Wikipedia

Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 19

< Talk:Ronald Reagan
Latest comment: 6 years ago by PseudoSkull in topic Libertarianism
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Other aspects of Reagan's 1985 visit to cemetery in Bitburg, Germany

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

President Reagan: The Role Of A Lifetime, Lou Cannon, PublicAffairs (Perseus Books Group), 1991, page 508.

' . . . both Deaver and the embassy accepted the blanket assurances of German chief of protocol Werner von der Schulenberg that "no war criminals" were buried at Bitburg. . . '

' . . . Neither Reagan nor Deaver nor anyone else in the White House involved with the president's participation in the Bitburg ceremony realized that many Germans distinguished between the regular SS forces, the most fanatical killers of the Nazi regime, and the Waffen SS, who had been attached to military units. As the Germans saw it, many of the Waffen SS had been forced into military service and were therefore not war criminals. . . '

This helps to explain how Reagan ended up making the promise to visit to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, a promise which he felt compelled to keep. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In 1987, Eleni, by Nicholas Gage was cited by Ronald Reagan as an inspiration for his summit meetings to end the arms race with the Soviet Union.58.7.205.172 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=cJFlHHTYgw4C&pg=PA379&lpg=PA379&dq=Reagan+Kohl+Bitburg+missiles&source=bl&ots=h575InLaor&sig=Ng4eucxLoBkeWlItNaRiHd2Yd10&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNr4yc-7DZAhUIWq0KHVfhDS0Q6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=Reagan%20Kohl%20Bitburg%20missiles&f=false

Reagan not wanting to abandon Kohl who had accepted Pershing II and cruise missiles in 1983. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Long Aftermath: Cultural Legacies of Europe at War, 1936-2016 edited by Manuel Bragança, Peter Tame

the Richard Pipes quote that at NSC meetings Reagan seemed "really lost, out of his depth, uncomfortable" is probably worth including.

Latest comment: 6 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

Yes, it's a third party as it were, but that's pretty much all we're going to have. And, we're not running a trial court. We're attempting to do solid history in encyclopedic format by using a variety of good sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War, Melvyn P. Leffler, New York, United States: Hill and Wang (division of Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), 2007.

' . . . At some meetings of the National Security Council, according to Richard Pipes, the Soviet expert who served on the NSC staff, the president seemed "really lost, out of his depth, uncomfortable." . . . '

also . . .

The Untold History of the United States, Oliver Stone, Peter Kuznick, New York: Gallery Books (division of Simon & Schuster), 2012.

There's nothing solid about what amounts to an off the cuff remark by an unnamed Soviet. – Lionel(talk) 23:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Richard Pipes was on the American side. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
And I think it's good in our article to describe Pipes as Soviet expert on NSC. This way, people are free to decide, well, heck, this fellow is a specialist and Reagan is a generalist. Of course he's going to perceive the president this way. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
'The Untold History of the United States'? Surely you jest. As far as the Pipes comment goes, I'm not sure one vague impression from some meetings really warrants a inclusion.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It's an example of someone in the administration making a judgment call that Reagan wasn't all there. And 'Untold History' is merely one of two sources. As I recall, Reagan received criticism around 1986, yes, real-time criticism during his presidency that he may no longer have the wherewithal to continue his --NYCJosh (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)duties as president. I would definitely want a variety of sources regarding this, if we're going to include it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Oliver Stone, it's different than a fictional movie where you definitely do take artistic license. And for his documentary series and book, he does have Peter Kuznick as co-author. I don't know how The Untold History of the United States compares to books by Richard Reeves, Lou Cannon, etc. I don't think because someone has a viewpoint, it automatically discredits their book. It depends on how much of a good faith effort they make to include a variety of facts. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The "all there" stuff has been thoroughly addressed in another part of the article and is a inappropriate distraction under the Cold War anyway. Oliver Stone is neither particularly objective nor accurate. 'The Untold History' has been panned as repeating Soviet propaganda about the Cold War. To establish reliable history, staying away from Oliver Stone is a good idea.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
First, The "Untold History" is quoting a book by Melvyn P. Leffler, a prominent US historian at the U of Virginia. Second, the "Untold History" was co-written with Peter J. Kuznick, a US historian at American University in Wash, DC. So the RS issue is a red-herring.
FWIW, Richard Pipes is a conservative Republican who was a member of the US National Sec Council under Reagan and also played a foreign policy role in the George W. Bush administration.
As far as this issue belonging elsewhere in the article, I am open to moving to a section that others feel is more relevant. --NYCJosh (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The 'Untold History' page you cited does not provide a direct quite from the Chicago Tribune. Given how (on the same page) the same author mischaracterizes Reagan's attack on the so-called Chicago welfare queen (he never identified her by race), again I question the objectivity of the source. (Being associated with Oliver Stone is radioactive enough.) In any case, I think this hardly warrants a addition to the article anyway. Reagan giving a wrong number on the number of Chicago cops killed within a short time period seems minor.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The page number in "Untold History" is where the Pipes quote appears. There is an endnote number at the end of that paragraph (or sentence, I don't have the book in front of me). Follow the endnote number to the endnote section of the book to find the Chicago Tribune cite that I included in the FN here.
Re welfare queen--perhaps you are familiar with the "Southern Strategy" of the GOP developed by Pres. Nixon? It relies on "dog-whistle politics" using code words. So "welfare queen", especially in the context of an urban area, means "African American" when used by an American politician, unless otherwise stated. But you're right that further explanation of this in the book and further context would have been helpful. In general, the book tries to cover too much so it moves at a fast clip. In any event, the welfare queen example is not the subject of this discussion for this article.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if it turns out that this book is characterizing the statements correctly (which I highly doubt), these still seem to be unnecessary additions to the article that have already been covered in other ways. If we were to catalog every inaccuracy by every president in their bio, these things could be endless. This isn't the time or place for the "welfare queen" argument.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no basis for RS objection, as I explained above.
Re: "covering every inaccuracy"--this is not just an "inaccuracy." If he had said 2 cops killed for the month, instead of the for year, that is a misstatement. Here he is manufacturing facts to suit his argument of the day. That is important because it shows his commitment to veracity in his rhetoric. Together with Reagan's tall tales about his role in documenting the Holocaust, they give the reader an important side of Reagan.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a basis for objecting to the source: again we are talking anything associated with Oliver Stone. (And I've never even heard of Peter J. Kuznick.) In any case it's not really important because it seems (at least to me) to be a fairly minor gaffe. And I've addressed the Holocaust situation: there is a real question that Reagan even said such a thing. It was likely a misunderstanding. (Most likely a misinterpretation by the Israeli newspapers.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Your personal view of Stone seems out of place here. Also irrelevant is that you personally never heard of Professor Kuznick. It's a non-fiction book published by one of America's major publishers, Simon & Schuster, which triple checks such thing facts and does not put out things about major events willy-nilly. Plus it quotes another RS. Per WP RS rule this issue is frivolous. All this should have been self-evident from the start.
Reagan repeated his Holocaust tall tale on at least one other occasion and this was reported by the Wash Post and exposed there as a canard. If you had read my contribution and glanced at the FN you would have known that.
I want to let others weigh in re the relevance. --NYCJosh (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not just my view of Stone, he has been heavily criticized in the past by major news outlets (Newsweek, US News and World Report, etc) as well as historians. I bring up the fact Kuznick is a relative unknown because it would take a lot of weight to counterbalance Stone here. (Sort of like trying to forget Bill O' Reilly's name is attached to a "historical" work.) The publisher is irrelevant as that does not stop them from printing things with a slanted pov (as I have demonstrated). I hope others weigh in as well. But keep in mind: one of your revisions was not reverted by me, it was by "Drdpw". So at least one additional one HAS weighed in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where we include questions about Reagan's mental acuity (declining abilities?) anywhere in the two major sections on the first and second terms of his presidency. On the section about Iran-Contra, we state, "The [Tower] commission could not find direct evidence that Reagan had prior knowledge of the program, but criticized him heavily for his disengagement from managing his staff . . . " And that's as close as we get. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion (and speculation) as to when Alzheimer's began to affect him is present in the "Alzheimer's disease" section of the article. I think the arguments for and against it affecting him during his Presidency are well represented there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
And just for the record, I think Oliver Stone's Born on the Fourth of July (1989) and Nixon (1995) are excellent. Now, are these movies completely factually accurate? Most probably not, but what theatrical production is. As far as his book with Peter Kuznick, well, they got the Richard Pipes quote accurate.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think he makes great movies too. (Not withstanding the accuracy issues.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Reagan's Holocaust documenting tall tales happened in 1983 and his fib about Chicago cops getting killed occurred was in 1968. So this is not an Alzheimer's issue.
I don't know why facts documented by respected US historians at major universities, and by two Wash Post articles, should be whitewashed like this.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I've already detailed the issues with your statements. There is no whitewashing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any of us want to whitewash. It's all a question of balance, and I say, let's just take it medium step by medium step. We'll go with what a goodly range of references say, no more, no less. On the question of memory, a lot of people not just President Reagan put together images and memories and make mistakes.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

