Talk:Ronald Reagan

Newly released audio

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.

---

Is this worth mentioning somewhere? From The Atlantic: [1]. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. Seem to me to be a off-hand comment that is not a significant enough moment in his life.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to Africans as "monkeys" is significant. I dare anyone to argue this is trivial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I am arguing it. It is a comment in the heat of the moment (in private). We can't fill every Presidential bio with backroom quotes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a modern president being explicitly and brazenly racist. It is notable by any standard. It's ludicrous to feign ignorance of the significance of this and adopt a wait-and-see approach. We do not need to come back in ten years' time to see what historians have said about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A modern President? The guy was born in 1911 and has been out of office for 30 years. A lot of men of his generation had similar attitudes about Africa. There is really nothing significant about this. It probably won't last more than a few news cycles with reputable outlets.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wait We do not know how this recording will affect his overall reputation, as the article was published a few hours ago. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• No This is unduly weighted and not every gaffe needs to be on his page. This was a brief conversation, not to mention the point of the call was to criticize the Tanzanians over how they voted. Dy3o2 (talk)
• Big Time No Same reasons as above....and the fact this was a private conversation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Rja13ww33, the Nixon White House tapes were private conversations too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And where in Nixon's bio (or even the article on the tapes themselves) is a mention made of racially charged language (which, IIRC, occured)? I'm not seeing it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, "On Nixon Tapes, Disparaging Remarks About Ethnic Groups", NYT. It's not in the main article but it should be, as it was a big part of the end of his presidency. It is in Template:Richard Nixon series, which is right there at the top right of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it in the wiki article and the one wiki article you linked.....it doesn't appear.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, Nixon's racism is not included in his article, but should be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, we can take that discussion to Talk:Richard Nixon. Because his racism was so well documented that I'm shocked it's not included at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Rja13ww33, come to think of it, so was the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape. Point is, assumption of privacy doesn't mean anything in these cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. That nearly sank Trumps' campaign.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, they are both examples of bad behavior caught on tape, so how are they apples and oranges? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

One nearly sank a Presidential run.....and the other was a comment that had (as of now) no impact at all. I would think those differences would be obvious.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious yes. And the no votes above are frankly shameful, with one arguing that it isn't significant to refer to black people as "monkeys" and another saying that Reagan referring to blacks as "monkeys" isn't a biggie because Reagan had a reason not to like these specific blacks (or "monkeys" as was his preferred way to refer to them). And there's no wait-and-see that is necessary to tell whether a modern president being explicitly and brazenly racist belongs on this Wikipedia article. There is no need for 10-20 years of historical treatments to determine notability. This is just common sense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• No for now There’s no indication this is going to have substantial coverage now or lasting coverage years from now. Barring that, there’s no reason to include - for now. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Wait as per the reasoning set forth by Susmuffin and Toa Nidhiki05. SunCrow (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• ^This editor earlier today argued for the inclusion of unverified reports of racism on the BLP of a Democratic politician[2], yet opposes the inclusion of confirmed racism in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction - Snooganssnoogans, first of all, your comments about another article belong on the talk page of that article, not here. Second of all, the reports of anti-Semitism that I am seeking to include at Hillary Clinton--which you, of course, are attempting to block--were corroborated by multiple witnesses, made international news at the time, and "rocked" a U.S. Senate campaign; the information you are seeking to include here just became public a few hours ago. Also, my proposed language included the Clintons' denials of the claims, for whatever those denials may be worth. Third of all, I am not opposing the inclusion of your proposed language here; I am saying that we should wait and see whether the information becomes noteworthy enough for inclusion, as I clearly stated. Please self-revert your misleading and childish comment. SunCrow (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe? The problem is, I don't know where or how this could be integrated into the article at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• I created a short sub-section[3] in 'legacy' about Reagan on race, which included his dog whistle politics, his resistance to the anti-apartheid movement, and cultivation of "reverse discrimination". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Snooganssnoogans, your proposed section was slanted and POV. SunCrow (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, stop edit warring and vandalizing this page. You are trolling this page to make Reagan look bad by including random quotes without any substantial reasoning. Good thing the section has been slanted. Rick4512 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Nixon conversation has nothing to do with his legacy. Dy3o2 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This shouldn’t be tucked away. While I wouldn't have a dedicated section on it, as a revealing insight into his view on race it does deserve mention. Bob Spitz, author of Reagan: An American Journey, in response to the tape stated "this is stunning". It’s also leading with news outlets around the world. I got it from the front page of the BBC earlier today. To refer to blacks as “monkeys”, and “they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes“, this cannot be downplayed. He was governor of California. Hulk Hogan, a mere wrestler, was left disgraced and thrown out of the WWE for similar. Roseanne was removed from her tv show for similar. An elected leader (no doubt a number of black people would have voted for him) has even greater responsibility than these entertainers. Barton Dave (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes This is big news around the world.--Maarten1963 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes This story is all over the news today, along with discussion of other instances. The section earlier proposed included numerous events prompting accusations of racism, and the article from The Atlantic linked above details more. If we choose to deem all this insignificant it will be to our detriment. NPOV makes it our obligation to include discussion of this issue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Read WP:NOTNEWS. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As I explained, this is beyond a single news story. This is a growing list of accusations, now punctuated by audio of unadulterated racism. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The way I read the rule, it's not talking about a single news story or outlet reporting it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• No He was talking to Richard Nixon, who at the time was his superior. Have you heard Nixon's private conversations? More research needs to be done into the circumstances of his comment and the relationship between the two men. Sometimes people say sycophantic things to their superiors. We know Nixon said those sort of things in private. Perhaps Ronnie felt compelled to be at his level. 69Avatar69 (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of what I thought when I first heard about it. (Sort of playing along with Nixon's attitudes.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nixon did say some crazy things (as did many other presidents) but even on Nixon's page, not every gaffe is mentioned there. Dy3o2 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither the casual racism prevalent in the 70s that produced the conversation nor the Orwellian because-of-one-out-of-context-vignette historical revisionism culture of today is the right way. Perhaps a link to the Nixon Tapes article on here (which will contain a description of this audio) will suffice. Anyone who is interested in this audio already knows about its existence; Reagan wasn't really known for heavy racism (besides the welfare queen remark. Does anyone remember Obama's 'typical white person' remark? Unfortunately Ronnie is unable to apologize as of 2019. 69Avatar69 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It's a big deal. How could it not be? If it was part of the cold war as I think has been suggested, Reagan could have made a comment such as, Selling out to Soviets! , something like that, and riffed on that with some strong language. But instead, this was specifically racist and in plural form, not good. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Reagan might have just been having a bad day like we all do. Also, government officials should wear shoes, especially in New York City.69Avatar69 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• No Does not appear to be a defining part of him as a person or his life. Which render it undue for his main biography. That is not to say there is not be another page where it would be proper to have this information though. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• And are we excessively recoursing away from current affairs, and basically saying, hey, we can't be at the beck and call of every single item which hits the news? Which is certainly true. But are we going too far in this direction? I think so. This is a big item. Future Reagan biographers will be highly likely to include it. The story will be viewed as a big deal in one year, will be viewed as a big deal in 5 years. American society would have to change quite a bit for this not to be the case. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

How exactly do you know this "will be viewed as a big deal in 5 years"? We don't run with what we think might get some traction over time. Read WP:NOTNEWS Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Also read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ballRja13ww33 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right that I don't have a crystal ball. But what we can do is go with current news articles, and then if it later fades (unlikely!), we can remove it at that time.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest you re-read the WP:NOTNEWS rule. That's not what we do here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional yes, this tape should be mentioned within the context of Reagan's legacy in the article's Legacy section in a Reagan and race subsection if it generates discussion about and has an impact on Reagan's legacy with regard to race and upon how specific actions his actions of his while Governor of California and as POTUS are viewed. (Sparks of such a reexamination: from The Washington Post, from MSNBC & from National Review) Drdpw (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC) [Edited by Drdpw, 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)]

Was monkey a strong racial slur in the 70s? It could also interpreted as being tantamount to calling someone a clown or stupid for not wearing shoes. FYI we are all primates. Would I say what Reagan said today in a professional setting? No, then again, we live in an era where eliminating due process rights for men is a noble effort. By the way, opinion columns of for-profit newspapers are not the historical canon. Wikipedia is, however.69Avatar69 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, using "monkey" to refer to your African political opponents in this type of context was a strong racial slur in the 1970s (when I was a young man) and it has always been a racial slur. I would have been fired instantly from my first management job back then it I ever said anything like that. He did not call the African delegates "primates". Making excuses for overt racism is reprehensible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine, we should include it (not in a tabloid-like manner but within the broader context of his race relations legacy), but this is so cynical how our culture does not value the sanctity of privacy, even after death. The modern internet social media mob does not help understand these issues and Wikipedia should not encourage the persecution of acts done in private on its articles, especially if the perpetrator is long dead. We have all made mistakes in our early careers. Also were any laws broken here? California is currently a two-party consent state and you can't record telephone conversations without asking first. Edit: YES it was technically illegal. California's invasion of privacy act, which established two-party consent, was passed four years before the conversation in 1967. Nixon was ahead of his time in abusing recording technology. Today, some people are paranoid that if say the wrong thing in front of their smart TV, the SWAT team will be at their door. Poor Ronnie.69Avatar69 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, As it stands, the article includes the following text:

Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people; this faith stemmed from the optimistic faith of his mother and the Disciples of Christ faith, into which he was baptized in 1922. For that period of time, which was long before the civil rights movement, Reagan's opposition to racial discrimination was unusual

Inclusion of the recently unearthed remarks, alongside his comment, in 1966, that "if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so", are necessary to provide a more nuanced picture of Reagan. Ronald Reagan: No defence for 'monkeys' remark, says daughter, bbc.co.uk. Jono1011 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I am honestly surprised that this is even up for discussion. His own daughter couldn't defend these remarks and there are some people here defending it. It is something highly significant, especially when taken together with his views towards apartheid south Africa and many other things. Enigmie (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is defending his remarks. It's just not relevant to this article. You're right his daughter was saddened by this audio, but she also said her dad was not like that at home and taught her not to be racist. She said if her dad were alive today he’d make amends. Dy3o2 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If the release of this tape generates discussion about and has an impact on Reagan's legacy and how his actions in life are viewed, then it (the tape) is relevant to the article. Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a story that when Reagan played football at an Illinois college, a hotel refused to rent rooms to several of his African-American teammates. Reagan got pissed off and invited the players to spend the night at his home which happened to bee relatively nearby (this might be another famous Republican, but I think it's Reagan). And not that good characteristics or good deeds automatically cancel out bad ones, or anything of the sort. But rather, that it's our job to give a relatively full accounting of our biographical subject, and from a variety of solid sources. I will look for this story in a bio or news article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That story is in the article (in the Religion section).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I do see from this same section the claim "Reagan identified himself as a born-again Christian," with a reference, although I'm pretty sure in one of the presidential debates, Reagan said "born again" was not a term his church used. (and as far as the story about his teammates, the one source by Kengor I can find in our references doesn't have a page 15) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes It should be included. Significantly covered by a multitude of mainstream, highly reliable sources. Coverage in Wikipedia should similarly reflect that. --Jayron32 14:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes The only WP objection has been that Reagan's remark was "private" and not sufficiently notable. First, Reagan made the comment when he called the White House (so not off the cuff) and said it to the sitting president of the United States, and did so in the context of a major issue of the day, the UN vote on China. A private comment would be something he says off the cuff at home to his wife.

Second, Jono1011 (on Aug 3 above) makes a good point about balancing Reagan's 1966 comments.

Third, perhaps more important, Reagan's views of Africans also may shed light on his policies and speeches with respect to African Americans. E.g. his dog whistle to Southern white racists when speaking at the Neshoba County fair about "states rights" (a loaded term) in his 1980 campaign. In fact, as seen in the Wash Post coverage below, Reagan's comments according to some pundits help provide a context for comments by later American presidents. Further relevance of Reagan's comments is discussed in the links provided below.

Fourth, regarding the wait and see approach to see whether Reagan's comment to Nixon has created controversy and is therefore notable per WP, the answer is clearly yes, with leading US general circulation daily periodicals discussing it, some examples here:

1. Why Donald Trump is just following in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps on race

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/04/why-donald-trump-is-just-following-ronald-reagans-footsteps-race/

2. How a Historian Uncovered Ronald Reagan’s Racist Remarks to Richard Nixon https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-a-historian-uncovered-ronald-reagans-racist-remarks-to-richard-nixon

3.Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/

4. Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/31/ronald-reagan-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/1876134001/

5. Why is anyone surprised by Reagan’s racism?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/08/02/why-anyone-surprised-reagan-racism/wVSXLxvnSXV2WlUJ3rbcQL/story.html

6. Reagan Called Africans ‘Monkeys’ in Call With Nixon, Tape Reveals

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-racist.html

7.Despite sunny image, Ronald Reagan’s racism paved the way for Trump’s

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article233373467.html

8.Being Right About Reagan’s Racism Was Bad for Jimmy Carter

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-racism-monkeys-tape-jimmy-carter.html

9.Reagan's racist call with Nixon echoes strongly today

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/opinions/reagan-nixon-racist-phone-call-joseph/index.html

10.Ronald Reagan's Daughter Says Audio of Her Dad Calling African Diplomats 'Monkeys' Made Her Cry

https://time.com/5642040/ronald-reagan-daughter-racism/

I am stopping at 10 but I think I have amply made my point.

--NYCJosh (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much all the linked stories are in response to this at the point it was released. Some of the posters who objected did so on the basis of whether or not this will have any impact on Reagan's long-term legacy. That remains to be seen. Also, the fact he was talking to the President doesn't erase the fact this was a private conversation. I'm fairly certain he didn't know Nixon taped his conversations. (Indeed, the Watergate committee didn't know until they were advised of it.) As far as Reagan using the term "state's rights".....he used the terms all the time with no racial context whatsoever. I'd be curious how all this "shed light on his policies and speeches with respect to African Americans". Exactly what policies did he have that somehow connects to this?Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You can read more about Reagan's dog whistle at the Neshoba County fair speech here: [[4]]

But that's just one example of how Reagan's racist attitude as demonstrated in the phone call regarding the UN vote may inform our understanding of subsequent events and speeches. Additional relevance is provided by the 10 examples I brought, including context for speeches by later presidents, including present day.

Even if the comment had been "private" it would not mean it is not notable. A private comment may, in fact, be more candid and thus more revealing. But in fact when someone actively calls the White House to register a view about an important vote in the UN, and tells it to the president of the US, it is hardly "private" and it is not unfair to take note of it.

When every major newspaper and so many other major periodicals and broadcast news networks are reporting on it and struggling with its implications, it is notable.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well you said it was "not off the cuff", when clearly it was. (I doubt he worked up a speech to express frustration during a private phone call.) And again: WP:NOTNEWS. This thing didn't last on the front page (even on sites like CNN and MSNBC) much beyond one or two news cycles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to give others a chance to weigh in.

It wasn't a formal speech but Reagan did more than ample opportunity to reflect for a while before calling the White House and registering his views with the president of the U.S.

The call wasn't just a couple of news cycles, it was the subject of numerous opinion pieces by columnists of major U.S. general circulation periodicals (see my list above and one could easily find many more). Not sure what else one could have expected when major revelations about a president who was dead for decades come to light. It's not just "news"--it sheds light, as discussed in the opinion pieces themselves and as I have noted above.--NYCJosh (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it was a couple of news cycles (if that). Even the left-wing outlets have dropped this on the front pages. The opinion pieces are by (pretty much) all the usual suspects.....desperate to find the most nefarious explanation they can for losing election after election (and a lot of people who use to vote for them).Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a lot of editorializing, and all of it irrelevant. What happened to NPOV? Reagan's racism is a legitimate mention as part of his legacy, like it or not. As regards any mentions by left wing outlets. A great many of these outlets and editors weren't even around during his time, and the world has moved on RR is hardly a relevant subject on which to waste ink and paper.Oldperson (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of editorializing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Reaffirm Oppose Looking back at it all it does not appear to have a lasting impact on his life as a whole. While it did receive a lot of attention when released that largely died to almost nothing rather quickly. If more scholarly sources start including it as something important about his life then we could start taking a look at adding it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: I think you may have accidentally voted twice. (Looking at a bold "No" vote above on from 2 August.) ~Awilley (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Awilley: Are you stalking me again? Anyhow changed it to reaffirm since it was much later with new information. I can see how it would be confusing. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Whether it had a lasting impact on his life is irrelevant, not to mention I have no idea what that phrase means. It is, however very significant as it gives an important insight into who the man really was, as compared to his crafted public image, and quite apparently from all of the links above, his attitude has had a profound effect on the body politic and the direction this nation has taken since his presidency. As a matter of fact he kicked off his campaign in the same city which was front and center in the murder of the three civil rights workers, whose bodies were buried in an earthen dam Philadelphia, Neshoba, Mississippi and as a matter of fact Trump Fired up the crowd in the same place. Yes a lasting impact on American politics and perhaps in the end democracyOldperson (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• The stuff I was mentioning is in reference to WP:10YT. Yes if it has lasting impact is extremely relevant to determining if it is WP:DUE to be in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Dukakis also spoke at the Neshoba county fairgrounds. It's been a favorite for politicians both before and after Reagan. And furthermore, Reagan's campign didn't "kick off" there. He announced his candidacy in NYC.Rja13ww33 (talk)

Reagan in college standing up for two African-American teammates

Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America's Fortieth President, Kyle Longley, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, John W. Sloan, Ch. 3 "Reagan and Race: Prophet of Color Blindness, Baiter of the Backlash," Jeremy Mayer, page 73, 2007.

" . . Reagan's college football team found itself in a jam before a road game fifteen miles away from Dixon. The hotel at which they had reservations was segregated, and it refused service to the two black members of the team. The coach decided that the whole team would therefore sleep on the bus. However, Reagan, afraid that this would create resentment against the two black players, making them feel awkward, offered to have the two players stay at his house. The coach had trouble believing that a white family in 1930s Illinois would welcome their son and two black boarders without any advance warning in the middle of the night. But as one of the black teammates attested decades later, Reagan's confidence in his parents was well-founded, and the crisis was quietly avoided. It is difficult for those born later to understand how truly unusual such an act was for a white family at that time, but Reagan's black teammates understood and never forgot. . "

First off, this level of social skill on Reagan's part is advanced for a young person in their early 20s, perhaps outside of sports (maybe the multiple fresh starts trying to get it right?).

And obviously from it's title, this is a source critical of Reagan, which is okay to use. My plan is to get a second perhaps more favorable or middle-of-the-road source. And then add both these references to our article.

