching. ViriiK (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Is the number of categories not over the top? Is there some way to clean this up? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Reaganomics

Should we make some mention of "voodoo economics" in the Reaganomics section? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:RFC says: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." This means that the consensus among current editors is exactly what it's intended to fix. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Three neutral facts:
1) The second sentence of Reagonomics reads:
These policies are commonly associated with supply-side economics, or pejoratively as trickle-down economics or voodoo economics.
2) In this article, the "Reaganomics" and the economy section lists Reaganomics as the main article that it is a summary of. Typically, this summary includes the lead. However, while the section is not small, it does not mention "voodoo".
3) "Voodoo economics" redirects to "Reaganomics". It was coined by George H.W. Bush specifically in reference to Reagan. "Trickle-down economics" is an older, more general term.
The above comment is an attempt to discredit me and distract you from the issue. As for edit-warring, I just reported Mollskman for 4RR, so take that with a grain of salt. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No need for RfC - Everyone except for Still felt it was not notable enough to be included, so there is no need for a formal RfC - consensus has already been established, whether Still likes it or not. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to remind you, this is an RfC, so you're expected to make some effort to explain your reasoning. It is not a vote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I know how RfCs work, I've been on this website much longer than you have. If you read my comment you will notice all it does is point out consensus has already been established, making the RfC unneeded. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is the conclusion, not an argument. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm arguing consensus has been established and it is pretty clear that that is the case. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No And the consensus was clear above and is a teensy bit unlikely to change as a rresult of tendentious POV pushing by an editor here. When faced with being in the extreme minority in a discussion, it is unlikely to impress anyone to keep trying again and again and again on every article one edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to remind you, the point of an RfC is to get a consensus from Wikipedia editors interested in this category, not just the ones watching this article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Which explains why you decided to do this when you were outnumbered 5-1 and didn't have a single editor agree with you. You weren't going to get your way so you decide to choose a different method to try and force your way in - textbook tendentious editing. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolute No Still refuses to disclose his links or examples because of "privacy reasons" (absurd by any means). He uses bad search research information in order to "gather his result" and cites "privacy reasons" as a reason not to disclose how he came to gather this information. The term was a statement that was barely used compared to "Reaganomics". So this user is proving to be a tendentious editor and he refuses to accept that he is the minority. As demonstrated by 2 discussions above, he doesn't care how many times he will get disproven and he will still push for inclusion. ViriiK (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I made no mention of Google results, so you're not actually arguing against what I'm saying. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed I didn't say Google results. I'm asking you to disclose where you got your sources. That's it buddy. Still being a tendentious editor. ViriiK (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I've made no claim to sources. My entire argument is self-contained and depends on two Wikipedia pages. Also, see WP:AOTE, not to mention WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
By that statement, you obviously have no sources. You are being a tendentious editor and it is not uncivil nor is a personal attack to point it out. Thanks for the warm thought though.. Enjoy! ViriiK (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"My entire argument is self-contained and depends on two Wikipedia pages." I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So let's come up with the "Still Rule" - "I do not have to prove my sources because I have privacy concerns but I assure you they are legitimate and can be used a source. Don't worry! It's not an absurd claim." ViriiK (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:RFC, then. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS - specifically: if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. You have reached that point. Collect (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (note that Still thinks that removing posts here by other editors that he is somehow succeeding in making his point. This is far from his first such act, and I suggest that it ought to be his last) Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why it's called an "informal" process. Do you need a dictionary? I'll be happy to provide you a definition. [3] ViriiK (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No And I suggest that StillStanding get a short block for wasting the time of everyone here. I realize that blocks are not to be punitive, but his tendentious editing has simply got to stop. Additionally I will assume that this was accidental. Still, please be careful not to remove other peoples comments. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As much as I like a good pile-on, what's really funny is that nobody else has offered a reason, other than the circular argument of "the consensus should be against it because the consensus is against it", so a proper WP:CLOSE would have to support the inclusion of "voodoo economics". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Many of the people here already gave their reasons in the first discussion, which you started and which ran for one week (August 18-25). Most people don't see the need to repeat their arguments multiple times because you seem to not hear it or completely ignore it. I would recommend you stop your tendentious editing - you are making the case for an RfC/U against you much more compelling. For your own good, you need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Toa Nidhiki05 15:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


No -- Your "Neutral Fact" #3 is in fact, not neutral. It is generally understood that the term "voodoo economics" is a pejorative term, and having a redirect for a negative term is not a neutral thing, but it is a helpful thing.

