Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

(untitled)

Any feedback re: the bottle of ketchup left on his Hollywood star?

Anyone want to do the linkage to Vicki Morgan?

Deletions: Removed blacklist falsity. Removed coattail reference

Blacklist falsity removed from early career section. As president of the SAG he disliked blacklisting because the practice wrongly accused some left-wing actors of being communist infiltrators. (Source: Peggy Noonan's book: "When Character Was King.")

A reference was made about Republicans gaining 11 seats from Democrats on Reagan's coattails. There are few problems with this: The "coattail effect", being an abstract concept, can not be proved as the sole reason for a candidates win. Even if provable, it is highly improbable that all 11 wins can withstand that proof. Come on, at least one of these Republicans won based on his own merit. Contrary to what some elitist believe, the electorate are not automata (hopefully a word that is nuanced enough for you elitists ;) ) . - Von Braun

Peggy Noonan was Reagan's speechwriter and one of his biggest fans. It's no wonder she would defend him, but it probably should be noted that just about everyone else says otherwise in reference to Reagan. I have no problem with including Noonan's view, but I do have a problem with using her view as the final say on the matter.--csloat 07:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's a fallacy of logic to believe a biased point of view is an incorrect point of view. Just because she is biased, doesn't mean she is lying. Although I understand and agree she should not be the final say. But she offers assertions contrary to what was previously posted. Finding truth is about reconciling all assertions against each other with the goal of consistency. I would argue that being against blacklisting is much more consistent with how Reagan thought than the other way around. - Von Braun
I didn't say she was incorrect. And I said I did think it was reasonable to include her view. But when she's the only one saying something and many other scholars and biographers say otherwise, this should be noted. I have no problem with a claim like, most scholars and biographers agree that Reagan supported and helped cover up the Hollywood blacklists (look at his letter to Playboy on the issue in 1960 for one example), but his speechwriter and loyal fan Peggy Noonan thinks otherwise. I don't see any evidence -- other than your assertion that Peggy Noonan says it -- that Reagan was "against blacklisting," and most evidence I have seen points dramatically in the other direction. I think the note should go back in and if you want to include the fact that Peggy Noonan believed otherwise, that would be fine. But removing it based on a note in her book when there is so much counter evidence is intellectually dishonest. --csloat 18:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Advertising Your Personal Webpages

Please don't advertise your personal web pages in Wikipedia articles. Regardless of whether you claim another anon IP did the work a day before you readded it... it is still you (or your friends) trying to add your vanity listing for your personal web page. This is not the appropriate forum for marketing your web pages. - Tεxτurε 03:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where?
Read the history, Sparky. Jdavidb 16:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Texture - The Tabbing is cool beans - but if you pull something out of the article please put it here so we can talk about it. S'okay? I assume this is more important that some odd actions by Reagan Youth who should know better.
Texture, I appreciate your entirely baseless and false accusation, it really paints you in good light. Your conspiracy about my friends and I is also ammusing, but whatever floats your boat is fine -- but just don't go excercising your personal vendetta against me through wikipedia. Frankly, I also appreciate you calling the discussion that was linked to a "vanity listing," but perhaps you should actually read what's written on that link before you arbitrarly make accusations. Texture, I appreciate the work you do for this community, but I'm afraid it might have gotten to your head. You need to relax a bit, and realize that everyone isn't out there to make wikipedia their personal "vanity listing" and especially not me. If you have further problems, please do eleborate on them, it makes for an interesting read.
Thank you for your concerns. The vanity/advert to your personal website is inappropriate in Wikipedia articles. If your personal webpage contains information useful to make this a better article, please add it to the article. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 21:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So what did you remove? And was it put back? - Sparky 22:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Need to investigate Reagan and the Mob in his SAG days?