staff raised questions (2nd term) about whether Reagan able to continue as President

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Removal of Reagan From Office Suggested to Baker : Report Said Aides Described President as Depressed, Inept in Wake of Iran-Contra Crisis, Los Angeles Times, Jack Nelson, Sept. 15, 1988.

'WASHINGTON — Most high-level White House aides believed that President Reagan was so depressed, inept and inattentive in the wake of disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal early in 1987 that the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office was raised in a memo to Howard H. Baker Jr., then Reagan's chief of staff.

'Former White House aide James Cannon, confirming facts reported in a newly published book, said in an interview Wednesday that he wrote a March 1, 1987, memorandum based on the aides' concern and raising the possibility of applying the amendment. . . '

' . . . They decided to observe the President first-hand before making any decision. At a meeting in the White House on March 2 [1987], Baker, Cannon, Griscom and Baker aide A. B. Culvahouse bracketed Reagan at the Cabinet table so they could watch his every move. To Cannon's surprise, Reagan seemed attentive and alert, charming and glib--the same Ronald Reagan he had known for years.'

This has a definite time period, so we probably can just put it in the sequence of events for Reagan's second term, and we draw from a variety of good sources as we always try to do. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
What point would there be in including this? The very people proposing this idea backed away from it after observing the President.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The fact that senior staff raised the issues in the first place.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
As I noted in another section, the when-did-he-have-Alzheimer's debate is covered in the "Alzheimer's disease" section of the article. I'm not sure how many more examples of him being less than lucid (for one side of the argument) are needed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I probably should have also included this quote from the article:

' . . . Even more chilling, Cannon told Mayer and McManus, was the portrait that White House aides drew of Reagan himself: "They told stories about how inattentive and inept the President was. He was lazy; he wasn't interested in the job. They said he wouldn't read the papers they gave him--even short position papers and documents. They said he wouldn't come over to work--all he wanted to do was to watch movies and television at the residence."

'Cannon told The Times that he interviewed 15 to 20 White House officials, including senior aides, and "the overwhelming majority" painted that portrait of Reagan. . . '

The fact that senior staff perceived Reagan this way, even for a time, is significant, and should be included in the main flow of his two terms.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Worrying About Reagan, The New Yorker, Jane Mayer (co-author of Landslide: The Unmaking of the President, pub. in 1988), Feb. 24, 2011.

' . . . By early 1987, several top White House advisers were so concerned about Reagan’s mental state that they actually talked among themselves about invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which calls for the Vice-President to take over in the event of the President’s incapacity. . . '

' . . . Reagan was suffering both politically and personally from the fallout of the Iran-Contra scandal. Howard Baker, his third chief of staff, was just about to take over from Don Regan, whom Nancy Reagan had helped to dispatch, and the senior staff was in turmoil. Before taking command of the situation, Baker asked his trusted aide James Cannon, who had been the domestic-policy adviser to Gerald Ford, to put together a confidential report on what had gone wrong inside the White House. One by one, Cannon had called in the top White House aides and debriefed them. What Cannon learned floored him.

'As Cannon summarized his findings, on the record, in our book, “They told stories about how inattentive . . . '

' . . . Cannon was astounded to learn, too, that the aides “felt free to sign his initials on documents, without noting that they were acting for him.” When Cannon asked a group of key aides who among them had authority to sign for Reagan, there was a long, uncomfortable silence, after which one answered, “Well—everybody, and nobody.” . . . '

' . . . It may be that President Reagan just had good days and bad days, and that these ups and downs were not specifically linked to the Alzheimer’s disease . . . '