However, to a more substantive point. You want to mention that this type of economics is also known by the pejorative "voodoo economics". In general, the only common reference to this as being "voodoo economics" is the teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Beyond that, it simply isn't used. Can you find some legit references that actually used the term exclusively or extensively? I guess the point here again is about the impact this term had on renaming "supply-side economics", which I strongly suspect is very little. If you cannot demonstrate a lasting impact, then your addition to the Reagan article will merely serve as a non-neutral, and, frankly, pointless addition. George Bush used this as a way to attack Reagan during his 1980 campaign against Reagan. Later, Bush was pulled into the fold, and was hardly going to re-use this line of attack against the sitting President while he was Vice-President. Show some impact or leave it out of this article. You asked for opinions. That's mine. -- Avanu (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for at least trying to address the argument. However, #3 is still a neutral fact. I never denied the term was pejorative: I even quoted the second sentence from Reaganomics, which identified it as such. But, hey, at least it used the term. What I don't understand -- and I don't think you responded to -- is why that article uses the term in its lead but our summary avoids the term entirely. It's strange. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Breaking up my edit because of edit conflicts. The idea that we shouldn't mention it because it's rare has two problems. First, we already do mention it on Reaganomics, right in the second sentence of the lead. Logically, if our "summary" in this article is bigger than the lead of the main article, it should mention the same things as the lead. Second, I suggest that you Google for "voodoo economics" and see how many hits you get, then restrict to the last year and try again. I don't dare tell you what numbers I got, because I'll be accused of horrible things, but you can certainly check for yourself and let me know what you found, right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So you are admitting you use Google searches to get your sources? [4] vs [5]. Heck even [6] vs [7] (Copy and paste the HTML link directly from code) ViriiK (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, none of your links work and the issue isn't which one is more popular but whether "voodoo economics" is rare. It's not I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously you know how to edit pages. Copy the HTML link directly from code. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose based on the fact that "Stillstanding" has provided no sources for the information and continues to misrepresent policies, guidelines, and consensus.--JOJ Hutton 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

May I ask which information you mean? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Easy. You're fighting for inclusion based on imaginary sources because of the "Still Rule" so you have provided no information that is helpful nor constructive to the conversation at hand nor any previous conversations as well. ViriiK (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) You know perfectly well which information I mean, but for arguments sake, I'll humor you. Provide a link that says "Voodoo economics" is inherently linked to "Reaganomics". Provide a link(s) that says that "Voodoo" economics is a more common term than "Reaganomics". Without any proof to what you are claiming, then there is no reason to accept your word on faith alone.--JOJ Hutton 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why I coined the "Still Rule" - "I do not have to prove my sources because I have privacy concerns but I assure you they are legitimate and can be used a source. Don't worry! It's not an absurd claim." ViriiK (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
See, that was a helpful response! I'm not actually saying voodoo economics is a more common term. Where did you get that from? As for how voodoo economics links to Reaganomics, I thought that was common knowledge, but here's a source.[8] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would say the overall term is "supply-side economics". And more common or less common isn't the issue, as much as 'barely common'. If there is a significant use of this by professionals and authors, ok. But the passing reference in Ferris or in Futurama for comic effect doesn't cut it. -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain why it's significant enough to be in the second sentence of the Reagonomics lead but not significant enough to be mentioned at all in this article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's take a look at that page. Oh right, it's already explained. Pejoratively! You know what pejoratively means right? Now what are you trying to insert? 'or "Voodoo Economics"'. Did you say Pejorative? Nope, you're trying to imply that this term was used just as much during the time period Ronald Reagan was president which is not true at all. A) Academic sources do not support your arguments that this was just as a popular term during the 80's B) Newspapers do not support your argument that this was just as a popular term during the 80's. Cut the crap. ViriiK (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea who ViriiK is addressing with the above comment. However, @Still, this is an article about Ronald Reagan. As such, it will not fully describe everything he ever did, and the reactions of others to his actions. The Reaganomics article is specifically about his economic policies, and as such, we can expect more detail. -- Avanu (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do agree that Reaganomics should go into much more detail than the summary here. In fact, it does!
But that wasn't what I was asking about. My question was about why something that's in the second sentence of the Reaganomics lead didn't make it into any part of the rather large summary we have here. It seems inexplicable, particularly since "trickle-down" made it, and it's just as pejorative yet less specific.
As for how common the two are, I suggest you do your own research to confirm that, while Reaganomics is certainly more common than voodoo economics, they are not that far apart. (My own searches say there's about a factor of four difference, but please don't trust me; check for yourself.) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, they are THAT far apart. The term was a campaign attack term PRIOR to Reagan's economic policy or Reaganomics and it died there when Bush became his vice-presidential running mate. Was the term consistently used throughout Reagan's administration? No, you have yet to prove me or others otherwise. Here's a clue for you. When was Reaganomics coined? I'll give you the answer. When Reagan was president and rolling out his economic policy.. As for Avanu, I'm replying to him as usual. ViriiK (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Include - I support a change from "Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor." to "Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics" or "voodoo economies"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor." It barely changes the paragraph and informs the reader of a notable name that critics gave to Reagan's economic policy. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That wording would be satisfactory. I don't think "voodoo economics" deserves a lot of space, just a mention. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Acoma, who are the critics? I'm talking the 80's. George H. W. Bush is not one because he coined the term himself and dropped it when he became the VP running mate. ViriiK (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's not used anymore (and I'm not saying that it isn't). The fact that critics labelled it as such at that time, means the reader should know. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying that if someone said Reagan was a bad economist (he isn't an economist by any means) at one point, we should note that even if it was 1 person during the 80's? Reaganomics is an extremely well-known term that is associated with Reagan even the NYT had used it instead. Krugman however resurrected the term himself by using it constantly in his columns which makes it a form of neologism. Academic sources also proves me right because it has always been used as a label associated with George H. W. Bush prior to the election of 1980. Still's basis has been using "Voodoo Economics" without the quotation marks in google searches in order to prove his point right although it's not a strict string. It can yield bad results such as "I think so-so's (say Mao Zedong) economic policy was voodoo." because it's not forcing strict strings. ViriiK (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If Bush is the only person to have used it, then change the wording so that it's attributed to him. It's relevant because he was future president. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but Bush is by no means the only person who's used it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
@Acoma, Relevant how? Are you implying that it was bigger than it was during Reagan's administration or the later administration (Bush)? Did a report ask Bush during the administration "So how's that voodoo economics going?" You're merely implying that the term was bigger than it was during his administration which it wasn't. I can understand small reference elsewhere that Bush attacked Reagan which it is here Republican Party presidential primaries, 1980. Understand how Still is trying to get it inserted [9]. It's not associating with Bush, it's merely saying that it was an alternative term if one didn't want to say "Reaganomics" but my research has shown that it was not the case and MANY and I mean MANY reputable organizations used "Reaganomics" both in a good light and bad light. ViriiK (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Still, that's why it's called proving your sources. You don't want to show your sources because you claim "privacy". ViriiK (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't support putting it in the lead. The wording I proposed before should be there (it's in the Reaganomics section). The BBC source is good enough to have a mention there. If this RfC is about adding it to the lead, then I'll add it to the Reaganomics section instead and hopefully we can move on. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The whole discussion has been on including it in the Reaganomics section, so don't add it again unless consensus dictates otherwise. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The reverts have been on whether to include it in the lead. I'm worried that some opposes in this RfC are based on whether to include it in the lead. So now we have a problem. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. I talked about the Reaganomics lead, but I didn't suggest it belongs in this one. Are people failing to understand the core issue of the RfC? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Still, this has gone far enough. Drop the stick or this matter will be brought to ANI, whereupon an admin will review this discussion. From what I have seen I suspect that you will get a stern talking-to and/or block for disruptive editing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, neither of them explained why we should mention voodoo in the lead for Reaganomics but not in the Reaganomics section here, and you haven't, either. This leaves me wondering what your actual objection is. You're also making this rather personal; this is an RfC, not an RfC/U. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As the term was used by George H. W. Bush in criticizing Reagan's economic policies during the primaries and it is still noted to this day ([10] [11]). The article on Reaganomics provides a BBC News article where this issue is explicitly mentioned in the context of Reagan's legacy on economic policy. The mention in the lede was a bit much, but I think including mention of this comment from the elder Bush in the discussion of Reaganomics and/or the discussion of the election would be reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting quote from one of those:
Although voodoo economics started out as a specific reference to supply-side economics, it can now signify any economic policy that the speaker considers misguided. A November 14, 2007, Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram article told readers: "Politicians habitually practice voodoo economics, making rhetorical, logic-free connections between what they do and the health of the economy." - Slinging Mud: Rude Nicknames, Scurrilous Slogans, and Insulting Slang from Two Centuries of American Politics by Rosemarie Ostler
-- Avanu (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Comment: FYI: The phrase does seem to be used quite a bit (the first ten of some 80 articles, I found):