(Below is what I have - but I'd like some more information on Korshak) This is what turns up —

Jake The Barber, Innkeeper: RE: Johnny Roselli on the Stardust “…Fronting the entire operation would be the mob's favorite and most successful con man, John Factor, brother to cosmetic king Max Factor. John Factor, AKA "Jake the Barber" went way back with the Chicago outfit, back to the days when Johnny Torrio was running things. … Sidney Korshak acted as the "go-between" for Factor and the Desert Inn Group, which was made up of Moe Dalitz and Allard Roen. …”
  • Godfather Producer Plans New Memoir, Film About Mob: Bob Evans’ Mafia flick: “…The new film is based on the life of Chicago mob lawyer Sidney Korshak, who died in 1996 at age 87. Korshak was Evans' friend and mentor; It was he who got the Mafia to ease up on the making of The Godfather for Evans when he ran Paramount Pictures. The Korshak movie, which Evans will make at his home base, Paramount, is based on Nick Tosches' Vanity Fair story, “The Devil and Sidney Korshak.” Tosches is writing the script himself. William Friedkin , the Oscar-winning director of The French Connection and husband of Paramount's long-time chief Sherry Lansing , will be the director. …”
The Man Who Kept Secrets — scripted by James Ellroy: The movie is a biopic of Sidney Korshak, a Hollywood lawyer who was a confidant of several studio heads and negotiated corporate mergers, political deals and labor settlements behind the scenes. He became almost as renowned for his penchant for anonymity as his backroom dominance. Part of his cachet was the ability to serve as a liaison between corporate titans and underworld chieftains.
  • Lansky: “…When Kerkorian finally bought the studio through overseas loans critics suggested he used mob money. During this period the mob was known to have large accounts in Switzerland, which they loaned back to mob tied businesses. If that was Kerkorian’s case it was never proven, although it was impossible to prove. Kerkorian prepared for the takeover with the help of Sidney Korshak’s friend Greg Bautzer, who later became a member of the MGM board of directors. …”
  • Taking the wraps off a Hollywood enigma — Bloomsbury buys Russo's Korshak bio
  • The Korshak Chronicles

Reagan's darker side: Reagan's Mob connections hid

A long time friend of Reagan, the powerful and connected Lew Wasserman — Chairman and CEO of MCA (Music Corporation of America), the parent of Universal Studios, until 1990 when it was sold to Matsushita for $6.6 billion — protected Reagan from any taint of dirty money. Wasserman was "connected," but that it was not known precisely how and few wanted to know. Julius Stein and Wasserman had had little choice — in order to succeed in show business in their day, they had to deal with the Mob — especially Stein, who started out in Al Capone's Chicago, and formed a liaison with James Petrillo, the head of the American Federation of Musicians local in Chicago and, eventually, its national president. They did what they had to do — in the world of the Great Depression. When MCA bought Universal Studios, federal regulators forced Wasserman to dissolve MCA's agency wing because MCA was representing performers as their agent while its production company was hiring them; as this violated anti-trust laws in 1962. Wasserman made an estimated $350 million from the sale, and was retained as a manager. When Seagram bought MCA in 1995, he retired from management, but remained on the board of directors until 1998. Paradoxically, he was a committed Democratic and one of Bill Clinton's earliest backers.

In an recent article Death Valley Days John Waters reminds that: Connie Bruck stated in her book on Lew Wasserman When Hollywood Had a King: The Reign of Lew Wasserman, Who Leveraged Talent into Power and Influence, that Reagan used to go out whoring with the Hollywood mob fixer and lawyer Sidney Korshak.

Also Deadline Hollywood: Bye Bye, Bonzo talks of many examples of Reagan's double-dealing long before Iran Contra, Nikki Finke reports: Henry Denker, a well-known theater, TV and radio writer, penned a thinly disguised roman à clef about the “TCA” talent agency, its ties with the mob and a has-been actor turned Western state governor. The Kingmaker disappeared soon after publication, reportedly because Wasserman had it deep-sixed. It remains one of the hardest books about Hollywood to find. More easier to find is mystery and screenplay author Roger L. Simon's 2nd Moses Wine novel Wild Turkey which features mobster Meyer Greenglass who is clearly based on Sidney Korshak and deals with a mystery that focuses on that era in Hollywood.