This is serious stuff. This is a presidency in decline, at least for a time.
With these two references, I feel this is enough documentation to go ahead and include it in the main body of our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Rja13ww33 is correct. His issues regarding capacity are already covered in the Alzheimer's section. To add a new section on this topic throws the article out of balance and is WP:UNDUE.– Lionel(talk) 00:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The Alzheimer's section is silent on: (1) the toll on Reagan of the Iran-Contra fallout in terms of depression etc. Indeed by ascribing forgetfulness to the disease, it omits link of the Reagan Administration's own activities (Iran-Contra) to Reagan's lack of focus, etc.; (2) Reagan's inattentiveness, lack of focus, reluctance to come to work as described in FriendlyOtter's sources.These are a lot more serious than the occasional forgetfulness that the Alzheimer's section discussed. In fact, like the sources I added (incl. NY Times and Chicago Tribune), the observation by Reagan's own appointees that Reagan failed to comprehend foreign policy discussions, etc. and the fact that these shortcomings go back to the early 1980s, at least. (3) the fact that so many of his staff members were making decisions for Reagan on a daily basis, signing his name of documents without explicit authorization to do so and feeling ambivalent about it when asked; (4) the serious discussion as to whether to invoke the 25th Amend.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
While your entitled to your opinion, NYC, your speculation that "This is a presidency in decline" is just that: your opinion. At Wikipedia we do not form a hypothesis and then find sources to support it. We say as much as and no more than what the sources say. Until you find high quality sources that say "This is [sic] a presidency in decline" your effort to include this material is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH.– Lionel(talk) 00:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of lack of focus, you seem to (on the one hand) want to call it "inattentiveness", "reluctance to come to work", etc but on the other hand want to make it sound like he had full-blown Alzheimer's. (I.e. laziness vs. disease.) Like Lionelt said, you have a hypothesis and are looking for anything that fits it. I've already addressed the 25th amendment issue. It was a lot of loose talk from people who backed away from it themselves. Furthermore, some of the most senior people are quoted in the article as calling this ludicrous. And finally it's worth noting that a lot of this came from Don Regan's staff. Regan feuded with some in the White House (including Nancy Reagan) and so some of this may be based in animosity. Howard Baker (his replacement) didn't see this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing specific language for the article in my last comment, just noting the deficiencies in dismissing FriendlyRiverOtter's sources as being already contained in the Alzheimer's section. There are key ideas that are not in there, as I pointed out. I didn't have a "hypothesis" before last week. The sources I brought and the sources that FriendlyRiverOtter brought have documented several important facts about Reagan that are unrelated to Alzheimers.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Bitburg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I made some changes regarding Reagan's Bitburg visit, but not yet about this aspect because I'd really like to get more than one reference. The New York Times article just mentions the signing, doesn't mention a Bitburg connection. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bitburg edit [1] is problematic because it is placed right before "As the controversy brewed" implying that the protest was part of the "controversy." Additionally, using the word "however" connects the protest to the Deaver item. In fact, the protest occurred after Reagan placed the wreath. Thus in its current placement it is not chronological. Also the wording is a little awkward. The phrase "one speaker read from the Congressional Record" seems to lend some measure of factual reliability to the Congressional Record. When in fact this is Metzenbaum's opinion. – Lionel(talk) 00:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the Florida protest of 100 odd vets and survivors may not rise to the level of inclusion in this article. Reagan was one of the most polarizing presidents in modern times and protests were a regular part of his presidency. Why include this group of 100 and not include the immigrant protests, war protests, nuclear protests, etc.? I think if the goal is to add detail about the Waffen SS we might find that in Lou Cannon.– Lionel(talk) 00:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't want to only depend on Lou Cannon. Think the Florida protest, especially the aspect that it was both Holocaust survivors and veterans groups, is a good illustrative example of the types of protests motivated when the Reagan administration announced the President was going to visit Bitburg. Tend to agree with you on Metzenbaum and the Congressional Record. Yes, the wording is awkward and when it comes down to it, just the viewpoint of one Senator. Welcome improvements. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
However, at a joint protest in Florida by American veteran organizations and camp survivors at the time of Reagan's visit, one speaker read from the Congressional Record an entry by Senator Howard Metzenbaum stating that the Waffen-SS force had been involved in the massacre of 350 American soldiers and 100 Belgian soldiers who were prisoners of war.Veterans, Camp Survivors Condemn President`s Visit, Sun Sentinel [Florida], Robert McClure, Michael Romano ,Michele Cohen, May 6, 2018.

This needs to be fixed AND achieve consensus before re-adding.– Lionel(talk) 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrote the above part more compactly, plus found second reference, hope you like the changes. And of course, please free yourself to jump in there and rewrite and find references. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No, your statement is demonstrably false. You did not write it more compactly. You expanded the text as shown in this previous version from Mar 2 [2].
This small 100 person protest is still in front of Reagan's visit and is not chronological. This is misleading as I have pointed out before. It is a violation of WP:SYNTH.
The relatively minor incident now takes up more space than the sections War on Drugs, Response to AIDS, Invasion of Grenada. WP:UNDUE is clear that topics deserve coverage in proportion to the coverage in RS. Are you telling me that Bitburg deserves more coverage in the article than the Invasion of Grenada?
I hope that your statement "Wrote the above part more compactly" is just an oversight and not an intentional lie. You obviously have not read WP:DUE. I hope that this as well is an oversight and that you are not intentionally disregarding it. WP:COMPETENCE – Lionel(talk) 00:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@FriendlyRiverOtter: I see you were reverted again. Please read WP:BRD. If you continue edit warring you will be reported to WP:AN3. This is a required notice.– Lionel(talk) 00:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Really? You're going to throw something like "I hope that your statement . . . is just an oversight and not an intentional lie" at me? You know, I'm used to sports sites, and I've always hear that Wikipedia is so much better, that we work together in truly collaborative fashion. And I usually hear this from non-wikipedians! In my own personal experience, sometimes we do, but often we do not.
I changed the summary of the Florida Sun Sentinel article "Veterans, Camp Survivors . . " in large part due to your request and you pointing out that my previous summary gave too much weight to what was afterall simply the viewpoint of Senator Howard Metzenbaum. I agreed, so I rewrote it with two short sentences instead of one long sentence. And incidentally, it ended up slightly shorter. And when I added the second reference, yes, of course it made the whole thing longer.
And regarding this second reference, the New York Times article "SS UNIT'S HISTORY OVERLOOKED . . ", I summarized it in three parts, one, that the Second SS Panzer Division had participated in the killing of 900+ Jewish persons, two, that this same division had killed 600+ residents in a massacre in a French town, and three, some of the 49 Waffen-SS soldiers buried at Bitburg were members of this division but it is simply not known whether or not they participated in either of these two war crimes. So, let me please ask you, which of these three facts would you recommend I leave out? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your addition to the article that mentions the various crimes of the SS for 2 reasons: it is unnecessary as their crimes are fairly well known, and (more importantly) your own source says it is not known if any SS buried at this cemetery committed any war crimes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
How about all 3 since (as you say) it is unclear that any SS in "this cemetery committed any war crimes".Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Space permitting, I think all 3 is clearly the way to go. That's what would be appropriate for a book. But space is very limited here at Wikipedia. As an analogy, it takes much longer to write a good, succinct five-minute speech than it does to make notes for a rambling one-hour talk. We at Wiki very much face the challenge that it takes more concentrated effort as well as just plain trial-and-error to summarize very succinctly.
If you say space is limited here then why even include this? I see no reason for it unless the purpose here is to make some insinuation about the SS men there in order to put some sort of spin on this (with regard to RR).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I am reporting you. You were warned to stop tinkering with this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the section on Bitburg is in a perilous state. We include the summary from the Lou Cannon book that Germans drew a big distinction between the regular SS and the Waffen-SS, but we're not including the New York Times article which essentially says, not so fast, it's not so simple. Plus, we still have to include the sources in the following section "Other aspects of Reagan's 1985 visit . . " which report that Reagan felt highly motivated to keep his promise to Chancellor Kohl (even if made following incomplete information) because Kohl had helped with placing Pershing II and cruise missiles.
Okay, I'm going to change it to very abbreviated form, probably too abbreviated for the time being. And continue working. As always, it's the zen river, always becoming, never quite there.  :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added a RfC (Request for Comment) as a new section below as one good way of getting the help and input of the broader Wiki community. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Salon article is excellent, let's try to find way for it to work.

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Reaganomics killed America’s middle class, Salon (originally on AlterNet), Thom Hartmann, April 19, 2014.