1. Title: Voodoo Economics: Soul Work in the Age of Reagan Author(s): Natalia Rachel Singer Source: The Iowa Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 2000), pp. 113-136 Publisher(s): University of Iowa Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20154792

2. Title: Review : Self Inflicted Wounds From LBJ to Reagan Voodoo Economics Author(s): Steven E. Schier Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 110, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), p. 135 Publisher(s): The Academy of Political Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2152062

3. Title: Why Reagan Is Strong Author(s): Terry L. Deibel Source: Foreign Policy, No. 62 (Spring, 1986), pp. 108-125 Publisher(s): Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1148799

4. Title: Reagan's Mixed Legacy Author(s): Terry L. Deibel Source: Foreign Policy, No. 75 (Summer, 1989), pp. 34-55 Publisher(s): Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1148863

5. Title: Review: Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom by Andrew E. Busch Author(s): Barbara Bennett Peterson Source: Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 627-628 Publisher(s): Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552423

6. Title: Trying to "Stay the Course": President Reagan's Rhetoric during the 1982 Election Author(s): Beth A. J. Ingold; Theodore Otto Windt Jr. Source: Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, Campaign '84: The Contest for National Leadership (Winter, 1984), pp. 87-97 Publisher(s): Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27550036

7. Title: Review: The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos? Author(s): William A. Niskanen Source: Public Choice, Vol. 75, No. 2 (1993), pp. 188-190 Publisher(s): Springer Stable URL:[[14]]

8. Title: Supply-Side Management in the Reagan Administration Author(s): James D. Carroll; A. Lee Fritschler; Bruce L. R. Smith Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 45, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1985), pp. 805-814 Publisher(s): Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable URL: [[15]]

9. Title: High Cost of Defence Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 22, No. 50 (Dec. 12, 1987), pp. 2130-2131 Publisher(s): Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: [[16]]

10. Title: In No-Man's-Land Author(s): Deena Khatkhate Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 1/2 (Jan. 2-9, 1993), p. 16 Publisher(s): Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: [[17]]

Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Reaganomics is the term preferred by RS. Voodoo Economics is a POV term that has no place here. Now that I got that out of the way, this RFC is wholly unnecessary and is diverting an enormous amount of valuable resources from articles which need urgent attention. This issue was discussed in the past, was recently discussed a week ago, and opposition has been overwhelming and consistent. This is an FA article: it already is our very best. Of course FA articles can be improved, but not through unnecessary RFCs.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Your argument is very weak. "Voodoo ecomonics" is a significant term that is part of the Reagan discourse. Regardless of whether you think it is POV, an encyclopedia doesn't operate on black and white thinking. We represent significant POV's with reliable sources. We don't prefer one or the other like you are doing. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Lionelt, I dont't think anyone has suggested renaming Reaganomics to Voodoo economics (although the latter does redirect to the former). Likewise, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we prefer "voodoo economics" to "Reaganomics". You seem to be arguing against something that's not in dispute.
There is definitely room for NPOV uses of POV terms. For example, we do mention "trickle-down", which is just as disparaging as "voodoo". That's actually my point: it's odd that we mention this one but not the other. But you don't seem interesting in addressing this point. I'm not sure why. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with having an RfC on the issue, since RfCs are for seeking outside opinion. While "voodoo economics" is a POV term, it has a notable history in connection with criticism of Reagan's economic policies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly agree. That's why we should let this RfC go for a bit, until there's a significant presence from editors who aren't already here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, nobody's actually claiming it's irrelevant, except you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Politely pointing out that this a generic ditto. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me...my opinion matters whether you like it or not. I see no reason to parrot the concerns of others that have also opposed this friviolous Rfc.--MONGO 04:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't take it personally, but you're mistaken. If you read WP:CLOSE, you'll see it says that your opinion doesn't matter if it's merely a preference without a stated basis. This is consensus, not voting; we care about the quality of your reasoning, not just your conclusion. I encourage you to explain yourself in your own words. Surely, you can tell us why we shouldn't mention voodoo economics. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Still, MONGO is a former admin - he knows how RfCs work. You don't need to explain how you think they work to him because he has been on here longer than you and had much more experience with RfCs than you. Toa Nidhiki05 04:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Since some editors appear to be suggesting that we follow the lead of Reaganomics, it might bear some investigation as to modifying that lead to remove the term if consensus bears out the term was not commonly used as many here appear to be suggesting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend delaying that until this RfC is resolved, and also until any necessary NPOVN/BLPN issues are resolved. At that point, we should have a consensus and mandate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I hope the admin takes the strength of the arguments into account and not just the votes. Nearly all of the opposes have been very weak arguments (assuming you can even classify them as an argument). Acoma Magic (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Still, it's not quite time yet to request closure, as there seem to be more comments coming in frequently. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely. I'm waiting for some people to come along in which I couldn't have guaranteed which way their vote would have gone beforehand. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The broader the consensus, the more genuine it is. But this is about consensus, not voting. Consensus is based on reasons as opposed to preferences, so I'm very bothered by the lack of reasons. "We already have a consensus" is circular when the goal is to build a genuine consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope he takes into account the overwhelming support for the status quo and the fact this RfC was filed because the other discussion wasn't going your way. You're opinion is clearly not shared by the participants of this RfC, nor the participants of the previous discussion (which you also started and which had the exact same result). Toa Nidhiki05 04:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Just as a starting point, the first 5 opposes contain nothing but irrelevant reasons. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And I would note the precise opposite. The !votes now form (yet again) a clear WP:CONSENSUS. That it is not what you wish is not a valid reason for an "IDONTLIKEIT" response to the reasonable opinions of others. It is clear also that pushing this edit is now getting to be "tendentious" and tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
See, that's not what WP:CLOSE says. It says that votes don't form consensus, only votes with relevant reasons. Acoma is entirely correct about the plethora of basically empty votes that a closing admin would be obligated to disregard. The solution is to go back and add your reasons. I'm sure you have some; all you have to do is state them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Acoma, I've done my research, and I've used many academic searches which aren't restricted to this section. You're interpreting them as "weak" which tells me that you are interpreting Still's argument as "strong" even though he has YET to prove any of his searches because he won't disclose them for "privacy" reasons. He's using search strings without quotation marks in order to broaden his results which does not force a strict string so he can prove his point. Especially the above academic results that the user displayed out, I've looked at them on JSTOR and they all either took place AFTER Reagan's administration or are pointing out who used the term which was still George H. W. Bush before Reagan's Administration. The same results on JSTOR using the term "Reaganomics" dumps out at least 20 times more results than for the strict string of "Voodoo Economics". Especially that term has been used in the UK in regards to Margaret Thatcher. Don't tell me my argument is weak when you boost the ONLY person pushing for this inclusion as "strong" when he hasn't done ANY of the sort including proving his proof. After all, we aren't here to do his homework, he needs to do that himself. ViriiK (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If you were fighting against inclusion in the lead, then I'd agree with you. However, it's two words in a section that gives a summary of "Reagonomics". Even if "Reagonomics" gave 100 times more results, it's still relevant. Especially since the former president coined the term. Moreover, I counter that if "Reagonomics" only gives 20 times more results then it is a reason to include "Voodoo Economics". Acoma Magic (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And how would it be modified? The term was used PRIOR to his administration and resurrected by Krugman AFTER his administration. This is the GA which we're talking about events DURING Reagan's administration, not before, not after because either events did not occur yet or was already past. The term is already mentioned in the 1980 Primary page which states that Bush coined the term and that should be all the mention it should get. I don't see how it would improve the '"Reaganomics" and the economy section' on this GA. ViriiK (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what time his economic policies were labeled as "voodoo". Acoma Magic (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You have a great idea for how would it improve on that section? You don't seem to be suggesting anything. You just say to include it but in what form? ViriiK (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I put it in my reason for support. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That implies it was labeled such during his policy being rolled out. It wasn't. Reaganomics didn't exist on paper until Reagan was President and that was due to him working with Volcker at the time which Reagan implemented a lot of policies and Volcker helped made the idea work during his administration including controlling inflation as the Fed Reserve. ViriiK (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Another thing. Bush made a broad statement against the entire idea of "Supply-side economics" with his own labelling of "Voodoo Economics" so the term is more fixed against the idea of Supply-side policy or economics rather than Reaganomics. Reaganomics didn't come out UNTIL Reagan was president. However Reaganomics isn't just about supply-side economics as evident during his administration but also controlling inflation hence the key role in Volcker being part of it. ViriiK (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it implies that. This is how it would look: "Reagan's policies proposed that economic growth would occur when marginal tax rates were low enough to spur investment,[142] which would then lead to increased economic growth, higher employment and wages. Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics" or "voodoo economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor.[143]". Reagan's policies do propose that and "voodoo economics" still refers to it. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment The arguments that the RfC is out of process are not well made. The purpose of an RfC is to get uninvolved opinion on a matter and is one of the ways content disputes are suppose to be handled. If you are confident in your position, you have nothing to regret from an RfC. As for StillStanding, you are not helping your position by repeatedly commenting. So just stop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just trying to get these people to actually participate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, You've said your apology, now let the process run. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about the economic policies of the Regan administration. The term 'voodoo economics' was a descriptor to used scantly before the administration existed, virtually unheard of during the term, and only used recently by Krugman as a neoglism. The context of the article should be focused on the policies and how they were interepreted at the time. The sole exception to this should be when historians opine about the effectiveness of the policies, of which opinion should be clearly attributed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a specious argument. On what basis do you claim that the term was unheard of during the term and was only heard recently? Did you make that up or can you prove it? My reading of the literature, and having been there at the time, supports the idea that this phrase was in wide use during the Reagan years. I see no evidence at all that this is of recent currency. Please support your claim or retract. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Your "having been there at the time" isn't an argument that holds water, unless that helps you provide sources during this period. And since you cant prove a negative, how can I prove that the sources of the day didnt use it? the JSTOR search another editor above performed indicates the term isnt used as a descriptor. Perhaps the term wasnt used at the time because it was kinder, gentler period?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Viriditas. The term "Voodoo economics" became a household term, whether one liked it or not. So it certainly was not "virtually unheard of." Just the opposite. Everyone who was old enough back then still knows that term today. Ask anyone what they think of when they hear the term "voodoo economics" and they'll tell you Ronald Reagan. A few of many examples of its use in the media: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am confused by the claim "term wasn't used as a descriptor." The sources indicate it was in the 1980s and therafter used as a desciptor in at least two senses: 1) the efficacy of the program (eg. cut taxes, raise spending, balance budget), and 2) whether the political/economic managers in the administration actually believed in the underlying theory (eg. Laffer curve) or were merely wishful/magical thinking it, or politically using it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong include Anyone familiar with Reaganomics knows full well that "voodoo economics" is a very significant term that has always been associated with it, whether it's a fair description or not. Removing the term would seem to be ludicrous. The article is not taking sides and making a judgement. It's simply stating the fact that Reaganomics was "associated" with that term (or vice versa) and is very careful to point out that it was used "pejoratively," among other descriptions. It's no different than mentioning the terms "supply-side econmics" and "trickle-down economics," which are both included in the article. The lead says, "These policies are commonly associated with supply-side economics, or pejoratively as trickle-down economics or voodoo economics." And in the body, it factually states, "While running against Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980, George H. W. Bush had derided Reaganomics as "voodoo economics"". So what's the problem? Am I missing something? If so, please tell me. :) Otherwise, these are facts that are not in dispute and I feel that they are not only worthy of inclusion, but necessary for inclusion. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Include per the very fine book sources supplied by Alanscottwalker and the widely seen newspaper sources supplied by 76.189.108.102. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest it could be included with the following wording: "During the primaries, George H.W. Bush criticized Reagan's economic policies by referring to his proposals as 'voodoo economics', a term that would be used frequently in subsequent criticism of Reagan's positions on the economy."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Include per the refs provided by the ip editor. Of course attrribution should be made clear.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, GR. Your open-minded approach to this issue is appreciated. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Include. Someone here actually thought it was a neologism? Really? Mention "voodoo economics" to most any American, and probably many others, and they will be able to correctly identify who is being referred to. They will also likely know who first applied the phrase to Reagan. I'm not sure using "trickle-down economics" can even be described as using a perjorative, unless by association with results. But "voodoo economics" is the primary counter-definition that at least Americans would know. (To call it a perjorative is again POV - to note it as a negative comment would be more accurate) To omit it entirely is unbalanced. BTW: I hate useless repetitive actions, such as bringing up spurious changes. (Please point out previous RfCs on this) But I look at the above and must applaud the bringing of this RfC. It was needed. Shenme (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Template expansion error