And then delete the "Kengor, p. 15" reference, which as I see, leads nowhere. The one separate Kengor source doesn't have a page 15. And as always, Yes, we can use a fair amount of help. The parts which grab your interest, please, jump on in! :~) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it would warrant a new section. Possibly keep it where it is.....or maybe combine it elsewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I called for a new section, did I? By "subsection," I meant our Talk page and this part right here.  :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

"Reagan, No Racist", National Review, Deroy Murdock, Nov. 20, 2007.

This source also gives largely the same story of Reagan inviting his two African-American teammates to spend the night at his parents' home.

And, the National Review is generally regarded as a reputable publication on the conservative side of the spectrum. So, we now have one generally anti-Reagan source and one generally pro-Reagan source -- and we don't always have to do it this way,

but when this drops into our lap, I think it's a fine way to do it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

I added these two references and rewrote this two-sentence part. Hope people like it. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=910129822&oldid=910128367

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.

Oppose closing I don't see the rough consensus for inclusion based on the above. It looks like a no-consensus to me. Sdkb suggests a 10:5 outcome based on the numbers but if you assume those who say wait and see are "no until further weight says otherwise" then you are at a rough parity. Additionally, while Sdkb was not involved prior to the closing, it's clear they have become involved with a POV since the closing. I'm not saying their POV is better or worse than my own, only that their own personal preference may have tipped the scales. Disclaimer, had I seen this RfC I would have opposed. Springee (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose closing I second Spingree's concerns. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How to handle Reagan's response to the AIDS crisis and apartheid in intro

I added brief mentions of Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis and apartheid to the presidency section of the intro, summarizing the multi-paragraph sections on those topics in the body. Toa Nidhiki05 reverted the additions with edit summary "these are not lede-worthy material".

I see the additions as a straightforward application of MOS:INTRO, which states that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Both the AIDS section and apartheid section are well-established within the article, with the latter affirmed by an RfC, so the only real question I see here is how to phrase the mention within the intro, and I'd argue my edits captured the key elements while keeping the mentions very brief (a single sentence clause and single sentence, respectively).

I'm guessing this issue may be headed to an RfC, so I won't wait too long to open one if those of you who habitually patrol this page express opposition, but if you are willing to compromise and recognize that this is just an application of policy to already-settled issues (even if you disagree with how they were settled), it might be possible to save ourselves the trouble. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, Sdkb, this would be agreeable to all concerned:

The AIDS crisis could be noted by adding a sentence after the sentence ending ... and fought public sector labor. Additionally, it was during his first term that the AIDS crisis began unfolding across the country.
The anti-apartheid issue could be noted by its inclusion in this sentence: Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including ending the Cold War, the bombing of Libya, the growing anti-apartheid movement, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran–Contra affair. Drdpw (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

For the AIDS crisis, I don't think that text would be sufficient. It's too passive and makes no mention of anything Reagan did or didn't do himself (we're not at Presidency of Ronald Reagan here, we're at his bio page).

For apartheid, I considered adding it as a clause as you propose, but I decided that wasn't quite enough weight given the significance of the issue and coverage in the body (I think one sentence is warranted; compare, for instance, that we spend more than that on the collapse of the Berlin Wall/reunification of Germany, which didn't even occur until after his term). I also have a similar concern as I do with AIDS — just listing it communicates only "this issue happened", and gives no indication of how Reagan felt about it or dealt with it. Since it's possible to provide that information while remaining concise, I think we ought to. Sdkb (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons these aren't in the lede. Aside from them honestly not being as notable as the other stuff in there, nor being core policy points, in the lede neither has any sense of nuance that's in the body; saying he "opposed apartheid sanctions", for example, is not an accurate and comprehensive summation of his apartheid policy, which was constructive engagement. Reagan also imposed sanctions on South Africa, including an arms embargo. The Reagan administration's goal absolutely was to move South Africa away from apartheid, they just had a different method that Congress ultimately rejected. Including only one part of that in the lead is, well, misleading. Similarly, AIDS is also a matter of perception. AIDS spending actually increased and Reagan said in speeches it was a top priority. So "ignoring AIDS" was not a policy piece of the administration, either. Expansive coverage of these in the lead would increase it when it is already quite lengthy, so I really don't see these as needed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding apartheid, being concise in the lead is necessarily going to involve leaving out some amount of detail, but the essence of Reagan's approach was that he preferred much milder measures than Congress and many members of the public, and I think my addition captured that in a neutral way. Regarding AIDS, I deliberately included that in the sentence on his first term, where Reagan made no public speeches about AIDS. He did start to give it a little attention in his second term, and there's some debate to be had about whether it was enough (which is too messy to get into in the intro, but many experts maintain it was still woeful neglect), but there's no question that he nearly entirely ignored it in his first term. Sdkb (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I support some mention of these two topics in the lede here. These were both major themes during the 80s and I think their relative significance has grown. If there is adequate coverage in RSs for mentioning in the article then this is fine. I have some comments on both the phrasings proposed by Sdkb.

Sdkb's phrasing on AIDS is not what the article says; the article body attributes this sentiment to an activist organization. Attributed references should not be stated as plain facts in the lede. Two sides are presented in the body of the article and we can't pick one here to represent, nor should both be mentioned. So change it to a neutral statement:

and largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis

should be:

and was confronted with the AIDS crisis

Sdkb is closer to what the article says regarding apartheid but still does not carry the same balance. I think it should be reduced to a clause in the foreign affairs sentence as it is definitely not more significant than the other things listed.

Reagan resisted calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress

should be:

and favoring constructive engagement with South Africa regarding apartheid

or better:

and apartheid in South Africa

The lede should be brief and neutral. It may already be too long and expanding it with lopsided POV in one case and excessive detail in another is not an improvement. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I like this idea in using the more generic “was confronted with”. I’d prefer the mention of constructive engagement, but mentioning it as an issue he faced sounds fine to me. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

My response to "was confronted with" is the same as the one I had to Drdpw above: it's too passive and gives readers no indication of what Reagan's approach to the issue. Regarding sourcing, the body currently cites an activist organization, but it could have easily (and probably should be changed to) cite reputable academics.

References

Sdkb (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, two sides are presented in the AIDS section of the article and there is no reason to express only one, or either, in the lede, when most of the other things in the lede are just mentioned without any further explanation. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not see the need to mention either issue in the intro. Far more important issues are mentioned and also, these issues are handled adequately in the article and in the article on his Presidency.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You made your personal views on covering apartheid clear when you initially !voted against having any mention of it anywhere in this article. The consensus ultimately moved in a different direction, and you need to apply WP policy to this article as it is, not as you might wish it were. There is nothing in MOS:INTRO that says we should leave out material from the lead because it is "handled adequately in the article". Sdkb (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand you just dropped any pretentions of good faith. Nice. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am applying WP rules. (Starting with WP:WEIGHT.) The topics you want to add to the intro simply aren't important enough (relative to his overall tenure) to warrant a intro mention.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC

No consensus to include. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 17 April 2020 (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 the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?

• A clause in the sentence on Reagan's first term stating that during said term he largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis.
• A sentence (immediately preceding the ones on USSR) stating Reagan resisted calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress.

Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support both as proposer. Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Reagan’s inaction at the start of what became the AIDS pandemic largely guaranteed its devastation. It’s valiant to want to safeguard his reputation from the truth but that’s already been let out. At least we can try accuracy. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We’re beating this dead horse again? See above. Nothing new has been proposed here that wasn’t rejected above. Toa Nidhiki05 13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  There was nothing rejected above. There was limited discussion that failed to reach any consensus one way or the other, thus we're having an RfC to bring in additional voices. Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both It's not lead worthy and is adequately addressed in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Short concise mentions of extremely important aspects of the Reagan presidency, in particular the response / non-response to the AIDS crisis which cannot in good faith be considered unimportant enough for the lead. Not only an extraordinary tragedy in terms of human loss, but there have been countless academic treatments which highlight the role of the Reagan administration in the HIV/AIDS crisis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment The problem here is the South Africa bit is not actually remotely representative of his actual policy on South Africa, which was constructive engagement. The fact this was just plopped here by OP with no additional comments or justification is frankly insulting after the lengthy discussions that have already happened here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see how more context would add anything. The administration opted for the weakest possible response to Apartheid, pretending that this response would be more fruitful. From the same President who called Africans "monkeys". The proposed lead of course says none of that, only that the administration fought against attempts to sanction the Apartheid regime in South Africa, which is entirely accurate and is also consistent with the crux of "constructive engagement". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Soft support first Criticism of his handling of the HIV epidemic is a major part of the criticism of his presidency, and should be mentioned in the same vein that Bush's criticism of the Katrina crisis, is in his lede. The direct wording "largely ignored" and "resisted calls" is using wikipedia's voice incorrectly. Inclusion of lede worthy criticism should be written "has been criticised for..." with citations for the criticism that lends it sufficient weight (i.e. a major retrospective from a news source). Symmetricnoise (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Whether a president took action on an issue or not is a verifiable factual assertion, and thus appropriate for Wikipedia's voice, which calls a spade a spade. Reagan never gave a speech mentioning AIDS during his first term, so we would probably be on solid ground just stating that he "ignored" the crisis, but we are certainly fine with "largely ignored". Likewise, "resisted calls" is a factual historical assertion about Reagan's policy position. Look at how often that phrase is used in neutral historical biographies of Reagan on a variety of issues. Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Partial oppose I have no objection to a brief and NPOV mention of Reagan's response to apartheid in the lede. As far as HIV/AIDS, I do not believe it is a significant enough issue to include in the lede; also, the proposed language is both vague (what does it mean to "largely ignore" something?) and factually dubious. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both The epidemic and apartheid are two issues very widely covered in RS about Reagan and proposed mentions seem appropriate in length. Rab V (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Both - Neither had much significance on his life as a whole and would be largely undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Question Sdkb, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was noticing that bug; it looks like at 2187 bytes it was just barely over the cutoff. I think the references are what pushed it over; I'll try adjusting that and hopefully Legobot will update automatically. Sdkb (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose First, this is an article about the man, not specifically the presidency. This is a case where we need to follow what other summary sources say and we must understand that there is little more than 1-2 paragraphs to summarize his entire presidency in the lead. That means even the big items like Russia and the ending of the cold war, get only limited mention in the lead. All four of the articles being used to support inclusion are topic specific. Thus an article about AIDS says Reagan didn't act. That may be significant to the topic of the early history of the AIDS epidemic but that doesn't mean it's significant in context of Reagan the person. Given this is an intro about Reagan the person, not the Reagan administration, the portion of the intro which summarizes his 8 years in office is necessarily brief. Even the material that might be DUE in a Reagan administration article lead is at risk of being cut from the lead here in order to make room for things like Reagan's acting career and time in California politics. Hence why we should use biographical sources about Reagan the person to indicate what topics are the most significant to and thus DUE in the lead. The same may be true of apartheid. Currently no sources have been put forth to suggest it's a DUE topic for the lead. Per wp:SUMMARY the portion of the lead discussing the presidency should be a summary of this section Ronald_Reagan#Presidency_(1981–1989) and really that section should be gutted and moved to this article Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan. The lead follows the body and, per SUMMARY, the parent article sections should follow the main topic articles. The RfC is suggesting we do it the other way around. Springee (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have always believed that the lede is a summary and must not be bloated with excessive details. If we must add that bit about AIDS, then what is preventing us from adding other minutiae covering what transpired during his two terms. Furthermore, his administration's response to the AIDS epidemic has been controversial and contentious. This is, at least, reflected in the AIDS section of this article, which states that his administration's lack of response to the epidemic is attributed to activists. We might want to expand this section first with evidence that indicates some form of consensus that he ignored the AIDS problem and caused the explosion of AIDS cases in the US. I have similar view regarding the apartheid issue. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Per the article, 20,000 people died of AIDS before Reagan was willing to speak about it publicly. Any general biography of Reagan you might find at your local library will discuss the issue at length. To call it "minutiae" is frankly absurd. Sdkb (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Since you seem to be indicating that - per the article - Reagan speaking out (or whatever implication it entails) would have made a significant dent on the statistics, calculate the number of deaths after he gave the speech you cited. Before the speech: 20,000. After the speech: 70,000. I have previously mentioned that the statistics and Reagan's purported complicity to the AIDS deaths are attributed to activists in the article. Perhaps you could improve this particular information in the Response to the AIDS epidemic section with more mainstream sources given how you said that it is available in the general biography of Reagan you might find at your local library. Also, there is a context to the use of the term "minutiae". I apologize if it aggravates you but I stand by my position that it is a mere detail in Reagan's life. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Speaking from the perspective of somebody who contributes mostly to South African political and apartheid related articles and has only marginal knowledge of the Reagan presidency (beyond his limited foreign policy overtures like constructive engagement dealing directly with South Africa), this is not noteworthy. Reagan adopted a lukewarm “hands off” policy with regard to South Africa, which is why he generally opposed mandatory sanctions. He also refused to lift the preexisting US arms embargo on South Africa despite the hopes of the apartheid government, and under his administration the US did not veto a UN resolution condemning South African raids into Angola - again, despite expectations to the contrary. South African-US relations were also heavily strained by Operation Argon in 1984. A lukewarm and inconsequential relationship with apartheid South Africa, much like the one the US pursued with many African states at the time, is not noteworthy in the grand scheme of the Reagan presidency. I will offer that in most memoirs I’ve read of apartheid era politicians and military chiefs, Reagan is barely mentioned at all (another telling clue), and rather than expressing gratitude for his futile opposition to sanctions, the authors chose to criticise him for not doing enough to aid them. In South African historiography Reagan era diplomat Chester Crocker is featured much more prominently; and in the lead of his article his activities vis-a-vis South Africa ought to be mentioned, but again, Reagan is always relegated to the periphery. --Katangais (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both The purpose of the lead is to summarise the most important points in the article; given how much has been written about the Reagan Presidency, that's a really, really high bar to surmount. This proposal would give the two events more weight in the lead than everything except for Reaganonics and relations with the Soviet Union and I haven't seen much to justify that other than assertions of personal opinion. The supporting citations mentioned are a pair of news articles, a "personal look back" and a medical journal article from 1986. That's a pretty good indication this isn't DUE. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both Unless these two points are represented more heavily in the article, I don’t think they should be in the lede. There’s only so much you can mention there before it becomes cluttered. ~ HAL333 05:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both There are two sides to these issues shown in the article itself and only one is presented here for the lede. Also the second proposal adds an absurd amount of text for what is a less significant issue. Sdkb ignored good faith attempts to negotiate an NPOV phrasing above and pushed ahead with this so at this point I have little interest in trying to work with them. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  @DIYeditor:, I did engage with your proposed alternative above, but you failed to address the serious concerns about it. It should be noted for the record that you stated above I support some mention of these two topics in the lede here, and while you are free to change your opinion on whether the topics merit inclusion, retaliation for others' reluctance to adopt your preferred language is not a valid reason for doing so. Sdkb (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support both I am not familiar with the weight of the sources, but I am an American and know the cultural image of Reagan in my demographic. I am a gay male and in my social circle, talk of Reagan is talk of his response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. In other social circles I do wiki outreach to support the African diaspora in North America. In that context talk of Reagan's South Africa apartheid response comes up regularly every few months even among young people today. From my perspective, which I think is prominent and mainstream, Reagan's HIV and apartheid responses are defining in the legacy of his decisions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment You have a interesting circle of friends. For myself, I cannot think of the last time Reagan's handling of apartheid has ever come up in any conversation I've had (either at the time, or in the years since).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Agreed on the above. I cannot speak for how Reagan is remembered in the gay community in the US (it’s possible that in those circles criticism about his handling of HIV crisis is what he’s primarily remembered for) but among those South Africans and foreign scholars of South African history I’ve collaborated with, Reagan is not at all considered noteworthy in the timeline of the apartheid era. His aide on African affairs, Chester Crocker, gets far more attention due to his role in negotiating Namibian independence and an end to the hostilities between the apartheid government and Cuba/Angola. I’m actually a little skeptical of the claim that one of the primary reasons Americans remember Reagan is for his alleged support of apartheid, but if that’s the case, it’s certainly a phenomenon limited to that side of the pond. --Katangais (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both Neither comes remotely close in importance to Reagan's handling of the cold war, which ultimately resulted in the end of Communist regimes controlling the lives of half a billion people, give or take. Hence both fail MOS:LEAD.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the IP contribution directly below this.