'There's nothing "normal" about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, . . . '

' . . . The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens' novels. . . '

' . . . When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, . . . '

' . . . Progressive taxation, when done correctly, pushes wages down to working people and reduces the incentives for the very rich to pillage their companies or rip off their workers. . . '

As has been pointed out, this article doesn't run the numbers to establish the case that inequality has increased since the Reagan years. It assumes other sources have adequately established this and moves on to the next level of asking, why? And it answers, that having a middle class is not natural to unbridled capitalism, and that high marginal tax rates are important both for direct transfer of income to the working class and to reduce the incentive for the rich to amass huge fortunes even to the point of cheating.
We're of course free to agree or disagree with either or both of these conclusions. But, in an encyclopedic entry for adults, this is most probably the type of criticism of Reagan's economic policies that we should include.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
This is getting silly at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 21:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem here is Hartmann is hardly objective (or qualified) and the data presented (what little there is) does not allow a conclusion to be drawn either way. Hartmann's obsession with high marginal rates somehow causing equality is pretty questionable (IMHO) for several reasons: the wealthy really didn't pay them (as Chris Matthews noted once: if you did, you had some pretty bad accountants working for you), and the data does not show a concrete correlation. (In the 90's for example, the top marginal rate was raised but inequality continued unabated.) The other issues here is Hartmann doesn't really understand that a lot of income of the people he worries most about is falling under the capital gains tax, not the income tax. The max capital gains tax in the post-WW II era (his golden era) never got much higher than about 40% (the average was closer to 30 IIRC), not the 70-90% he opines for. So here you have someone who really doesn't understand what they are arguing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
We don't get to adjudicate references. If you have another reference making some of these points, that's great and will enrich our article. If not, Hartmann's article may be the best we have. He is looking at the slow erosion of the middle class in the 30+ years since Reagan's first tax cut in Aug. 1981. How many other sources do we have right now doing this?
If it makes a difference, Hartmann refers to the French economist Thomas Piketty who wrote Capital in the Twenty-First Century.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Uh, yeah we do get to make judgement calls on references. I can post (for example) a ton of National Review articles saying the opposite of this. Want me to do it? They aren't any less bias than Salon (or Hartmann). Income inequality has been growing since the 70's. Just why it has been happening has a lot of factors. Taxes may (or may not) be a factor, but it all begins and ends there as far as Hartmann is concerned. Very few economists agree with him on this. It's clear he doesn't understand this issue.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a couple of National Review articles would be fine. We could just include in the body "a 1982 National Review article stated . . . " And on the political left, maybe an article or two from UK's Guardian or the radio and TV show Democracy Now! in the U.S.

Rja, you're making it sound like you're super familiar with what's mainstream economic thought and what isn't. And if you've, say, taught macroeconomics for 20 years and supervised a number of grad students, well . . . first off, you talents would be poorly utilized here at Wiki. But yes, we can casually talk about all kinds of subjects here on the discussion page, but we can't really use it.

I did a Ctrl-F search for "middle class" and "middle-class" on our main page and didn't get a single mention. One of the main criticisms of Reagan, that his economic policies contributed to the decline of the middle class and not even a single mention of the phrase. Wow. That is indeed a glaring omission. And I tend to think even a couple of mediocre references would be better than nothing at all. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You want a National Review article from 1982, but you want to quote a recent opinion piece from Hartmann? Interesting double standard, but no thanks. The reason middle class isn't mentioned is probably (just a guess here) because it's a quite nebulous criteria. As far as I know, there is no official government criteria that defines one as "middle class". It's also hard to define as cost of living varies greatly across the country.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Really? I'm trying to be open to a big tent approach, and you accuse me of having a double standard. Well, it's all good, any way you want to look at it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hartmann's essay does not meet the RS criteria in technical economics--we have several hundred commentators MUCH better equipped--check out his page Thom Hartmann to see his wide "range" of expertise--much too wide I suggest. If you want Piketty's ideas, then cite Pikatty. Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like to have both. Hartmann does write in plain English. The typical economist, sometimes it's readable and sometimes it's just not.

And I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Currently, in our long sub-section on ""Reaganomics" and the economy," there's no mention of manufacturing nor of the middle class. It's kind of remarkable! We definitely have our work cut out for us. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk)

As I noted above, "middle class" is a nebulous criteria. As far as manufacturing goes, I'm pretty sure you don't want to include that since manufacturing output rose (from 1981 to 1989) from 616 billion to 927.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
FriendlyRiverOtter, I agree that the declining middle class under Reagan, incl. supply side tax policy (["Reaganomics"), his anti-labor union policy (e.g. the response to the air traffic controllers strike) etc., is an important topic. But it's a complex topic and one assessment by a one observer, who is not a professional economist, is insufficient by itself. We would need a major study that analyzed lots of data. So I think you might be on the right track but you need better sources. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

NYCJosh, I want to at least see us make an attempt. I would like to have at least a two or three references which mention the phrase the "middle class" and give some definition, even if it is rough around the edges. Maybe a journalist quoting and summarizing an economist. Thom Hartmann is reviewing a book by an economist and is giving his own viewpoint. It's the type of source we include all the time as a reference, as well we should. It's my long understanding with Wiki that we want a variety of good secondary sources and not attempt to evaluate the primary sources ourselves (other than perhaps as an interesting academic exercise here on the Talk page, but it doesn't carry over to our main page).FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You'd have a hard time connecting Reagan's "anti-labor union policy" to any decline in union membership as well. As percentage of overall workforce, union membership has been on a almost constant decline since the 1950's.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Union_membership_in_us_1930-2010.pngRja13ww33 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Glaring omissions in our article

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Our lead describes Reagan as "a new conservative spokesman" following his 1964 speech for Barry Goldwater. When in fact, he successfully moved both the Republican Party and the country to the political right. And certainly following his near defeat of sitting Pres. Ford in the 1976 Republican primary, Gov. Reagan was THE leader of the conservative movement in American. And with good references, our lead should say this (so that someone from another country or a younger person can understand the importance of Reagan).

In the article, we do talk about the closeness of the marriage between Ronnie and Nancy. But I don't see us saying, whereas Nancy did not invest herself in policy debates, she did have a keen sense for which staff members were loyal to and well-serving Reagan. And he relied on her for this.

Chief-of-Staff Don Regan left on bad terms late Feb. '87. Around (?) May '88, he wrote a book in which he criticized both Reagans. And Reagan still had more than half a year left in his presidency! We don't mention this at all.

So let's not assume that our article is perfect and just fine, except for maybe a little grammatical improvement. We still have quite a bit of work to do. Like the zen river, always becoming, never quite there.  :-)

No. There are no "glaring omissions." We don't have "quite a bit of work to do." That is unless you've stumbled upon a trove of scholarly research that dozens of editors have missed over the years. – Lionel(talk) 23:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much time you want to spend on cabinet moves. (The Jimmy Carter article (for example) doesn't mention Cyrus Vance resigning or Andrew Young getting canned.) Usually this stuff gets covered in the individual's biography. There hasn't been a President yet who hasn't had cabinet resignations/firings. And by the way, I agree with Lionelt: This article is in great shape compared to how it has been in years past.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I think including Reagan's staff would add a lot of richness to the article. For example, I understand his California team who came with him to the White House included Ed Meese and Mike Deaver. And currently, we don't mention Ed a single time in our entire article! And we mention Mike only in reference to Bitburg.
James Baker was Reagan's first chief-of-staff. We mention him twice. Don Regan was Reagan's second. And when he departed in late Feb. '87, Pres. Reagan asked him if he could stay a few days later to show the new person the ropes, and Don Regan refused. And a little more than a year later, he published a book critical of both Reagans. He probably knew, or should have known, that criticisms of Nancy would bristle Ronnie the most. Basically, you have a former chief-of-staff running scorched earth while his guy is still in office! It really is rather remarkable.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It really boils down to how long of an article wiki (or other editors) want. Cabinet moves could eat up a lot of space. And there is nothing remarkable about changes in the position (Obama for example had 5 different ones).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

go to ask for help on Featured article review

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Yes, we're basically a cartel of a handful of pro-Reagan partisans. Nothing wrong with being pro-Reagan, but we need some new blood.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for help on:
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review