I tried to add "Navboxes" to the article for the related articles' templates, and got a template expansion error. Do you think it's because of all the "cite" templates? Maybe we need to pare down some templates. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

President Reagan's Children Should Be Listed In Order Of Birth:Maureen Reagan (1941 - 2001),Michael Reagan (1945 -),Christine Reagan (1947 - 1947),Patrica Reagan "Patti Davis"(1952-),Ronald Prescott Reagan (1958-).184.170.162.211 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Reagan was Secret FBI Informant

The section entitled Reagan's secret FBI Informant is pure fiction. It is a hitpiece pure and simple, and the source for it is the New York Times. The New York Times is a liberal partisan newspaper, and can't be trusted. I don't see why when I deleted it, it was reinstated. It is pure political innuendo and has no place in an encyclopedia article.NapoleonX (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have another reliable source to offer to back your opinion, please feel free to post it here. The New York Times is currently considered a reliable source on most topics, even if they do occasionally get a thing or two wrong. --Onorem♠Dil 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The section is well sourced, and is hardly 'fiction': Reagan's testimony to the HUAAC is well-documented. As for your comments regarding the NYT, do you think that we should confine material to that sourced from 'conservative partisan newspapers that can't be trusted' instead? Still, if you want to dispute the suitability of the NYT piece, I suggest you do so at WP:RSN. And by the way, it is expected that contributors provide edit summaries when removing large quantities of sourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

legacy "cold war" NPOV

the cold war subsection of the "legacy" section is rather NPOV -- only positive notes on his role in ending the cold war, a single event towards the end of his presidency. what is not noted at all in this section is the immensely destructive legacy that followed from his *fighting* the cold war for the vast majority of his presidency. this legacy includes, in addition to material damage, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in central america, killed at the hands of people funded, armed, and trained by the US at reagan's command, ranging from salvadoran/guatemalan death squads to the contra terrorists in nicaragua. in each country, the number of dead civilians is at least in the tens of thousands -- in guatemala, it exceeds one hundred thousand by nearly all counts. this doesn't even begin to tally those killed by similar reagan-sponsored death squads at the same time in colombia or by the tontons macoutes in haiti. reagan had positive words to say about all those killers in his payroll -- to him, the contras resembled our founding fathers, and he often asserted his fondness and respect for some of the most murderous clients (general rios montt of guatemala, baby doc duvalier of haiti). needless to say, reagan's administration was delivered a guilty verdict at the hague for their actions in nicaragua, and the guatemalan military regime that he propped up has been found guilty of genocide by international courts (only that first fact is mentioned in this article now -- once, in passing).

this element of his "legacy" -- hundreds of thousands of civilians dead -- deserves mention, or the "cold war" subsection could be retitled "end of the cold war" and this information could merit its own section (seeing as how this is how reagan is generally remembered in central america, one of the areas most strongly impacted by him -- one of the areas where his legacy is most greatly felt). as it is now, the foreign policy elements of the "legacy" section are tremendously NPOV in his favor. another undisputed legacy of his cold war operations was a group of reagan-sponsored islamist terrorists known as the mujahideen -- we don't need to recount how that legacy played out in the long run. 68.173.149.250 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment above is extremely biased: "...his role in ending the cold war, a single event toward the end of his presidency." In fact, this was one of the major events of the 20th century, ending a four-decade-long conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, in which both sides stood ready to destroy the other with nuclear weapons. Reagan ushered in a new world order of greater cooperation and less fear between the former Soviet States and the U.S. This positive outcome is rightly emphasized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor fix i can't make

There is a broken link in the third paragraph of the Governor of California section. The text "People's Park protests" links to a non-existent section of an article. The link should be [[People's Park#15 May 1969 – "Bloody Thursday"|People's Park protests]].

I'd fix this myself, but the page is locked down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.254.170 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Arms Race

The article says he was in an arms race with the Soviet Union. I think that should be 'dubious' or 'needs citation'. As I understand it Soviet defence spending actually declined during this period (as they departed Afghanistan) so it's not clear the arms race was more than one-sided. Don't have a source handy but can try to hunt one up. David Bofinger (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia. Speculation just doesn't hold water. You need to specify exactly what you are claiming and cite a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.180.140.187 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

An 'arms race' does not necessarily imply strictly monetary policies, it includes technological races - the focal point of the 1980s buildup on both sides. To a lesser extent it can also include perceptions as well as public opinion and policy on the issue. However, the former Soviet Union's actual military budget remains a closely guarded state secret and will most likely remain so for the foreseeable future making the point mostly moot until defense budgets are unclassified and can analyzed.

Teenage Civil Rights Work in Dixon?

The second paragraph in the Early Life section includes an anecdote, presumably from Reagan himself, of him bringing home some "Black People" who had been denied a room at the local inn in Dixon, Illinois. The source for this is Paul Kengor.

I would advise EXTREME skepticism about the reliability of both Kengor and Reagan himself on this matter. The former is a hagiographer and the latter seems to have had a habit of making up stories. See for example the Cadillac driving Welfare Queen and the Food Stamp purchase with a bottle of Vodka paid for with the change.

Without independant corroboration it should be amended to "Reagan claimed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.182.131 (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Cadillac driving welfare queen actually existed in Chicago, where she claimed she had 17 kids. In fact, she had five and the rest were 'rented' for when the social worker would show up to count them. The vodka purchases with food stamps also occurred in Chicago. Altho illegal, a local 7/11 rang up the liquor sales as food so that food stamps could be used for the purchases.

The sentence about Reagan bringing home black people when they were denied room at the local inn seems to imply he did this on every occasion. That seems unlikely. It would be more accurate to say: 'On several occasions when...'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.180.140.187 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ronald Reagan with cowboy hat 12-0071M edit.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ronald Reagan with cowboy hat 12-0071M edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 6, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) wearing a cowboy hat at his vacation home in Rancho del Cielo. Reagan, a former actor, purchased the ranch towards the end of his term as Governor of California. He and his wife Nancy would use the ranch throughout his presidency and into the 1990s.Photo: Michael Evans; Restoration: Peter Weis
Archive – More featured pictures...