To paraphrase: Reagan — then not just the talent agency’s client but boss Lew Wasserman’s first million-dollar client — misused his power as head of the Screen Actors Guild. Back in 1952, the Hollywood scandal swirling around him was his granting of a SAG blanket waiver to MCA, which allowed it both to represent and employ talent for its burgeoning TV franchises. This is as clear a case of wanton conflict of interest. He went from host and program supervisor of General Electric Theater to actually producing and claiming an equity stake in the TV show itself. Before the windfall, Ronald Reagan had been working Las Vegas as song-and-dance act's master of ceremonies. Dennis McDougal, author of the unauthorized Wasserman biography The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, McA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood commented that “He and his board engineered it, thus giving MCA carte blanche control over US television for the next six years.” It appears he first utilized his failing memory trick as he failed to recall his role in the waiver when he was hauled before US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s grand jury in 1962.”

  1. In 1945, Wasserman brokered Ronald Reagan's unprecedented seven-year, $1 million deal with Warner Brothers.

Crusading muckraker Dan E. Moldea shows the three were connected as the rise of MCA and its move to Hollywood paralleled the rise of the Chicago Mafia and its infiltration of the motion picture industry. While MCA was representing some of the top motion picture stars, Chicago mobsters took control of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the major Hollywood labor union — through Willie Bioff, a small-time hood, who was supervised by Chicago mob lieutenant Johnny Rosselli. Though soon Hollywood was told Sidney Korshak was their representative.

Time article

Time Magazine: Wednesday, Jun. 16, 2004 That Old Feeling: Where's the Best of Him?: “… Reagan's friendship with Wasserman, and MCA's connection with the notorious organized crime lawyer Sidney Korshak, spurred several investigations, including a 1962 case by the L.A. District Attorney's office and a 1987 book by Dan Moldea, "Reagan, MCA and the Mob." …”

So we can see they knew each other. Wonder if we will find if he did go whoring with a mob fixer?

Allegations of Rape and of desertion

I'm real curious as to who is removing the rape allegation. I believe the Selene Walters' story is important. As is Jaqueline Park's. Rape and desertion are two extremely harsh actions. - Sparky 08:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree. The rape allegations are true, whether he actually raped her or not, and should be kept in the article. Whoever keeps deleting them, please indicate WHY. RickK 20:38, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Selene Walters Rape charge was an orphan paragraph on earlier versions of the main article as you can see here. - Sparky 22:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The allegations you made before were in the old archived talk pages. Cant put the poison pen down Sparky? A single source story from a Kitty Kelly about Selene Walters is poor scholorship. IEC, Taking them out is wrong. I agree the allegations are real even though Kitty likes to use them to sell books. Can we say purient interest? Censorship sucks, but so does the lack of scholorship in your allegations. Dominick 00:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be "National Enquirer", but innside the Wikipedia article about another former president, Bill Clinton, one may read that "Rumors about Clinton's adultery were floating about, and these surfaced and increased with Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment. The "National Enquirer" allegations about Clinton are permitted, those about Reagan seem to be forbidden on Wikipedia. Scolarship is used as a pretext to avoid discussion about a disputed situation. The refuse to mention that Selene Walters allegation is nothing more than an editorial/admin abuse. --Vasile 02:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone was editing it out - so I merely replaced it as I promised I would. I am enhancing the article with NPOV information - You really don't want my opinion of Reagan. Where do you get off calling it single source?

  1. Selene Walters
  2. Jaqueline Parks
  3. Kitty Kelley
  4. AOL Time Warner's People Magazine
  5. New York Times
  6. Washington Post
  7. Los Angeles Times
  8. MSN's Slate Magazine
  9. Amazon's IMDB.com

The infidelity is not really in doubt ... nor is the claim of desertion. Nor should you be upset I'm researching Reagan's nights of whoring with Sidney the Mob lawyer. People should have the information so they make up their minds about 42 year Reagan raping a 19 year woman. I'm not showing bias by revealing data. I don't assume anything about you. But I can do 2°s on Miss Parks as I knew Jack Warner, I knew many of the Rat Pack through Dean Martin's son, and so on ... I also know most of the team who did Brought To Light.