Comment An IP editor with an editing history of a few dozen edits stretching back to May 2017 attempted to !vote in this poll. Their !vote was as follows: Support both Both of those issues were a part of his presidency and ignoring his policy towards them is a biased view. The_Wizard_of_POZ (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC) DIYeditor removed their !vote, noting in edit summary "we can't take an IP editor's word." I reverted, refactoring to correct the malformed parts, since to my understanding, there is no policy blocking IP editors from !voting in an RfC, and per WP:TPO, we should be careful before removing others' talk page comments. Toa Nidhiki05 reverted me, noting in edit summary "There’s no reason to include this." I note that both DIYeditor and Toa Nidhiki05 have expressed views counter to the IP editor on the issue this RfC is about; regardless of intentions, I do not think it comes across as a good look to be removing !votes of editors who express an opinion you disagree with. Sdkb (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC) I've opened an ANI related to the IP edit here [[5]]. Personally I'm inclined to delete as I don't like the idea of any !vote being made under false pretense. However, I think this becomes an issue where talk page policies/guidelines need to be followed. I wouldn't assume that the IP's edit history means anything in this case. If this is a shared IP those previous edits could very well have been made by a different person. Springee (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks for seeking clarification, Springee. Regarding the username, my AGF interpretation was that the IP editor may have just been trying to mimic the user signatures of signed in editors, not knowing how to create an account themselves. Sdkb (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Update: Following clear consensus at ANI, an admin has restored the !vote below. @DIYeditor and Toa Nidhiki05: I have to admonish you both here. As much as I try to assume good faith, the fact that ANI had to get involved to prevent a !vote from being straight-up wiped away reflects exactly the sort of tendentiousness that makes so many editors reluctant to contribute to this type of article and so many of those who do burnt out from it (including myself). We can be better than this. Sdkb (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC) You don’t have authority to admonish anyone. The issue was discussed and resolved - that’s how the process works. Don’t be a drama queen. Also, if you’re going to accuse people here of tendentiousness editing, don’t hide it in a hidden template area. Maybe you should take your own advice and read WP:AGF again. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC) I think we should avoid accusations. I didn't open the ANI because I felt anyone was acting in bad faith. I opened it because I really didn't know what the correct way to handle this was. I'm a bit disappointed that it seems the admins missed that this was a question in hopes that we could all learn rather than any attempted to admonish anyone. Springee (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC) @Sdkb: Funny that my entry into this was to agree with you that some mention of these topics should be made in the lede, just that I disagreed with your wording. You're the one who quickly grew frustrated with trying to negotiate wording or justify your version and slapped an RfC on something that had hardly been given time to be fleshed out. Now I am guilty of tendentious editing because I mistook a forged or badly malformed signature for being malicious/disruptive? I, incorrectly but I think quite understandably, assumed that either an IP editor was falsely claiming to be someone else, or that an IP editor was claiming to be someone (an existing account) which could not be verified. The third option did not occur to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC) This was my opinion as well. I assumed the IP was trying to impersonate an editor. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support both Both of those issues were a part of his presidency and ignoring his policy towards them is a biased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.150.70.148 (talk) 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both These are verifiable facts that happened during Reagan's Presidency. He was a very influential President, and his Administration's notable actions for both good or ill should be given prominence despite conservatives wishing to memory hole the aspects of the Reagan Administration that look less than admirable to today's public. Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But this is an article about Reagan the person, not the Reagan administration. That is a different article. Springee (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support both as crucial missteps of his presidency. ɱ (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both There's just a lot of information in the lede already, none of which I can justify trimming, and the proposed information to add isn't of comparable importance to what is already in the lede. Ergo Sum 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both - not appropriate per WP:LEAD as it's just small parts of the article (e.g. a fraction of 9.3.3), had small coverage giving this POV at that time, and just not a BLP enduring impact in his life. Note the AIDs subsection has sourcing issues and mostly is channeling activist group statements of circa 2016 rather than the 1980s sources or authoritative RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both Not convinced that either are that important to be mentioned in the lead. I'm in fact surprised that both sections in the article are larger than the one on his assassination attempt. Seems like WP:UNDUE to me, particularly on South Africa. Hzh (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include both I am surprised why it had been ignored to this day. These issues were very significant in those days. NavjotSR (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Whether that is true or not does not justify the loaded wording proposed here which does not reflect the balanced POVs of the article in the clause or sentence, or DUE weight in the length of the sentence. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both'. Neither were significant during his term in office.--Eostrix (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Partial support With two or three paragraphs in the article each, a mention in the lead seems reasonable for both topics (see MOS:LEADREL), like other sections of comparable length (Reagan was raised in a low-income family in small towns of northern Illinois. = two paragraphs, In 1980, Reagan won the Republican presidential nomination and defeated the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter. = three paragraphs, the bombing of Libya, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran–Contra affair. = not quite two paragraphs per point but they all at least get mentioned).

The proposed AIDS clause could be inserted as is (I'm surprised it's not mentioned already) but given the length of the intro, the apartheid line should be condensed. Could have something like He received criticism for his lack of response to the burgeoning AIDS crisis and for resisting calls for sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 09:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Sdkb:, please don't extent the RfC without just cause. The discussion has died out. What justification do you have for extending it? Springee (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • More input could be useful in making consensus clearer (the most recent !vote was only yesterday, so it clearly hasn't fully died out), and extending won't do any harm. If you really want this closed, feel free to list it at WP:ANRFC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a clear no consensus with a slight majority favoring exclusion. You however have argued vigorously for inclusion. Sorry, ANRFC is where we can go for getting a closing. We don't need to leave the RfC open indefinitely in hope that things will change.

Propose closing of RfC The RfC has gone for a month. There is no reason to extend it just because an editor isn't happy with the outcome. There is no evidence that the additional trickle of !votes will add extra clarity. Springee (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine listing it at WP:ANRFC for closing; my suggestion of that above wasn't facetious. Please WP:AGF and don't accuse me of wanting to extend it since you think it won't close the way I !voted. I could just as easily have accused you of wanting to close it as soon as possible since the !votes in the past two weeks haven't favored the outcome you !voted for, but I chose not to. (For the record, I anticipate an experienced closer at this point would judge no consensus on Apartheid and weak consensus to include AIDS, since the UNDUE arguments are weaker against such a short proposed addition.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both - neither are significant life events that should be included in the lead of his BLP. They are adequately covered in the body of the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose extension And the reason why should be fairly obvious. Discussion has died down. Sdkb needs to back off here and let the process play out. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the original RfC closing date which should be tomorrow. Springee (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC and am adding a DNAU so that it will remain on the talk page while waiting for closure. Having only editors who specifically visit this talk page rather than a more general sampling of editors !voting from here until then raises concerns about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS formation. If others are similarly concerned, they should feel free to implement an extension themselves. WP:RFC#Duration states clearly that there is no required minimum or maximum duration, and Springee and Toa Nidhiki05 are in violation of WP:TPO by reverting my edit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You unilaterally extended the length of an RfC without asking anyone because you aren’t happy with what the outcome will likely be. It’s not me that’s the problem here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both There is a lot to say about Reagan with only two paragraphs to summarise his precidency. On this occassion these two parts of his precidency are not important enough to include the lead section and are both considered WP:UNDUE weight. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:14, 7 April 2020 (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.

1985 speech

Hey, guys,

Could you please add this file to the article somewhere?

President Reagan's Remarks at a Senate Campaign Fundraising Dinner for Jim Santini on June 25, 1985

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.51.107 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comedy

Muboshgu, I think Ronald Reagan is a comedian. The Guardian says so,, and so does The Daily Telegraph.

References

Both sources clearly say Reagan is a comedian. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something....but I don't see either source describing him as a comedian. In any case, he never did professional standup. Just telling jokes (during speeches) and doing funny movies doesn't quite qualify.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally neither of those sources call Reagan a "comedian". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section doesn't sufficiently summarize the article and needs to be simplified. It could be simplified to something like this, where it is more concise. Ronald Reagan is a longstanding featured article that shouldn't have a lead with excessive and unnecessary information. --Wow (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I reviewed your edit when it appeared, and found it very well done and neutral, so I fully support it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a RfC consensus to include Reagan's "monkeys" remarks

Per this RfC[6], there is a consensus to include Reagan's "monkeys" remarks. Text will be included – the only question is how to word the text. I am perfectly fine with this edit[7], which added the following text to the end of the "Cultural and political image" sub-section (which seems like the ideal place to put this content):

• In July of 2019 a previously undisclosed tape recorded in the Nixon White House was released. In the audio recording, made in 1971 and documenting a phone conversation between then-President Nixon and then-Governor Reagan, Mr. Reagan can be heard saying, “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!“ This statement was made in reference to a United Nations delegation from Tanzania, which opposed the United States in a vote to officially recognize the People’s Republic of China. When the tape was initially released in 2000, the racist portion had been edited out. Subsequent to Reagan’s passing, the original recording was restored and released to the public.

Discuss what problems if any there are with the aforementioned text and the placement of the text. If there are no alternative suggestions on how to word the text and place it, I will proceed to restore that version of the text. Simply saying "no" does not suffice given that there is consensus to include text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

At least two of us (Toa_Nidhiki05 and myself) contested the closing. First, the closing was logically flawed as it claimed a consensus for inclusion when even in the most optomistic reading you have 10:5 for. However, that 10:5 assumes all editors who said "wait to see how this develops" actually meant "include now". Has anything come of this that would suggest those "not now" !votes have migrated to "include"? Additionally, the non-admin close was done by an editor who has clearly shown themselves to be "involved" in the topic and with a clear POV. The closing editor went as far as trying to recruit editors to put the material into the article [[8]]. That makes for a bad closing and certainly does suggest this was a neutral closing. Since there is not consensus for this inclusion at this time you should not restore it until the consensus is established. If we need a close review we can go down that road. Springee (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to contest the close, you go do that elsewhere. I'm not going to let you veto the inclusion of consensus content of a president describing Africans as "monkeys" just because you personally want to hide that information. Unless the close is determined to be faulty, I'll follow the consensus described in the RfC and I'll add content consistent with the close. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan’s racist conversation

Attempts to prevent mention of this incident on Reagan’s page are baffling. The audio of Reagan calling Africans “monkeys” can be easily found online from reputable sources. It is wrong for anyone to try to hide or whitewash this incident.Kintsugi2015 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Make sure not to restore the content. I've given the editors who keep tendentiously removing the content an opportunity to offer suggestions on the text or for them to take up their concerns about the close of a RfC on an external board. If they do neither, then I will restore the content in a few days time (because a "consensus" exists to include the content). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC Should Reagan's 1971 audio recording which included racists comments be added to the article text?

Last fall a RfC asked this question Talk:Ronald_Reagan#Newly_released_audio. A number of editors suggested a wait and see approach. It has been 9 months and an editor recently added the following to the article [9]

In July of 2019 a previously undisclosed tape recorded in the Nixon White House was released. In the audio recording, made in 1971 and documenting a phone conversation between then-President Nixon and then-Governor Reagan, Mr. Reagan can be heard saying, “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!“ This statement was made in reference to a United Nations delegation from Tanzania, which opposed the United States in a vote to officially recognize the People’s Republic of China. When the tape was initially released in 2000, the racist portion had been edited out. Subsequent to Reagan’s passing, the original recording was restored and released to the public.