Voted the Greatest American

In 2005, Reagan was voted the Greatest American in a very prominent media public poll from the Discovery Channel voted on by millions. I think that this is worth including in the header, especially since the voters were all people from his nation and it shows his reputation in the United States. 207.255.135.158 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Very prominent? It was a minor popularity contest held by a TV channel to boost ratings. Only people who watch that channel would have responded. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
As long as the claim is properly sourced - no problems. Discovery Channel is considered RS for surveys it conducts itself, and it does not appear to be an "editorial opinion" of that company. It certainly appears to have no political POV for sure. Covered in a Palgrave published book [30] which means it is covered in RS sources and thus is past the "minor popularity contest" level of trivia. Also Edinburgh University Press [ http://books.google.com/books?id=l2k5zrO23aAC]. [31] University Press of Kentucky. [32] Mercer University Press. [33] Palgrave again. Ad infinitum it looks like - sorry - seems notable enough to be covered in RS secondary sources. Collect (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Pop culture vote is not really the stuff for an article of this quality, but that's just me. RS yes. Notable, ummm no.Mattnad (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Attribute it, be bold, and add it. Make sure it is neutrally worded an not given any greater weight than any other such survey.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Domestic and political legacy

There is nothing here to suggest that his deregulation policies were (arguably) at least partially responsible for the "Great Recession." The FSLIC bailout [1] that occurred already during his presidency lends justification for at least a mention of the far-reaching negative effects of his policies. 71.179.183.170 (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am very familiar with the causes of the Great Recession and the intellectual consensus is that Reagan's causation of the Great Recession is very weak and based on strictly ideological interpretations of domestic policy, rarely with any empirical evidence. Most scholars actually point to the Congressional and Presidential actions during the Clinton presidency when they begin analyzing causation, namely the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act during the proliferation of unrestrained neo-liberal economic policy at the beginning of globalization.

Constructive Engagement

Reagan's policy toward apartheid of "Constructive Engagement" ought to be mentioned in the "Presidency" section of this article.

In the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration's policy regarding apartheid took an alternative to proposed UN economic sanctions on and divestment from South Africa. This policy, known as Constructive Engagement, intended to use incentives to encourage South Africa to gradually depart from apartheid. [2] It was motivated by the Reagan Administration's fear of Soviet influence in the region and led to US economic and military support of apartheid South Africa during the administration's first term. [3]

After his reelection, Reagan came under tremendous public pressure to revise his administration's policy on South Africa's apartheid government. In 1986, pubic opposition to the Apartheid regime was put into policy when the US House of Representatives and Senate enacted the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. Reagan vetoed the act, which imposed economic sanctions on the South Africa, but was overridden by both the House and the Senate, marking the first time since the 1973 War Powers Resolution that Congress had overridden a presidential foreign policy veto.[4]

This article is about Ronald Reagan, the person - not government policies or Acts of Congress. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act article and Constructive Engagement/Divestment of South Africa already covers said items in much greater detail and much more appropriately. So no, it ought not to be included in this article, but maybe you would like to contribute to the existing articles about the subject? For the Veto - it looks like that one is missing from the US Presidential veto Page - maybe you could add it there?Patriot1010 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

President Reagan did not veto sanctions against the apartheid regime because he supported the latter (he had always been against any form of racism and had always been vocal in denouncing that regime), but because he did not believe sanctions would be effective. In he last analysis, I don't think the apartheid regime fell because of sanctions. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.11.46.66 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013. Additional Central American influence:

. http://www.globalresearch.ca/ronald-reagan-accessory-to-genocide-ex-guatemalan-dictator-rios-montt-guilty-of-mayan-genocide/5334855

76.212.170.246 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013. Additional Central American influence:

. http://www.globalresearch.ca/ronald-reagan-accessory-to-genocide-ex-guatemalan-dictator-rios-montt-guilty-of-mayan-genocide/5334855

76.212.170.246 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Duplicate request. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Greatest American of All Time

I think it's worth mentioning, perhaps in the last sentence where it talks about his standing in opinion polls, that he was voted the Greatest American of all time in a 2005 Discovery Channel poll. Dunnsworth (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been other polls conducted more scientifically, and Reagan did not come in first place.
This issue has been discussed before. Please see:
I don't think it is worth putting this one unscientific poll in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I just thought since the same had been done for the Winston Churchill article, that the Reagan article might do the same. However, if there is already a consensus against such a measure, then very well. Dunnsworth (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request regarding The Gipper nickname.

The article claims

Before the film Santa Fe Trail with Errol Flynn in 1940, he played the role of George "The Gipper" Gipp in the film Knute Rockne, All American; from it, he acquired the lifelong nickname "the Gipper" citing Cannon, Lou (1991, 2000). President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 1-891620-91-6. pg 15

This is NOT what the book actually says on that page:

"When Reagan ran for president four decades later, the film had a second lease on life and reporters took to calling Reagan "The Gipper.""

The book makes it clear Reagan did not get "The Gipper" nickname until his run for the presidency some 40 years after the film came out. Ergo Reagan can NOT have had "The Gipper" as a lifelong nickname; at best he had it from 1979 to 2004.--216.31.124.55 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Under death it lists him as the first President to die in the 21st century, which is not true.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. Nixon died in 1994, and Ford died in 2006. So, Reagan, who died in 2004, was the first to die in the 21st century. RudolfRed (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Botulism quotation

Considering the inflammatory nature of the botulism quote used under the governorship section I would strongly suggest a little more context. Citing the following may help: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19740307&id=vsIlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wPMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3043,3609429

First, it should be clarified that at the time the SLA were demanding an additional ransom from Hearst in the form of $4 million for a food giveaway. This was in addition to $2 million he had agreed to earlier for the safe return of his daughter.