Misogynistic Revisionism

Once more - who is the misogynist claiming the research is not up to snuff? Show us that Reagan wasn't whoring with Sidney Korshak; or forcing unwanted attention upon a 19 year old woman. Kelley got the stories to everyone's attention; Other source verified the basic facts of these allegations. Go look at Selene Walters bio on IMDB.com and report back here. Who is honestly suprized that Reagan acted so badly? Or continued to do so. And got away with it. We haven't even touched on the strange death of Vicki Morgan and the ramifications for Reagan. Stop being indignant and show Reagan didn't continue to womanize. - Sparky 04:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The sources all trace back to Kelly repeating Gossip from third parties. Your sources recall events that are single witness events, that could easily be made up. Gossip is made up all the time. I am sick of this talk page filled with the same allegations all the time. They have been rejected for being repeated gossip and not worthy of scholarship. They are indeed good for selling "tell all" books. Dominick 14:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  1. More typos? It is Kitty Kelley.
Both you and he have your share of typos here. I've taken the liberty of correcting a few of them. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thank you -Sparky
  1. Once more you're ignoring the victims and that the basic fact that others verified the basic truth of the allegations -- The Washington Post, New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times investigated it.Then People magazine as fact checked by AOL Time Warner; And by Amazon's IMDB; And, lastly by MSNBC and Slate Magazine.
Er, no he's not. He did not at all ignore your claim that others "verified" the truth ... instead he asserted that this verification was invalid because everything traced back to a single source. In other words, the only way to verify was ask the one person who knew the truth if it was true or not. That person asserted it was true, but it's still just one witness who might possibly be making up gossiping. He is asserting that all the verification did was track the rumor to its source, not verify anything. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
He's clearly wrong. The victim is a different source. And trust me - big newspapers do fact check. They don't want to be sued for libel or slander. Witness that the Los Angeles Times did not run the Doonesbury strips that used Kitty Kelley data about Frank Sinatra until after he lost his lawsuit against her.
  1. How long have you had a fear of the media?
This is an irrelevant ad-hominem attack and does not belong here. Please see [Wikipedia:No personal attacks] (quote: "No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period. ... Disagree on the basis of the facts, not on the character of the other party.") I call on you to [Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|remove it]. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No - he -- as you -- ignored the three newspapers and People magazine who followed up on the allegations. - Sparky
  1. And how long have you hated women?
Ditto. Personal attacks do not belong here. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Er - ignoring the actual victims Jaqueline Parks and Selene Walters - might indicate a fear of women. Sorry I annoyed you with that observation, but they seemed to miss the point. - Sparky
  1. Gossip? Counter it with proof that shows us the truth.
Perhaps the truth cannot be proved in which case the fact that the allegations were made should be reported, here or in another article, along with a statement, if this is true, that a majority of historical scholarship dismisses the allegations.
Ok, show us this historical scholarship or a link to it. -Sparky 03:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan dedicated his life to freedom and human rights, including liberty of speech. He fought for freedom in WWII, as an US Army officer. In his time as USA president, he fought for freedom in the world and he won. Maybe the way those allegations are presented it isn't objective , but this could be changed. Those allegations exists, this a historic (scolarship) fact, it can't be ignored. --Vasile 00:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please edit but not remove the Rape and Desertion sections. Please make it better. We may disagree as to the worth of Ronald Reagan but if you can make in more NPOV - go to it. Removing it shows tremendous disrepect to all. Pandering to 2 Wikipedians seems more wrong than ignoring rape but we know it isn't... - Sparky 06:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is still not the National Enquirer" said the user who deleted again the Kitty Kelley's story. Some people probably think that any discussion about K.K. allegation is anti-Reagan. I think we can compare two things if we know them. I can read about Wikipedia, but National Enquirer article is a stub. Anyway, National Enquirer is not part of this discussion. The 1952 rape allegation was made in a 1991 Nancy Reagan's unauthorized biography. This is the best source in this matter and it is ignored. The same K.K. pretends that she is preparing 'coup de grace' for the George Bush dynasty. --Vasile 14:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You mean “The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty” due out just after Labor Day. — Described by one media fan as "a fastidious fact-checker with an unrivaled knack for zingers such as stories of coathanger abortions," Kelley is said to have "Karl Rove's head swimming" with her latest screed. … Her last political hit piece, a 1991 bio of Nancy Reagan, purported to reveal a so-called affair with Frank Sinatra. … After the New York Times front-paged the improbable tale, Timeswoman Maureen Dowd defended her coverage thusly: "Of course, the book is tawdry. Of course the book is, in some spots, loosely sourced and over the top. ... Of course, there are mistakes in it. ... The point, however, is that Kelley's portrait is not essentially untrue." …”