Do editors feel this added text is DUE for inclusion? Springee (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Comment from closer of prior RfC

In my view, the current formulation of this RfC is inconsistent with my close of the prior one on the same topic, which found that there was rough consensus for a concise mention but with the wording to be decided. Any editor who objects to the close is welcome to contest it through the proper channel at WP:AN, but since the situation has not meaningfully changed since the prior discussion, a new RfC is in effect an instance of forum shopping. (Note that WP:CCC states that proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.) I would suggest that this RfC be given a procedural close, or refactored to present different options for the phrasing of the text. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

For reference, here is the prior close:

A rough consensus has emerged to include a concise mention of Reagan's remarks integrated into the narrative of the article body.

Those opposed to inclusion of the remarks argued that they were not notable because they were a single incident and have not yet been shown to have had a lasting impact on his legacy. Those in favor of inclusion countered that the remarks were notable as a characterization of Reagan's views on a major issue and cited widespread contemporary media coverage as evidence of their impact on his legacy.

Both sides' arguments were sufficiently grounded in policy that neither were discounted for quality reasons (although a handful of early !votes advising waiting were discounted as out of date), but the majority opinion (approximately 10 !votes for inclusion, vs. 5 !votes against), along with a noticeable trend toward inclusion, led to the result.

There was not enough discussion on specific wordings or placements for a consensus to emerge on those matters. Discussion about that may take place where it has begun in the section below, although editors are cautioned that they should use the results of this discussion as the launching point for that discussion.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Your previous close was problematic on several grounds. First, after the close you showed that you were not neutral on the subject and went as far as trying to solicit editors to insert the material from the RfC [10]. Second, your claim of rough consensus is very questionable given it could only be achieved if we assumed all who said to wait actually meant "yes". Since a number of the editors said wait and we are now 9 months later and no one in the previous 9 months acted on your closing I would say it's perfectly reasonable to start a new RfC. This RfC does not suggest a specific included text, rather the text that was added earlier today. Your claim of forum shopping doesn't apply since this is the same forum as the original RfC was not acted upon and the closing was quested. Springee (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of the previous "RfC" it's important to note that it was a never a RfC. It was a talk page survey of local editors. Note the lack of a RfC header etc prior to the "closing" [11]. Thus it is certainly improper to freeze the discussion and call it decided. It is not uncommon for local discussions to evolve into formal RfCs if the issue can be decided locally. Springee (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this be posted on a dispute resolution board? Because if the RFC was closed correctly......all this (i.e. new vote and discussion below) is improper and pointless.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The question was asked here [[12]]. My read is the editors who replied felt it was a bad close. However, since it wasn't a RfC in the first place it really was nothing more than one editor assessing the consensus as they saw it. Springee (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey - Reagan 1971 comment

• Oppose: As noted in previous RfC, it is not clear this off the record comment from 1971 is DUE for inclusion. This was a private conversation and there is no evidence Reagan knew it was being recorded. More importantly what impact will this have on his legacy? Wait and see was a central point made in the previous RfC. So far it doesn't appear this has impacted his legacy. Springee (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (with copyedit tweaks and maybe some trim) There are three main reasons:

• 1. WP:DUE: The fact that a President makes racist remarks is obviously WP:DUE and it makes my heart ache that we have to go through multiple RfCs to make sure these atrocious remarks are included in the article. The remarks obviously affect his legacy and are obviously pertinent information for a bio of a President. No one would have sought to remove well-sourced content on the racist views and remarks of other presidents, so why exclude it on this page? Once uncovered, the racist remarks were covered in every newspaper (national or international).[13][14][15] If new information about the invasion of Grenada, the Libya bombing and Project Socrates (all content included in the article) were to be revealed, it's hard to imagine it garnering the same amount of RS coverage as this reveal did (which just goes to show notable it was). Despite the fact that the uncovered remarks are less than one year old, there have already (!) been books and scholarly publications that make note of the remarks, including one that specifically remarks on how it affects Reagan's legacy.[16][17][18] Note that in many cases, it takes months and years to publish scholarly works. It's not a reasonable requirement for DUE that newspapers continuously cover the remarks made by a dead president or that multiple Reagan biographies must mention the remarks within a year of their reveal. Harvard Kennedy School political scientist Leah Wright Rigueur: "Now, we actually have a broader context about Ronald Reagan — one wherein he is using racial slurs and that he is, you know, he is talking about black people, and in this case Africans, in a pejorative and negative and regressive sense. So, now, what we have to do is reconcile that prejudice with Ronald Reagan's actual policies and programs and the things that he did on the ground."[19]
• 2. WP:NPOV: The omission of this content is a brazen violation of NPOV given that the article includes content that emphasizes Reagan's "opposition to racial discrimination", says that his opposition to racial discrimination was "unusual" and that he even preceded the civil rights movement in opposing racism. In saying so, the article cites an op-ed by the conservative National Review titled "Reagan, No Racist". How can it possibly be NPOV to include content that emphasizes how uniquely non-racist Reagan was while omitting remarks by him calling blacks "monkeys"? 
• 3. Racial bias on Wikipedia: The omission of this content would serve as a glaring example of Racial bias on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia's mostly white editors decide that racism at the highest level of power in the country is just not important enough to warrant mention. The content already meets DUE and NPOV – the only thing it doesn't meet is some editors' subjective view that racism just doesn't rate. These racist remarks were hidden and censored by archivists who sought to present Reagan in a misleading and flattering light. Is Wikipedia also going to do that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Items #3 is a horrible reason for inclusion. Recently an editor suggested we should relax RS standards because too many right leaning sources were being seen as unreliable.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Some_sources_should_be_promoted_for_the_sake_of_neutrality. Hemiachenia and others rightly said no. We add content per DUE in RS, not because people want it in the article. That is wp:RGW. Springee (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• RS support (including coverage in academic publications) has already been demonstrated and NPOV has already been demonstrated. The only thing motivating the exclusion of this content at this point is the subjective feeling of mostly white editors that racist slurs don't merit mention in the biography of a president. Edit: I just clicked on that link. Are you seriously likening the well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia to conservatives whining that they can't cite their favorite conspiracy websites? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the largest countries in the world that speak English-the United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia-have overwhelmingly white populations. Therefore, of course most Wikipedia editors are white. It would be shocking if they weren't. I reject the accusation that Wikipedia editors impose the inclusion of this content simply because of their own racial biases. Rather, the comment was made privately and has not recevied significant press coverage, and is therefore not notable. I also noticed that you had no problem voting in an RfC to oppose inclusion of racially controversial comments made by Joe Biden. [20] Are the votes in this RfC, including your own, another example of white racist Wikipedia editors trying to diminish racism, or is it acceptable because Biden is a Democrat? Display name 99 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between calling blacks "monkeys" and saying it's in black people's interests to vote for the Democratic Party. If Biden had called blacks "monkeys", it's completely unimaginable that his bio would not include that content and it's unimaginable that it would not have near-unanimous support for inclusion. One thing is for certain: none of the Oppose votes in this RfC would be demanding ten biographies about Biden that mention the remarks. None. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden said that black people weren't black if they didn't vote Democratic. That's different from saying that it's in their interest to vote that way. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's significant enough to be worth a mention, as part of Reagan's racial views. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, and there's no reason to whitewash the comments from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no RS's that state this quote reflected Reagan's racial views and implying or infering it by including it is an argument against inclusion. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Saying this is about a president making racist remarks is disingenuous because this was a decade before he became President. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why does it matter that he said racist slurs before he became President? This was not youthful indiscretion. This was a 60-year old Governor of California. If leaked transcripts show that Trump referred to black people with the N-word, would you argue that it doesn't belong in his bio because he happened to use the N-word before becoming President? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As I have said before (in the RFC): Not in my opinion. Seem to me to be a off-hand comment that is not a significant enough moment in his life. But there seems to be some dispute on the RFC closing. I am not one to go against a RFC. If the RFC says we do it, we do it. Perhaps a 3rd party can resolve the closure issue?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think this is really going against the closing since consensus can change. Snoogans edits frequently push to include negative material about the right side of politics. However, with some additional time they certainly can make a stronger case than could be made last fall. The news clips aren't much since in general they are all at the time of the audio release. With the way news cycles work such flash in the pan news often spreads fast but has little staying power. The two articles and the one book are a stronger case. Starting with the book, the author, E._J._Dionne thought it appears the Reagan comment is a singular mention. The Nevil-Shepard paper again only uses it as a brief quote in the article's conclusion. It doesn't drive any conclusions. The same is true of the Singh paper. Other than serving as a "soundbite" I'm not sure how this is driving the legacy of Reagan when placed against his very long list of notable actions, events etc. If due it would only be a small note in a larger section on race relations etc. Springee (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The criteria that scholarly publications need to make this quote the centerpiece of entire books and articles within a year of it's release is patently absurd and defies any understanding of how academia and scholarship works. It's a completely non-transparent attempt to keep it out by raising standards beyond any reasonable level. The fact that the quote already appears immediately in such publications is testament to its notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's not absurd. It goes to the question of WEIGHT. If the mention is only passing rather than to talk about the impact on Reagan and/or his legacy then yes, it has low weight. Springee (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Very little of the content in Wikipedia biographies of presidents has sources that explicitly say "this thing was key to this individual's legacy". It's an insane and non-transparently unreachable requirement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• That you don't understand the issue doesn't mean the issue isn't there. Sorry, Reagan as a person is a HUGH topic. Even with the sources you have tried to find (thanks web key word search!) they are hardly dwelling on it. They aren't saying our understanding of Reagan and race relations is different now vs before. That would be how you know the legacy has changed. Perhaps we will see that over the next 5 to 10 years but not so far. Springee (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. A future president of the United States, then the governor of the country's most populous state, made an overtly racist comment at the White House to the then-sitting president of the United States, who was also prone to racist statements. This is an important and illustrative incident in the long, ugly and sad history of overt racism at the highest levels of the U.S. government. As for the argument that the comment was "off the record", that does not hold water, since the comment was recorded by the same U.S. government tape recording system that proved Nixon's criminal behavior. Did Reagan say, "Hey, Dick, this is off the record"? No. The observation that the comment occurred before Reagan became president is irrelevant because this is the main biography article that covers Reagan's whole life, and we have another article about his presidency, where thus does not belong. Instead, it belongs in this very article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of nitpicking....I am fairly certain Reagan had no clue he was being recorded. Virtually no one outside of the White House knew of Nixon's recording system.(Until the Watergate committee started asking questions.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I can nitpick right back, Rja13ww33. Anybody sophisticated in Washington, DC at the time would have read columnists like Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson and would have known that White House conversations were frequently recorded by stenographers with pen and paper. Reagan freely chose to use the "monkey" slur, when he could easily have chosen less overtly racist language. So, the tape recordings just verified what lots of people already knew, that Reagan was perfectly willing to spout crude racism in order to try to bond with a racist president. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Anderson said prior to this point that "White House conversations were frequently recorded by stenographers with pen and paper"? I'd be interested to see a source on that. IIRC, Anderson said he got records & info on of White House meetings (even confidential ones). But this doesn't ring a bell. In any case, this comes across as a pretty casual conversation.....certainly not one that Reagan thought would be recorded.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I was not quoting or paraphrasing either Pearson or Anderson but simply stating what was common knowledge among people who read those political columnists during the LBJ and Nixon administrations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of it being known that JFK/LBJ was taping a lot of his conversations. I also recall Anderson getting inside info. But I don't recall at all it being well known (even in DC) that Nixon was recording his conversations. (IIRC, this was a surprise to the Watergate Committee.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This does not seem to be DUE. An unguarded and foolish remark in a private setting that seems to have produced little discussion since it was revealed a year ago, as it seems to play no significant role in understanding the subject. Shinealittlelight (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include. (Uninvolved editor comment). This is obviously well-sourced and relevant to understanding the subject. The objections range from ridiculous to, frankly, shameful. The article is full of trivia, so the claim that this is somehow below the notability threshold doesn't hold water. We learn in the article that Reagan, early in his career as an actor "gave speeches in favor of racial equality", but you want to suppress the fact that later, as a politician whose views swung rightward, he mocked African diplomats as "monkeys"? You want to omit it because it was an "unguarded" remark, or because he didn't realize the remark had been recorded, or because he made it before he was elected President? We include remarks because they're relevant and well-sourced, and the discrepancy between his public and private racial views is clearly relevant to understanding him. Moreover, we include a ton of material that took place before he became President, so rejecting this material on that basis is just silly. Come on. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If this is truly reflective of his "private racial views" and key to "understanding him"....one small question: why isn't there more of this? In a 93 year life, we have a grand total of one of these comments. Yes [before you get started], RR has been accused of using so-called "code" language politically. But no acquaintances (friend and foe alike) have mentioned him using this type of language. That's where my belief that this was not reflective of anything (other than the man he was trying to make nice with).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre. He was the kind of man who would "make nice" by mocking African diplomats as "monkeys" and shoeless savages. What is the minimum number of well-documented racist comments that you think would warrant inclusion? I mean, the article is literally chock-full of fulsome trivia with a fraction of the sourcing and relevance of this instance, so I'd like to understand your criteria. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how many I would want to include.....but before I would make such a sweeping statement (that this somehow shows his "private racial views"), I'd like to see a whole lot more. And really "monkeys"? I've heard white people call each other that. (Especially in the construction business.) Nothing bizarre about it to anyone with common sense and a sense of history.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been in the construction business for 36 years and have never once heard anybody call another human being a "monkey" like Reagan did. If I used that language as a young employee, I would have been fired promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You've been working with some interesting people then. I've heard anything (& everything). You've never heard the term "grease monkey" for example? (As in car repairs?) They even have oil change places named that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You're now positing that calling African people "monkeys" is somehow not racist, which, I suppose, shouldn't surprise me. I don't have anything further to say to you. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I am saying I don't know (100%) what his intent was. (And neither do you.) Would (by the way) the "savage" comment be ok if he had been talking about white people? If not, I'm gonna go burn every William Shirer book I have.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this is what Reagan said about hippies (who were overwhelmingly white): "A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane and smells like Cheeta." Sounds like he thought white people were monkeys too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The closer of this RfC should take into account that this user is incapable of discerning that calling blacks "monkeys" is racist, which clearly affects how this user determines DUE and NPOV (note that RS describe these comments as "racist" – so the user is also ignoring RS). It gets to the core of the Racial bias on Wikipedia that I addressed above: the inability of editors to understand what racism is and to downplay its importance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Note whatever you want. This isn't a place for you to grind axes (as another editor has noted). If we want this project to be successful and considered credible....we have to start looking like a encyclopedia. Pick up any encyclopedia you want (other than this one) and tell me where you see this stuff. The intent here is not a complete bio (ala Lou Cannon's book).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This editor also opposed the inclusion of any content that referred to the Reagan administration's policy on apartheid in South Africa, even though it was important by any standard (Congress in a rare move overturned Reagan's veto on sanctions against South Africa).[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I felt that was adequately covered elsewhere (linked here). You wanted to have that in the lead.....and that was shot down via RFC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen in the link above, you are opposing any mention of the subject anywhere in the article (whether in the body or the lead). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and you wanted it in the lead. So we've both been overruled once on this subject. Your point?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning here per Shinealittlelight, but support mentioning at Political positions of Ronald Reagan per Masem. Yes, what he said was terrible and cringeworthy. However, as Shinealittlelight says, it was a private comment that is not necessary to understand the subject and has generated very little discussion since it was discovered. I'd also say that it runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS (little lasting coverage, it left the headlines as quickly as it appeared). JOEBRO64 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The expectation here is that newspapers should continuously cover 50-year old remarks by a president who has been dead for 15 years? This is a transparent attempt to exclude the content by raising the bar for inclusion to ludicrously unreachable heights. Note also that this user disregards the fact that academic publications and books have ALREADY covered these remarks, even though such publications take a long time, which demonstrates just how notable the remarks are. The user also doesn't address the NPOV violation that stems from the article emphasizing how uniquely non-racist Reagan was while omitting this content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The point is Wikipedia should follow the sources. I wouldn't expect newspapers to continuously cover the story, but if it's not being covered significantly in biographies, etc., then its importance is not clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The comments were suppressed (to protect Reagan's image) until mid-2019. I'm not aware that any major biographies have been published since the remarks were made public. More to the point, I'm not aware of any requirement - in either the letter or spirit of policy - that an item must appear in a printed biography, rather than in other reliable sources, to warrant inclusion. Its importance is demonstrated by extensive coverage in reliable sources, cited here and elsewhere. There are plenty of things in the article that don't meet the arbitrary criteria being applied to this specific item. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snoogan's you have made your opinion clear. Please do not bludgeon the process. Springee (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose a brief mention offhand in a private conversation is simply giving it WP:UNDUE weight vioting NPOV. Furthermore, there is no evidence this comment has impacted his legacy and WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned earlier, the article already suffers from a lack of cohesive focus. Adding in the above text would just be another factoid without context. I'm sure an article could be produced about Reagan's racial opinions and politics beyond the political position article, or at the least a cohesive section based on the scholarship that's out there, but as of now I wouldn't say there's enough of it to justify inclusion on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per pretty much all of the above comments. In the grand scheme of things this one-off comment is utterly irrelevant to his legacy. Calidum 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose-This is a private off-hand comment that Reagan made when he did not know that he is being recorded. It has received very little coverage since it recently became public knoweldge. It is not notable for inclusion. Display name 99 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support because I do not believe the comment can reliably be characterized as "just a gaffe" or one-off, and because it also in itself has generated significant discussion in contemporary media.

The fact that Reagan was willing to use clear slurs in reference to black people based on their race is strongly relevant to wider discussions of his political career, including his gun control legislation vis-à-vis the Black Panthers, his stance on apartheid in South Africa, and his extremely low approval rating with African-Americans, all of which are points already brought up in the article, to varying degrees. (Not only did he call the African delegates "monkeys", he later referred to them as "cannibals", according to NYT. These are both extremely loaded terms that make clear reference to stereotyped portrayals of Africa as savage, uncivilized ("They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes"), and animalistic. To argue these are not racial slurs is absurd.)

Additionally, it is untrue that the audio has not generated significant coverage already. A quick Google test of "ronald reagan african american" brings five articles about the remarks to the top (in Washington Post, New York Times, The Atlantic, Forbes and BBC) in addition to a slew of others (National Review, New Yorker, CBC, and others). It clearly is a point of public interest. These articles all grapple with Reagan's legacy (e.g. Forbes' opinion piece, "Should We Still Admire Ronald Reagan?" and the articles about Reagan's daughter being brought to tears when hearing the comments). I will also note that the comments were covered in Chinese-language media as well, including by major Taiwanese newspapers UDN and The Storm and PRC outlet The Observer.