You are (of course) misrepresenting what is happening. You lost your RFC by a unanimous vote and now you've got your sources for the "landslide" in 1980.....but your story shifts to "I view it as more an anti-Carter landslide, rather than a pro-Reagan landslide". So now it IS a landslide? Just not characterized how you want it?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I readily acknowledged that I lost the vote regarding longer Bitburg coverage, although only two outsiders, the rest the usual crew. Regarding 'landslide' in 1980, no, I don't feel real great about calling 51% of the popular vote for Reagan (as compared to 41% for Carter) a landslide. I can go along with using the phrase "electoral college landslide." However, if we're going to use the electoral college numbers, I really think we should also use the popular vote numbers, or use neither set of numbers. And this applies especially to our lead.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The behavior of FriendlyRiverOtter is concerning. It goes beyond ignoring consensus, tendentious editing and edit warring. This editor's POV is problematic. It's problematic because their POV is not supported by RS, thus making it WP:OR. (1) In January they tried to add content trying to link Reagan to the genocide in Guatemala (2) February an attempt to link Reagan with Nazis vis a vis the Bitburg (3) as president Reagan was unfit for office (4) Now in March, Reagan did not win a landslide election in 1980. The pattern is fairly obvious. – Lionel(talk) 02:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
About Guatemala, if you read my edits, you will see that I was careful to say that the source says the Reagan administration did not provide arms during some of the worse periods. And per above, I also want to include that Reagan (achieved in 1988) successfully pushed for Senate ratification of the long-standing treaty against genocide, when other presidents had failed. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you've tried to water it down at times but you aren't fooling anybody.....the POV is pretty clear. It would be more believable if you had tried to add some sort of trivial stuff. (Dates, trivial events, etc.) But almost everything has been innuendo about trying to tie RR to everything from genocide to Nazis to destroying the middle class. (Even after denying the latter on the talk page.) Honesty is the best policy on wiki. Knowing someone's intent is important to get somewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Otter, look, you're more than entitled to comment here. But if you're going to accuse everyone else here of being biased, you can't shut down when people point out the obvious about what you're doing here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Toa, you're welcome to be a participant and not merely a spectator. You can make any edit which in your best judgment will improve the article.
I'll even float a curve ball for you right across the middle of the plate. The third paragraph of our lead implies that Reagan made his famous "Evil Empire" statement during his second term. Is that in fact the case?FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
"Implies" being the operative word. You could look at that paragraph as being in chronological order but some of that isn't. For example, later it says: " He transitioned Cold War policy from détente to rollback by escalating an arms race with the USSR while engaging in talks with Gorbachev." In fact, rollback (as a policy) was well under way during his first term. I look at that paragraph as a list of actions taken during his Presidency rather than a perfect timeline.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

And goodness gracious, if we have a reputable political scientist calling this a landslide, then we should include that reference. In the body of the article, we should pretty much put in all the numbers. As far as our lead, therein is the challenge. The actual precise popular numbers are Reagan 50.7%, Carter 41.0%, and Anderson 6.6%. I personally have a problem calling 50 point anything percent a landslide. But maybe as compared to Carter ? ? Perhaps there is an argument to be made, other than the fact that the American electoral system tends to magnify a victory (in normal, non-close years). In general, I think we want a quick paragraph as good as a college textbook. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead as it stands—as of your revision at 15:34, March 27, 2018—is clear, concise, and accurate, not to mention collaboratively written. Now, regarding whether it's accurate to call RR's victory a landslide, I invite you to google 1980 reagan landslide for your answer. Drdpw (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If I was teaching a college course, I would definitely include both the 44 states and the 51% popular vote, to show a type of tension which sometimes results from the electoral college system. Generally, if we're going to include one number, I think we should include the other. In this case, I think a big part of the answer to the question is John Anderson! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No incumbent has ever lost that many states in a US Presidential race. (Even in 1932.) If that isn't a landslide.....what is? 44 states is pretty much landslide territory even for a re-election.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Concur with Drdpw and Rja13. @FriendlyRiverOtter: you appear to be at 3RR. If you continue edit warring against multiple editors to push your POV then you will be blocked.– Lionel(talk) 02:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
No, because we are talking and trying to make our article better, it is not an example of edit warring.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Per our article United States presidential election, 1980, Reagan received 43,903,230 votes, Jimmy Carter received 35,480,115 votes, John B. Anderson received 5,719,850 votes, Ed Clark received 921,128 votes, and most other candidates received less than 1% of the votes.
Per List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin: Reagan won the popular vote by a 9.74% margin. This is actually one of the best results on the list, the 21st by order of wide margin. The only wider margins on the list are the following:
I'm counting 59 U.S. presidential elections. With Reagan making the 21st best showing in 1980, that puts him right about at the top third. I think it would be fine to include a sentence on this in the body of our article. I do, however, find the chart on the Wiki page confusing and hard to read.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Among incumbent losses in the general election (and I think that is an important distinction) Reagan's 9.74% margin ranks 4th all time. (After the elections of 1932, 1912, and 1828 (in no particular order).) Combine that with the fact no other incumbent has lost 44 states....and I think that is a good basis for calling it a landslide repudiation of the incumbent.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't be looking at the data ourselves and judging what is and isn't a landslide. We should be going by what reliable sources conclude. There are numerous sources that say Reagan won the 1980 election in a landslide; e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6]. CatPath (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree that we should go with what the sources say. I'd just add that we want a variety of sources from a variety of viewpoints. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Landslides" have to be analysed along with any other election result. We are not writing a panegyric. Our article United States presidential election, 1980 does explain the results, but needs more citations:
  • "Ronald Reagan and running mate George H. W. Bush beat Carter by almost 10 percentage points in the popular vote. Republicans also gained control of the Senate on Reagan's coattails for the first time since 1952. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 for Carter (representing six states and Washington, D.C.). [7] NBC News projected Reagan as the winner at 8:15 pm EST (5:15 PST), before voting was finished in the West, based on exit polls; it was the first time a broadcast network used exit polling to project a winner, and took the other broadcast networks by surprise. Carter conceded defeat at 9:50 pm EST. Carter's loss was the worst performance by an incumbent President since Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt by a margin of 18% in 1932. Also, Carter was the first incumbent Democrat to serve only one full term since James Buchanan and lose re-election since Andrew Johnson; Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms while Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served one full term in addition to respectively taking over following the deaths of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy."
  • "Carter carried only Georgia (his home state), Maryland, Minnesota (Mondale's home state), Hawaii, West Virginia, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia."
  • "John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote but failed to win any state outright. He found the most support in New England, fueled by liberal Republicans who felt Reagan was too far to the right. His best showing was in Massachusetts, where he won 15% of the popular vote. Conversely, Anderson performed worst in the South, receiving under 2% of the popular vote in South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Anderson claims that he was accused of spoiling the election for Carter by receiving votes that might have otherwise been cast for Carter.[8] However, 37 percent of Anderson voters polled preferred Reagan as their second choice.[9]
  • "Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark received 921,299 popular votes (1.06%). The Libertarians succeeded in getting Clark on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Clark's best showing was in Alaska, where he received 11.66% of the vote. The 921,299 votes achieved by the Clark–Koch ticket was the best performance by a Libertarian presidential candidate until 2012, when the Johnson–Gray ticket received 1,273,667 votes. In addition, the popular vote percentage was the highest of a Libertarian presidential candidate until 2016, when the Johnson-Weld ticket received 3.28%."
  • "Reagan won 53% of the vote in reliably Democratic South Boston. His electoral college victory of 489 electoral votes (90.9% of the electoral vote) was the most lopsided electoral college victory for a first-time President-elect. Although Reagan was to win an even greater Electoral College majority in 1984, the 1980 election nonetheless stands as the last time some currently very strong Democratic counties gave a Republican majority or plurality. Notable examples are Jefferson County in Washington State, Lane County, Oregon, Marin and Santa Cruz Counties in California, McKinley County, New Mexico, Polk County, Iowa and Rock Island County, Illinois.[10] Conversely, this was the last time that the Democrats won Georgia and Maryland until 1992. This election is the last time a Republican won the presidency without winning Georgia. This is the first time Massachusetts voted for the Republican candidate since 1956. 1980 is one of only two occurrences of a pair of consecutive elections seeing the incumbent President defeated, the other one happening in 1892. This is the only time in the 20th century a party was voted out after a single four-year term." Dimadick (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I view it as more an anti-Carter landslide, rather than a pro-Reagan landslide who basically got 51% of the popular vote. And the news articles the day after, of course they're going to use big appealing words like "landslide." All the same, I think we should include one or two for the sake of illustrating color at the time, only limited by space. And the fact that the Libertarian Party reached a high water mark that would stand for several decades, even if it was only 1%, we probably should quickly include that in the body of our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
FriendlyRiverOtter: you are violating WP:BRD. Once you have been reverted at the article you must stop editing. In spite of this you have been repeatedly removing the word "landslide" from the article against multiple editors and against overwhelming consensus. That is not "talking." By definition that is edit warring. You have already been warned. You are beyond 3RR. Again. All that is left is for an editors to report you to WP:AN3 so you can get blocked and put this tendentiousness to an end. You got lucky the last time you were reported. I doubt if you'll find a sympathetic admin this time. – Lionel(talk) 23:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with stating "an electoral college landslide, winning 44 of 50 states" in our lead. But I very much do think we should add "although the popular vote was much closer with Reagan winning 51% compared to Carter with 41% (with independent candidate John Anderson making up most of the balance)." Basically, we should include numbers for both electoral and popular vote, or neither.
And Lionel, I'd encourage you to focus on the B for Bold in WP:BRD. No, I don't think the recommended best practice is if you get reverted one time, you instantly give up. I'm not your boss, and neither are you my boss. We are both fellow editors.
And the "overwhelming consensus," this is almost a syndicate of a handful of way pro-Reagan partisans. This is not the best practice on Wiki, not even close. If my experience is any indication, what if someone had written a college paper about Reagan firing the air traffic controllers and they had good references to cite, and they wanted to come in and do an excellent, first-rate job in sprucing up that part of our article, how might such a person be treated? Probably pretty shabbily if my experience is any indication.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually the last time we had an RFC one of the "overwhelming consensus" was a guy who admitted he voted against RR twice. Refreshing honesty. (You may want to try it some time.) In any case, CatPath provided a number of sources from major publications. (Including Time & US News and World Report.) They don't characterize it the way you want (i.e. anti-Carter landslide)....but there it is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
FRO, the last paragraph in the 1980 presidential campaign section does make it clear that Reagan’s popular vote victory margin was more narrow than his EC margin. The vote percentages for both are also included. All that needs to be included appears to be included. Now, regarding the what needs to be stated in the lead, what is currently written summaries the event (the election) well, given that this is an article on RR’s life, rather than one more specific to the 1980 election. Drdpw (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but our lead is most important of all. Really seems like we should use either both sets of numbers, or neither. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Then let's restore the phrase "... when he defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in a landslide." to the lead – with appropriate citations to back-up the use of the word landslide. Drdpw (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wishing to move things forward, and after re-reading the above discussion (along with the 2 parallel-discussions, here and here), I've fine-tuned the article's wording in 3 places (see diff here). Modifications pertinent to what we've been discusing are: ·in the lead· removed the phrase in an electoral college landslide, winning 44 of 50 states, done because including both E.C. & popular vote info seems unnecesarily wordy for the lead and because the lead also describes the '84 win, an even greater victory, as a landslide; and I rearranged the parts of the evil empire—tear down this wall! sentence; ·in the '80 campaign section· changed Reagan won a landslide victory over Carter to Reagan won a decisive victory over Carter; ·in the '84 campaign section· changed That November, Reagan was re-elected to That November, Reagan won a landslide re-election victory, and I wrote a bit more about the size & historic nature of RR's popular vote margin of victory. After you've taken a look, please comment below, especially if you have constructive suggestions to offer. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally see no issue with how it was worded (i.e. calling it a landslide). As I pointed out above: it's one of the largest losses ever (in terms of number of states lost) for a incumbent President.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on improving Bitburg section of Ronald Reagan article (Request for Comment)