Oh? If Kitty Kelley's Nancy Reagan book stood alone - it could be put aside. But it doesn't. That third parties went to the victims to verify or deny the allegations demonstrates it is now more than an unauthorized biography. So please explain to everyone else why you want to ignore a charge of rape. - Sparky 17:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) Therefore, please reread the articles listed. I'm not trusting to Kelley alone, I feel she is akin to a Matt Drudge in pointing out an event others ignored. - Sparky 01:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  1. It was April 1, 1991 when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times reported that Selene Walters had verified her claim that then SAG President Ronald Reagan raped her in her home in 1952. I maintain that this takes the event above the point of mere gossip.
  2. The abandonment event was fact checked and recorded neutrally by People magazine as also being correct in essence on April 29th issue.

A neutrality dispute over an edit war

I was one of the people who removed the allegations, and I am also the one who filed a neutrality dispute (Which whoever edited SHOULD NOT REMOVE) As I believe the way you presented it was bias and while trying to work on a more neutral piece it isn't fair for wikipedians to rely on what is basically the allegations of one women in each case. You speak as if it is fact that Reagan raped and desertec women, which stands out from the rest of the article as being biased. Just because a lot of news outlets covered it does not make these "Multiple Sources". There is one source, and as there was never a trial or formal hearing (AFAIK) we should use the presumption of innocence and look at this with extreme skepticism. I will try to have my version (More neutral) posted of the rape allegations today or tomorrow, and will work on the desertion charges after that. If you really desire people to make up their minds, then you will allow a more neutral point of view article to be posted (And to whoever did, again, please don't remove a neurtality dispute). (P.S.: This is to sever of the people who posted above)