I would also add a statement along the lines that Reagan later stated that it was a "joking remark, but I do deplore the fact that these people are accepting the food" because accepting the food "furthers criminal activity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceegh (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"reducing government spending"

The fourth paragraph, which sums up Reagan's presidency, says that Reagan's policies cut government spending. In reality, thanks to Reagan's vast expansion of military spending, the national deficit nearly tripled, increasing to nearly $3 trillion. That (plus the fact that the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation under Carter to the world's largest debtor nation under Reagan) are among the most notable and important aspects of Reagan's time in office. This info really should be mentioned in the 4th paragraph, which sums up Reagan's presidency. Instead the 4th paragraph seems to imply that Reagan cut spending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.223.18 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Creditor" and "debtor" nation is an accounting term and not a sign of debt or obligation. In addition, this was not the first time the balance of trade swung from creditor to debtor. In fact, it happened during Carter's term!

In addition, debt as measured against GDP did not triple (or even double). You also have to consider what Reagan requested to be spent versus what Congress authorized. This is a considerable gap as well. Congress spent more than Reagan requested in seven of eight years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:6073:D422:E6FE:B53:85B3 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Reagan administration called for a drastic reduction in federal assistance to Indian tribes. This included an 82% cut in economic development funds. Indians represented 0.6 percent of the country’s population and, under Reagan, they absorbed 2.5 percent of the budget cuts. The cuts seem to be intended to hinder their ability for economic development on the reservations. Reagan and american natives. http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1262 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.9.6 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Botulism quotation

Considering the inflammatory nature of the botulism quote used under the governorship section I would strongly suggest a little more context. Citing the following may help: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19740307&id=vsIlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wPMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3043,3609429

First, it should be clarified that at the time the SLA were demanding an additional ransom from Hearst in the form of $4 million for a food giveaway. This was in addition to $2 million he had agreed to earlier for the safe return of his daughter.

I would also add a statement along the lines that Reagan later stated that it was a "joking remark, but I do deplore the fact that these people are accepting the food" because accepting the food "furthers criminal activity". http://forgottenhistoryblog.com/before-becoming-president-ronald-reagan-was-a-paid-cigarette-model/ Why is not this part of his actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.9.6 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Homelessness

In the 1980s, homelessness appeared like an epidemic, starting in New York City and radiating across the United States. Article


Research has brought us closer than ever to understanding—and ending—homelessness. The elusive first step is housing.

by Nicole Pezold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.9.6 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

i am a Kenyan and just wanted to send you a biography of a freedom fighter if you find it okay may be you can go ahead and have it on your site what are the requirements? Thanks Jacob G Karari (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change to this page.
If you want to start an article please see WP:Your first article - Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Back to the Future Part III regarding a offer Reagan supposedly received to appear in that movie following his retirement from the Presidency, and whether or not that information should be included on Wikipedia which could also be relevant to this article. Please see the aforementioned Talk page for more details. --TommyBoy (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted an update regarding my question at the aforementioned article Talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Abortion Stance

Regarding the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, the article contains the sentence, "Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed." What does this mean? What did he learn after being in office for more than four months? That signing bills had consequences? That the Governor had power to veto legislation with which he disagreed? The phraseology makes Reagan look shallow and unintelligent, which he may have been.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

49.145.14.80 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Ronald Reagan's first publicly-elected office was in 1960 when he was elected a director of the Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District (now called Santa Monica Mountains Resource Conservation District). He served for a little more than a year until his role as spokesman for General Electric took him away. Resource conservation districts in California are like soil conservation districts in other states. They help with land and ranching issues. CarlLOlson (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's first publicly-elected office

The reference for previous submission is

http://www.rcdsmm.org/home info@rcdsmm.org.

[5]

CarlLOlson (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's first publicly-elected office

I was on the TLVRCD board from 1978 to 1982, where I learned of Mr. Reagan's previous election.

CarlLOlson (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

footnote #1a and 1b is worthless

the footnote re "Main Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form" is all about the houses he lived in briefly as a child 1911-14 and 1919-20 and has nothing else of value about his life. it needs deletion from lede Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

lede problems re first term

The lede is much too thin on First term. There is not a word on unemployment or deficit, and the only mention of foreign affairs is Grenada. We should tell readers this: In foreign policy, he stepped up the Cold War by denouncing the Soviet Union as evil, spending heavily on new weapons, putting missiles in Europe, supporting anti-Communist movements in Latin America, Afghanistan and Poland, and invading the Caribbean island of Grenada to roll back a Communist coup. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
  2. ^ Deborah Toler, "Constructive Engagement: Reactionary Pragmatism at Its Best", Issue: A Journal of Opinion, Vol. 12, No. 3/4 (Autumn - Winter, 1982), pp. 11-18
  3. ^ Kyvig. David E “Reagan And The World” Rotberg Robert I “Reagan Era in Africa” Greenwood Press page 125 (1990)
  4. ^ Glass. Andrew "House overrides Reagan apartheid veto, September 29, 1986". Politico. September 29, 2010. Retrieved March 15, 2013. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42839.html
  5. ^ http://www.rcdsmm.org/home
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan/Archive_17&oldid=1142535946"