Latest comment: 6 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

The discussion initiator removed the RfC tag two days after starting the RfC after feedback from RfC participants and has started a new RfC.

Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Our article current states: "What neither Deaver nor other administration officials initially realized was that many Germans drew a distinction between the regular SS, who typically were composed of Nazi true believers, and the Waffen-SS which were attached to military units and composed of conscripted soldiers."

But we are not including sources such as the following which state, not so quick, it wasn't so simple.

SS UNIT'S HISTORY OVERLOOKED IN U.S. PLAN ON GERMAN VISIT, New York Times, John Tagliabue, James Markham, April 28, 1985.

So, how do we briefly and accurately summarize why a number of Americans protested President Reagan's visit to the military cemetery in Bitburg, Germany in May 1985? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You are misleading again. The problem here is FRO wants to add (from these references) the following statement: "Some of the 49 Waffen-SS soldiers had been members of the Second SS Panzer Division, which was nicknamed "Das Reich," and which in 1941 assisted an extermination squad in the killing of more than nine hundred Jewish persons near Minsk on the Eastern Front and in 1944 carried out a massacre on the Western Front in the French town of Oradour-sur-Glane in which more than six hundred residents were killed, although it was not known if any of the 49 participated in either of these war crimes."
The obvious issue here is trying to include something that is irrelevant (as their own source states it is not known if they participated in war crimes). If someone is interested in the various crimes of the SS, there are articles here that discuss that. Including it in the Reagan article is clearly trying to insinuate Reagan honoring war criminals.
And by the way this is a pending issue on an admin board:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FriendlyRiverOtter_reported_by_User:Rja13ww33_(Result:_)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is indeed on the admin board. And while we're waiting for that resolution, I'm hoping we can move forward on our Reagan article, as always by drawing upon the strength of our broader community. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Of the approximately 2,000 German soldiers buried at the Bitburg cemetery, 49 were members of the Waffen-SS. Some of these 49 belonged to a military division which had committed war crimes, and it is simply unknown whether any of the 49 personally participated.