Fine. Please try. But bear in mind we have the catty Kitty Kelley's book; Then we have the skeptical People Magazine check her sources; Where, we have a disagreement in tone but a confirmation of the basic events. The timeline should show I've inverted the two. Desertion came first. Then the rape - however you want to label it. I'll go resequence it now. What is discussed in the Gipper the Ripper piece is the failure of the media to follow through. An attempt to candycoat a person's deeds is criminal. - Sparky
Repeating gossip is unethical. All those articles have the same source. Repeat a lie enough times.... Dominick 14:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I haven't an opinion on the accuracy of this... but reporting gossip as gossip is not unethical. Reporting allegations is also not unethical. Were the allegations made publicly? If so, report it. If they were widely refuted, report that. - Tεxτurε 15:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we have consensus.
MY complaint regularly, and consistantly, in the face of insults and false accusations about me as a Wikipedian, has been, this is gossip reported as gospel by Sparky. Sparky laid into me on my talk page, and accused me here of vandalism. I do not vandalize, in fact I have reverted a number of vandals. I have changed things to make sure this is identified as gossip, but with this Uid. Sparky changes the smut back as he can. Like I said, he has some fixation on Reagan having sex, which we all admit he must have. Repeating Kelly's poison pen as a primary source is not scholorship. Dominick 18:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I gave you part of an article showing the author Kevin Jeys was in fact neutral. You called it smut. We can ignore the fact that you really don't know what smut is. Gazpacho and you parse the same; Therefore, I think you are the same person; And thus one of you is a sock puppet. You - in turn - show complete disdain for those who did fact check the events with the victims. You ignore the victims. You are willing to ignore the magazines and newspapers who briefly covered the story. You miss the point of the MSN article don't you? The rape allegation will continue to reappear everytime you delete it. So explain to everyone else why you are so willing to ignore information that doesn't agree with you. - Sparky 00:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think this stuff should be taken off the page either but perhaps it doesn't need to be on this page -- how about a separate wikipedia entry "Reagan Sex Scandals" and a brief note here about allegations of sexual scandals? Might be a better solution than an edit war.--csloat 09:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is already a brief note about those allegations and it could be extended or changed. I disagree with a separate entry that would be in fact a different version of the same situation. --Vasile 14:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've edited a small typo and tried to neutrally expand it with an explanatory sentence, as the 3 papers let the cat out of the bag before the book was on the shelves.
You are totally paranoid, or completly intellectually dishonest. Have a mod check both of us out. Go ahead. I am not a sock puppet, and even if I were, there are a lot of people reverting you now. You have a fixation, and I am pleased others notice too. Still you go on with personal attacks. I certainly don't ignore victims, if a victim existed. Bottomfeeders like Kelly repeat gossip, and those other sources repeat it. Your sources were not even the articles just links on the magazine, like Slate. Yes, Slate magazine exists, however, that doesn't show the article, or show an inependent source. Dominick 10:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uh huh. I have a passion for the truth. I'm not dancing on the grave of anyone. You are ignoring Selene Walters who stated that the Reagan forced himself on her in a national magazine two weeks after major newspapers carried the story. That's rape. That means you've lied about not ignoring victims. Which means I'm going to not worry about you. You're more worried people are seeing you as a sock puppet than the truth of the matter. I'm calling for mediation as we have a impasse. - Sparky 17:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Call for whatever you like. I see you still have not apologized, and that says a lot for your credibility. Like I said, I certainly speak for myself. Ms. Waters story is important, if there was something cooberating it. After the book came out, after payment by Kelley for the story, and after being asked about it, I can't ee her going back. If there was a pre-Kitty incarnation of the story that would be something different. Dominick 00:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hard as it might be for you to believe, Sparky, Dom is not the only Wikipedian with an EE background who takes interest in this article. Dom and I are in different states, and you may ask the administrators to confirm that whenever you like. Gazpacho 09:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pardon my skepticism. The only difference is one Screen Identity pretends to spell worse than an engineer should or would. And again what part of three mainstream newspapers and a major magazine have to do with Kelley's making a horrible event from 1952 public? What gripe do you have with MSN's Slate reminding the media in 1999 that they dropped the ball in 1991? And what problem do you have with IMDB.com verifing Selene Walter's claim. You are worried about being identified as a sock puppet. Dude? This isn't about you. And be passive-agressive all you want. I don't care what names you call me. Either help or get out of the way. That a full portrait of Ronald Reagan shows him to a wannabe swinger, a john who'd go trolling red light districts with a known Mob fixer, a cad, and a bullying rapist as well as adulterer should only energize you to double check all the facts — not to excise it like a wart in a foolish attempt to hide the truth from other Wikipedians. That's more shame than being a sockpuppet. Show that the facts are in error if you can. - Sparky 21:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allegations of rape

On what was called The Battle of the Couch by Kelley, she described a date rape-like situation involving then 19 year old Selene Walters and Reagan. Further, in the April 29, 1991, issue of People Magazine, Selene Walters said that 42 year old Ronald Reagan raped her in 1952, confirming the basic version of the episode in Kelly's unauthorized biography of Nancy Reagan:

" … Kelley's account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he never forced his way into her apartment. I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's Kelley's phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him. … "

In their editor at large Jack Shafer's March 5, 1999 Slate article, Gipper the Ripper: - "… Ronald Reagan successfully stonewalled the Walters' story when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times picked it up briefly in April 1991. And remember, this was three and a half years before his Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. The weekend the book was released, a reporter asked Reagan for a comment about it as he entered church.