So, how to cover the controversy? This was definitely a brief but intense controversy during Reagan's presidency. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There were a lot of controversies during the Reagan Presidency. The question here is: does this one really deserve this long of a section? The relative small number of protesters would make me think it doesn't warrant inclusion (of the statements I mentioned before). I don't think it takes too much imagination to understand why someone might be outraged at placing a wreath at a cemetery that included SS men. The Bitburg deal is covered (in detail) in another article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article on entitled Bitburg controversy. But it's relatively long with only 5 references? This is where I've started. I've done other work on our Reagan article, and this is where I'd like to continue. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reagan: The Life, H. W. Brands, New York, London: Doubleday (division of Penguin Random House), 2015, page 480:
' . . . Some in Washington blamed Helmut Kohl for snookering the president. . . '

There's a lot of aspects to this story. I was hoping this book would give a good sentence or two summary of why Americans protested President Reagan's visit, but no such luck. And that's typically the way it works with references. We can't just order the reference we want as if we were ordering breakfast from Denny's. All we can do is accurately summarize a reference, no more, no less. And it does make a difference and affect things which references we start with. But as we go along and get more references, it makes less of a difference. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bitburg controversy article is the most appropriate place for you to detail the various aspects of this story, FRO. Drdpw (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no mystery here as to "why [a tiny fraction of] Americans protested". And as another editor noted (in another section), there were far larger protests during his Presidency on other issues that take up less space (or are even unmentioned) in this article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I object to the title and introduction of this RFC as it is not neutral, suggestive and leading. This RFC is malformed. It should be closed and re-opened with a neutral title and introduction. – Lionel(talk) 22:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a backdoor way to get him what he wants.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
FRO asks above, "So, how to cover the controversy?" IMO, the article as it currently stands as of 15:33, March 6, 2018 covers the controversy surrounding Reagan's planned visit quite well. Afterall, there were no wide-spread protests or organized efforts to whip-up public ire against the visit. Bear in mind as well, this is an article spanning Reagan's whole life. Looking at this episode from that perspective, it seems pretty minor, and definitely not worth more coverage then it already has. Perhaps, if anything were to be changed, the second-paragraph's opening sentence – As the controversy brewed in April 1985, Reagan issued a statement ... could be changed to state something like – Publically announced on April 11, various Jewish organizations, veterans' groups and others voiced objections to the visit, prompting Reagan to issue a statement ... Drdpw (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the Washington Post article below, 257 House members (out of 435) asked West Germany's Kohl to withdraw the invitation. Plus, 82 Senators out of a 100 asked Reagan to reconsider. And plus, the H. W. Brands biography of Reagan I cited above devoted roughly 8 pages to Bitburg out of a book of 737 pages.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If FRO will not correct this RFC as required by Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief then I will initiate a second RFC.
In the meantime, what we have here is an egregious violation of WP:DUE. All of the sources say that this was a minor incident in Reagan's life. A blip as it were. The Bitburg section is as large as War on Drugs and larger than the AIDS section and Immigration section. In what reality does Bitburg deserve more coverage in this article than AIDS? AIDS received expansive coverage in the media. The proponent of Bitburg can barely find any sources. Even the Bitburg article itself only has 5 references. So the questions is: why is this even in the Reagan article? Why is such an minor incident that has precious little sourcing taking up such a huge chunk of this article, comparatively? This section should be deleted.– Lionel(talk) 23:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, this Bitburg_controversy is a POV fork. It has 5 sources. It's a hit piece. If Reagan were alive it would be blanked as a BLP violation. It should be trimmed to 1 or 2 paragraphs and merged into Presidency of Reagan.– Lionel(talk) 23:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment(Summoned by bot) This is an interesting issue and I'd like to opine. However, this RfC does not clearly state the editing dispute involved. Please do so. You may want to close this out and begin again. Usually RfCs are presented as "should we do X" or "should we do X, Y or Z" not, as this one does "what should we say about X"? Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we abruptly stop coverage of the controversy right in the middle. We're saying a big distinction was drawn between the regular SS and the Waffen-SS, and FULL PAUSE , there we stop.

We're not saying that a number of veteran groups and Jewish groups didn't exactly see it this way, as well as the U.S. House and Senate as below! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

President Supported On Trip, Washington Post, David Hoffman, April 29, 1985.
'Former president Richard M. Nixon privately urged President Reagan last week not to back down . . . '
' . . . Nixon's advice came as 257 House members wrote West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl last week urging him to withdraw the invitation and 82 senators urged Reagan in a resolution to reassess the Bitburg visit. . . '

It sounds like a pretty big controversy to me, including with former President Richard Nixon weighing in. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess it all depends on you definition of "big". Nixon weighing in is not particularly persuasive. Nixon weighed in on all sorts of things during his post-Presidency. (To anyone who was willing to listen.) But in any case, I see it as no reason to include the irrelevant material. If the issue is the "big distinction" drawn between the SS and Waffen-SS, perhaps that statement should be removed. This is well developed in the main article on this controversy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps (as a compromise) the first paragraph should say this: "In February 1985, the administration accepted an invitation for Reagan to visit a German military cemetery in Bitburg and to place a wreath alongside West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver was given assurances by a German head of protocol that no war criminals were buried there. It was later determined that the cemetery held the graves of 49 members of the Waffen-SS. But it was not known if any of these men participated in any war crimes.
I would think that would be adequate (especially if it linked to the main article on the controversy).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We also need to add a sentence or two on why American citizens objected, perhaps also adding that 82 U.S. Senators passed a resolution (presumably, a nonbinding resolution).FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No. We really don't need to add ***TWO SENTENCES*** on why Americans objected. What we really need to do is observe WP:DUE and keep this section from growing larger than topics like I dunno Cold War. What we really need to do is stop chasing your hypotheses allover the Internet and refrain from adding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the article. What we really need to do is say what the sources say and no more. In closing: your POV has no place in this article.– Lionel(talk) 01:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

But what do you say about our article saying there was a big difference between the regular SS and the Waffen-SS, and then regarding this aspect we just abruptly stop? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Also (Summoned by bot), and i second what Coretheapple says above; this is RfC very unclear and poorly constructed, to the outsider, anyway, if not to the previous contestants participants. Please consider reformulating it in a manner which is simple, succinct, clear, and easy to respond to. Happy days, LindsayHello

Yes, I think you're probably right. I went ahead and removed the rfc. Let's perhaps try again next week for a fresh start. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Majority Opposes Cemetery Visit, Washington Post, Barry Sussman with polling assistant Kenneth E. John, April 24, 1985.
' . . . Fifty-one percent of the people interviewed said they disapprove of Reagan going to Bitburg cemetery, where a number of Nazi SS troops are buried along with other German soldiers. Thirty-nine percent said they approve of the visit, and the remainder offered no opinion. . . '

With Reagan making the best of a bad situation and doing a pretty good job with the visits to both the site of the former Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and the Bitburg cemetery on the same day, I think there was a shift of about (?) ten percent points between approval and disapproval. Obvious, we want one or several sources for this particular aspect. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

FRO, you appear to be presuming that there is (or will be, once the best wording is agreed upon) a consensus to expand the section. If so, please be advised that your assumtion is inaccurate. In actuality, based on the above comments of multiple editors, the general consensus appears to that the section not be expanded at all. Please give this some thought before pressing the matter further. Drdpw (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It mainly seems the couple of editors who simply started off against me. Doesn't it seem that way to you? So, yes, I think some new blood will be potentially helpful. I continue to think there's a way this section can be both reasonably complete and relatively brief. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

how to gracefully end a RfC and try again?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs: "1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{rfc}} template."

I'm seeing that it's recommended that the original poster simply remove the template. If you have a better way, I'm always happy to learn new things. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should we add to the section on Reagan's visit to the Bitburg cemetery?

Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

The consensus is against adding the proposed text to the section on Reagan's visit to the Bitburg cemetery.

Cunard (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we add:

'In fact, some of Waffen-SS soldiers buried at Bitburg had been members of the 2nd SS Panzer Division, nicknamed "Das Reich," which had committed war crimes, although it has been estimated that none of the individual soldiers buried at Bitburg personally participated.'[footnote]
SS UNIT'S HISTORY OVERLOOKED IN U.S. PLAN ON GERMAN VISIT, New York Times, John Tagliabue, James Markham, April 28, 1985.

And should we do so at the end of the first paragraph in the sub-section 1985 placing of wreath at cemetery in Bitburg, Germany (toward the beginning of Second term)? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Note to whomever may be commenting: the reasons this has been objected to are numerous (including space) but one primary objection is I believe it is a calculated attempt to insinuate Reagan honoring war criminals. Since by the editor's own source it is not known if any of these particular men participated in war crimes, I feel it is best to leave it out.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment In the sentence before, we say that Germans drew a distinction between the regular SS and the Waffen-SS. And by not including a reference or two that it wasn't exactly so clear cut at all, arguably we are mis-informing our readers. At the very least, we abruptly stop discussing the controversy right in the middle without telling our readers that we are abruptly stopping. I see a problem. If other people don't see a problem, it's all good. That's what makes Wikipedia so interesting. There's also the aspect that a section has to probably, first, get good, and then, second, get brief. For example, if someone wants to dive into the Tax Reform Act of 1986, it will get better, but it will probably also be too long, at least at first. We're probably expecting too much to expect a section to be both instantly good and brief. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
As I suggested in a section above, if that is a problem.....then perhaps it should be left out. Perhaps the first paragraph in that section should say: "In February 1985, the administration accepted an invitation for Reagan to visit a German military cemetery in Bitburg and to place a wreath alongside West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver was given assurances by a German head of protocol that no war criminals were buried there. It was later determined that the cemetery held the graves of 49 members of the Waffen-SS. But it was not known if any of these men participated in any war crimes." I would think that would be adequate (especially if it linked to the main article on the controversy)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that will be an improvement, along with mentioning . . . out of approximately 2,000 soldiers buried at Bitburg, or something similar. And if you want to take a crack at the main Bitburg article, be my guest, it's in shambles. And just as casual pub conversation so to speak, I think Bitburg shows some of the best sides of President Reagan, that he weathered the storm, and gave a good speech at the site of the former Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, and per one source in an above section, that this whole controversy and visit was one of the things which motivated him to successfully push for Senate ratification of the treaty against genocide in 1988. And the fact that this post-WWII treaty took so long to ratify, wow, I think shows just how skeptical and standoffish we in the U.S. can be to international agreements.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, that would improve the paragraph, w/o getting overly detailed. Even so, I do believe that the whole subsection belongs in the Reagan presidency article rather then in this one. Drdpw (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed Drdpw (i.e. on it would be better if the whole thing was left out). But if someone just had to have it here....that's the best move I can think to make.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
When 82 U.S. Senators pass a resolution urging Reagan to reconsider the visit, and when biographer H. W. Brands in his book on Reagan the man devouts 8 out of 737 pages to Bitburg, yes, I'd say it's a controversy and worth covering. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Nobody else seems to agree. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Toa, it's all for the good. Now, if you look closely at other Talk sections, most of the people here are longtime Reagan editors, which is completely acceptable. We only got several new people, such as yourself and good to have you! One thing I learn from Wiki is that there are a number of good and valid ways to cover topics. I personally think this "mistake" shows a lot about Reagan the man and enough good came of it, such as his speech at the former concentration camp and his increased push for the Senate to ratify the long-standing treaty against genocide, that it may not have been a mistake at all. Obviously, not everyone shares my view and that's perfectly okay. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think you are being particularly sincere in these comments. Just about everything you've tried to add to this article has been of a highly negative nature. (I.e. him having Alzheimer's while President, this SS deal, the opinion piece by Hartmann on the supposed destruction of the middle class, the "genocide" in Guatemala, etc). I don't think you are genuinely trying to improve it.....just hoping to add your own POV on the man.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The short-hand popular lore on Reagan is that the best thing he did was win the cold war, and the worse thing he did was to wreck the American middle class. Both are exaggerations! In particular, the demise of the American middle class has been much exaggerated (hope to see multiple resurgences!). On both these topics and more, we want a variety of good sources so that information is available to respond to the lore.
Okay, the sobering topic of genocide in Guatemala. And in the early 1980s, the Guatemala army definitely did commit genocide against various indigenous peoples. Multiple sources cover this. Now, if we were in a pub talking casually, we might say, heck, during the cold war we supported all kinds of rotten dictatorships as long as they said they were "anti-communist." And while we might have paid lip service to human rights, in many (most?) cases, those public statements didn't amount to a hill of beans. We almost need to find the exceptions and build from there, in order to make the optimistic case that the bad stuff wasn't necessary. All this is pub conversation, mind you. On the main page of our article, it would come down to what periods we provided Guatemala with weapons and what periods we didn't. And we have to go with what our references say, no more, no less. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You say "the demise of the American middle class has been much exaggerated" yet you tried to add a opinion piece to the main article (by a guy who isn't even a economist) that says exactly that (i.e. that it has demised and it's all Reagan's fault)? (And with no counter povs.) You are talking out of both sides of your mouth in this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, someone else added the book review (which the reviewer certainly put his opinion into!)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=829361909&oldid=829361440] I took the position that it was too good to lose.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact you are being very disingenuous in saying one thing here but trying to alter the article to say something else.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop the off-topic pub conversation. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, that is not correct.
When I re-added Leopheard's Salon source, I summarized it as: 'A 2014 article entitled "Reaganomics killed America’s middle class" argues that having a middle class is a choice a society can make and that unregulated capitalism "actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens' novels." In particular, the article argues that high marginal tax rates are important both for direct income transfer to the working class and to reduce incentives "for the very rich to pillage their companies or rip off their workers."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=829479654&oldid=829362812
And I wrote in the edit box: 'Please see "Salon article is excellent, let's try to find way for it to work" on our Talk page.'
Both of these are good summaries. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is correct. (Whatever spin you try to put on it.) You endorsed a Salon piece that says the exact opposite of what you are saying on the talk page. You are highly disingenuous about what you want to do to this article. With that said.....I will now cease the "pub" talk as per Drdpw's request.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
No, not accurate. And if anyone else is reading this, please feel free to take a look at the link I gave above of my edit on March 8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=829479654&oldid=829362812
Or, any other edit you wish to take a look at.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, accurate. What you tried to add to the article: "A 2014 article entitled "Reaganomics killed America’s middle class" argues that having a middle class is a choice a society can make and that unregulated capitalism "actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens' novels." [direct quote]. What you said on the talk page: "In particular, the demise of the American middle class has been much exaggerated". It's difficult to improve this article if you are going to be this disingenuous. You need to be honest about where you want to go. otherwise there will be this endless banter as you dance around the point (with a hidden agenda).Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Drdpw, when I'm unfairly criticized, I will defend myself. I'm used to this from sports sites. However, I always thought Wikipedia was better. Perhaps sometimes we are.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Blipburg is a blip in Reagan's 8 year presidency. See what I did there? It's inclusion is not even remotely warranted by coverage in RS. Ludicrous that this gets as much space in the article as AIDS. Entire section needs to go.– Lionel(talk) 21:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was a presidential decision not a personal one--lots of senior White House people were involved. So it fits Presidency not here. Rjensen (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing the RfC tag. I accept the verdict of the majority and thank the people who contributed. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Libertarianism

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is WikiProject Libertarianism listed on this talk page? Literally nowhere in this article is "Libertarian" ever mentioned. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan/Archive_19&oldid=861650293"