"I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that," he said.

Not exactly a denial." Did the media drop the ball because of a juicer tidbit that month? Was Reagan still Teflon™ even then? Why is Amazon Book's Internet Movie Database one of the few places listing the statements of Ms. Walters.

I'm game if it can be improved - but it will be going back in AS IS - as it is in itself information that people need to have. And again people can go to Newspaper morgues and get the 1991 issue of People. No one disputes Kelley is catty in tone; However, third parties have fact checked her stories, and the events have been verified. - Sparky 17:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put it back in - if my tone comes off catty - please edit that aspect. The information has to be available. - Sparky 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Teflon is how Reagan was described as the scandals did not stick to him - but to sacrificed subordinates — eg- John Poindexter and Oliver North. April 1991 seems to have events of interest. - Sparky 04:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease diagnosis

Why is there a discrepancy in dates as to when his Alzheimer's was diaganosed - it should be November 1994 when he was 84 not when he was 81.

Kevin Jeys' Article as pertains to Ronnie and Nancy

From Kevin Jeys article October 29, 1998 Elective Affinities, Part II:
… “The sexual shenanigans of Ronald and Nancy Reagan were never a secret. Both were most relentlessly promiscuous while in Hollywood, locus of the nation’s largest, longest, strongest and most obsessively tended gossip grapevine. Many a starlet seeking studio entree via the well-traveled smile-and-spread circuit hopefully ungirdled her loins and passed under Reagan, while Nancy’s name was routinely circulated among executives in search of a fast and practiced backseat blowjob. Power to the mavens of the entertainment press means possessing such tantalizing tidbits; once the Reagans began their improbable electoral ascent, the information easily passed through the flimsy scrim separating the Hollywood desk from those patrolling the political beat. Campaign operatives and reporters shamelessly swap gossip with nearly every breath, and thus the Reagans’ sexual adventuring eventually became such common knowledge that even I, who have always occupied only the very outer arm of the political-gossip spiral, knew of Nancy’s legendary mouthwork long before Robin Leach coyly alluded to it during Reagan’s first term, and had heard as well of the 57-year-old Reagan’s creaky coupling with an 18-year-old campaign worker. Though until Kitty Kelley I’d never heard the tale of how Reagan blithely bounced the bedsprings with lover Christine Larson while wife Nancy struggled to give birth to daughter Patti, I was one of probably millions of Americans cognizant of the open joke of Nancy’s cuckolding of Ronnie with longtime lover Frank Sinatra in the residence quarters of the White House, and anyone in the nation who paid attention to the numbers — and could count even to nine—realized Nancy was four months pregnant when she pledged to Ron "I do." …”

If you behave I'll post the JFK naughty bits on your user talk page as Jeys is nonpartisan ... - Sparky 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And smut Dominick? Your sock puppet Gazpacho chose to use uncouth language on my talk page. I'm sharing information not talking dirty.

How dare you assuse me of having a sock puppet. You have as much proof as you usually do. I Have one handle here. I also am not the one with a fixation of smutty stories and gossip. You are like those old ladies at the hair salon, who repeat stories they don't know are true, but secretly wish they were. Leaving your trash on my talk page for something someone else did is rude, and I think I should be expecting an apology for the accusation if you are an honorable person. Dominick 16:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh? Then find proof Reagan didn't rape Selene Walters, or run out on Jaqueline Parks. I've been a guest at Jack Warner's La Jolla beach house when he was alive. I grew up in the real Hollywood. I've heard far worse. I suspect you have a morbid distrust of women. The small part of the Wikipedia community who cares about Reagan knows you can't count. And we have an edit war. And I'll apologise if you stop editing the negative parts about Reagan out of the article. Be mindful that you and Gazpacho parse the same. - Sparky 17:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS Even if you are using weird spoonerisms - can't and don't are contractions. There is a not a word assuse; There is either assume or accuse - you should chose one. Typos are untidy things. - Sparky

I denied this, and I deny it again. I did not remove any of those. You are still obsessed with this. Yes typos are nasty things. You will not apologize because of the type of person you are. The IP for the person editing this out is Pittsburg, not Florida. Even if they use a proxy out of state, there isn't anything linking me to that. Only you accuse me of editing those out, no responsible person would. Look how many times I reverted vandalism. Dominick 14:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Econnomy

I removed the following text:

although this latter view is highly dubious, since Soviet economy has been in shambles since the early start of the Communist Revolution

This is simply no true. Witness

  • the Industrialization of Soviet Russia in 1920s-1930s
  • the buildup of industry before and during the Second World War
  • the space program and other scientific achievements
  • the fact that in 1950s income levels in USSR were at least half of those in the US and comparable or higher than those in Western Europe
  • the fact that regardless of what the income per capita was, the economy was one of the largest in the world

Profession

The question of Reagan's profession has been previously dealt with on the talk pages. It is now listed as Actor and Politician, but as every president is a politician, there was some thought to only list the president's non-political profession. Thoughts from other Wikipedians on what the profession of Reagan should be? Perhaps consistent with other presidential listings? --Abqwildcat 20:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Reagan's profession should probably be listed as "Actor and labor union leader". --H. CHENEY 05:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why do people not read the talk pages before making changes to the main article? Politician, statesman, remove, put it back, etc. Let's decide it here and just keep it the way we decide. Now, previous discussion in the talk for this article had decided all presidents are politicians (duh), so that made little sense to include in an article about a president. Check other presidential pages. Gerald Ford isn't listed as a politician, but rather as a lawyer, Jimmy carter as a farmer and naval officer, etc. Let's made a decision and be consistant and stop this willy-nilly business of changing it 3 times a day. Clearly my vote is to not list "politician" as a career or profession. --Abqwildcat 19:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
He was a politician (NPOV) a statesman (IMHO) . It is best to be explicit. Imply only for brevity.. In this case "Politician" is brief enough to be included. Besides, if we are being consistent with other entries in wiki, 'Politician' is listed in other presidential entries (Bill Clnton). My argument is sound, quit editing out fact. --Von Braun 14:53, 14 Jul 2004 EDT
To be fair, it's not me that's editing it out. And just because you say so doesn't mean it should be in the article. Similarly, just because I vote no doesn't mean it shouldn't. What should happen, however, is to decide HERE if politician is a profession we'd like to list on presidential (specifically RR's page) pages. Perhaps it makes sense for presidents who did little else in life - JFK is listed as a politician as he did spend quite a lot of his short life in that occupation. RR, on the other hand, was an actor, union leader, etc. Again, I vote no, but we should really decide here rather than having an edit war back and forth. So far we've got 2 votes no, one vote yes. Can we get further input and maybe reach a consensus or compromise? --Abqwildcat 23:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. John Kennedy is probably the only US President that was a professional politician. His entire adult life was college, a quick (but heroic) stint in the Navy, and elected office (US House '47 to '53, US Senate '53 to '60, and then as President). The other 42 presidents had careers and professional lives before obtaining elected office, some more than others. Since the reader knows a President is a politician, I feel it is redundant to mention that. --H. CHENEY 23:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Clinton was likewise a politician for the bulk of his adult life, from 1976 to 2001. Just a few years as a professor between being a student and being elected attorney general.
--wwoods 01:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan was as much of a labor union leader as Ed Asner, so there is no disputing that he was one. As to whether that warrants billing as his official "occupation," I'll point out that the recent A&E's biography seemed to think it was a significant enough phase of his life to devote quite a bit of time to it. Many think that Reagan's time as union leader was when he developed a lot of his politics. Jdavidb 00:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, what do other encyclopedias say? Jdavidb

Can everyone live with the way the Rape Charge is handled now?

Can we move onto the way Jaqueline Parks was treated? And research if we can link him to the Mafia directly? - Sparky 02:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan/Archive_2&oldid=1089152756"