The comment has also made its way into peer-reviewed academic literature and published books less than one year after their revelation, a clear indication of the impact it has had on consideration of Reagan as a person and politician. Including only sources publicly accessible:

Singh (June 2020), "Race, culture, and economics: an example from North-South trade relations" in Review of International Political Economy. (Full text available)

Dionne (2020), Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country, New York: St. Martin's Press. (Google books view of page)

Adorf (2019), Die Republikanische Partei in den USA, Munich: UVK Verlag. (page 77 of the Google Books text)

In short, in the space of less than one year, the comment has generated significant coverage within the United States and elsewhere, and has been evaluated in academic and popular literature already with reference to the legacy of Reagan as politician by American and German authors. It is notable, sustained coverage and should thus be included. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said about the Singh and Dionne sources above, E.J. Dionne uses it as a singular comment to support an already existing claim. Note the author said of the comment, "Many liberals said the uncovered tape simply confirmed what they country had known about Reagan and his party all along." So the author said it supports the biases the other side of the table already had about Reagan. So what changed? The same is true of the Singh paper didn't use the comment to draw any conclusions. It appears as a "soundbite" but little more. Since I don't speak German I can't comment on the specifics of how the quote was used there but so far none of these examples are suggesting it changes the way history sees the man or his legacies. Other than serving as a soundbite how is this driving the legacy of Reagan when placed against his very long list of notable actions, events etc. Keep in mind that no one is arguing this shouldn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia about Reagan, just not in the top level article on the man. Springee (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The standard for WP:DUE expressed here is that these remarks need to be the centerpiece of academic scholarship, which is not only completely unreachable (95% content in presidential bios would not meet it) but shows a glaring failure to understand how academic scholarship works. No one in academia writes books and articles about one sentence made by a President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much everything that came up (in the Google search) was around the time of the release of the tape. (Or from partisan sources.) This thing fell off fairly quickly. Also, you are kind of contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you want to say this is racial.....but on the other you say it Reagan has "stereotyped portrayals of Africa as savage, uncivilized ("They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes"), and animalistic." Now that's interesting. So if Reagan had such a image of Africa.....how exactly is it racial? After all, you are aware that Africa has a numerous ethnicities, races, etc living there correct?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - this is historically significant, as the sources cited above indicate. Recent research by historians of course should be included, especially when it has attracted significant attention from both scholars and the public. Timothy Naftali, the historian (and the former head of the Nixon Presidential Library) who uncovered the recording, has commented extensively on the matter and its implications (see, e.g., NPR, New Yorker). Reagan's record on race issues has obviously been a source of enduring interest (see, e.g., Shull 1993, reissued 2018).

Most of these "oppose" comments should be discounted because they lack a rationale in Wikipedia policy. Some are just baffling. The idea that we should exclude this because it was a "private," "unguarded, or "off-hand" remark makes no sense - what's policy basis for this? None. As an encyclopedia, we recount significant "private" comments of many leaders. The idea that this should not be included because it was "a decade before he became president" is also totally irrelevant and frankly bizarre in light of the fact that (1) Reagan was the governor of California at the time and (2) this biography recounts a number of details (and some trivia) from Reagan's youth, his military service, etc. Neutrality^talk 16:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that "ignore the other side" thinking is BS. All of this is based on editor's evaluation of DUE. There isn't a bright line that says "DUE" (unlike say 3RR where we can all say "clear violation"). Editors are trying to decide if this specific content should be in the top level Reagan article. We aren't debating if it should be excluded from one of the many subtopics. The question is if it should be in the top level article. That raises the bar for DUE. Springee (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The closer will determine due weight. But in doing so, the closer should obviously discount arguments based on patently illogical premises, like "a private comment means that inclusion would be improper or undue wright." Neutrality^talk 17:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course the closer should obviously discount arguments that don't support the result you want. Springee (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion and I am really just baffled as to why anyone would see this issue otherwise. When Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib calls Trump a motherfucker at a small gathering that is not being televised but someone records her and posts it to YouTube you can bet your bottom dollar that we're including that incident in our bio of this Muslim woman of color. To refuse to publish this is just like spitting in the face of people of color who are finally seeing some progress being made in their long fight for equal and fair treatment.Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Assuming Ms. Tlaib isn't dead, it's probably having some impact on her life (politically or otherwise). That's the big difference between something that comes out decades after someone dies and something that comes out about a active politician.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It's hard for me to reply without being sarcastic so I will say only that your logic is clearly flawed, or in other words you are not making any sense. Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it or is it not having a impact on Ms. Tlaib's life and/or image? You can't see that difference? The debate as to the impact on Reagan's image is on going on this page.....and obviously there is no impact on his life.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• 'Support - there is a clear public interest in the comments being included and arguably add further context to political decisions that he took while in office. Sources cited above show that there is sufficient coverage - and I think recent scrutiny on former public figures attitudes further crystallizes that this merits inclusion. Best, Darren-M talk 09:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - this is deeply revelatory, as showing what a man who is still seen in some circles as benignly clueless really thought about African people, and said out loud to a major political ally. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• All too true. Despite the fact that he is responsible for one of my favourite quotes this confirms what I have thought for a long time, that Reagan was neither benign nor clueless. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. ~ HAL333 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per UNDUE and NPOV. Maybe this could be included on his governorship article where it would be more relevant, as that looks at a more narrow section of Reagan's life. But I fail to see how this comment, not known to the public until 2019, was one of the most notable/significant things about Reagan's life and legacy, which included his time as an actor, as governor, and as president. Inclusion in his biographical article feels undue. I also have to assume there is POV at work here; I'm not saying anyone has acted in bad faith, but I fail to believe people's negative views of Reagan are not leaning their vote toward inclusion ( I guess you could argue pro-Reagan views go the opposite way but I have no strong feeling either way and was not alive during his presidency). Ultimately, it is just a government official who said something racist in a private conversation, that was eventually revealed decades later. He didn't lose his job because of it, and this comment has not had any real effect on Reagan's legacy as far as I can tell. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion As WhinyTheYounger notes in their support statement, the comments were covered in a significant number of reliable sources in the news media about the release of the recording, as well as the meaning of the statement as part of Reagan's legacy. Additionally, on other internet sites where people gather to discuss current topics of interest, people discussed the comments and how it would affect Reagan's legacy, and these observations and views were covered in the reliable sources. Additionally, from the time of the release until now, historians and others doing analysis of Reagan, Reagan's policy, and the United States policy during the Reagan era are now including the comments in their conclusions. Together this is strong support for the proposed text more than satisfying DUE because of the importance of the topic in context to Reagan's influence of public policy as the Gov. of CA and President of the US. Documentation of hidden racist ideology is significant because of the history of racism in politics in the United States. This is why reliable sources are covering and why it should not be left out of his Wikipedia article when discussing his legacy. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, several hours after his call with Reagan, Nixon made reference to Reagan's racist comment in a telephone call to William P. Rogers, his administration's Sec. of State. So, although this comment was hidden from the public for many years, it was reflected in Nixon's management of Reagan (a popular and rising influence in the Republican Party) and the UN situation. REAGAN, NIXON, AND RACE, UVA Miller Center, 2019 This supports the significance of comment and supports why it should be include according to policy about due weight. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:UNDUE. If Reagan had a history of making similar comments, I'd change my mind.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. It is demonstrably relevant and notable. There is significant coverage of his comment in high-quality reliable sources, and this would merit inclusion even if this were a WP:BLP. Snooganssnoogans makes a strong argument that "The omission of this content is a brazen violation of NPOV". I am unaware of any strong, relevant policy-based arguments in favour of "oppose" and I disagree with the reasoning behind several of the "oppose" votes: (1) The WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS policy is only relevant to situations where there is no verifiable coverage in reliable sources. (2) Too many arguments are disregarding reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies. Arguments should not be based on the opinions of editors as to whether they personally think the comment was off-hand, significant, a one-off, defensible or not racist. Per WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. (3) Some editors have mentioned that he made the comment in private without providing any reason why this would merit exclusion from the page. Using the same reasoning, Donald Trump's page would not mention the Access Hollywood tape. There is no policy regarding omission of private discussions. (4) The WP:NOTNEWS policy is relevant to trivial details which is clearly not applicable here. (5) Another "oppose" argument was that we should wait to see what impact it will have on his legacy. There is a good reason why this is not a policy – if this standard was applied consistently across Wikipedia's articles on people it would result in essentially no up-to-date information and only extremely limited content would be included at all. If the same arguments in favour of "oppose" were applied consistently to the rest of the Reagan page, very little of the page as it stands currently would remain. CowHouse (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not so much a policy based argument but an opinion. Like the opinions to exclude it has merit but it incorrectly discounts the other side of the issue. First, Snoogan's NPOV argument is flawed as discussed above and my comment below. I'm not sure anyone has suggested RGW and a reason for exclude. If nothing else it would seem that is why people want to include it. The wrong being that Reagan was clearly acting in a racist fashion all along and now we have proof. (2) None of the arguments disregard RS or other policies. No one has claimed the sources aren't reliable. Rather they focus on WEIGHT. One needs to remember that Reagan's life is an enormous topic. The current article is already 5x too long per Wiki standards. This weight argument doesn't mean the content doesn't fit into one of the many Reagan sub-articles but that it doesn't have sufficient weight for inclusion in this one. You quote weight yet that very section provides the reason for excluding it here. This is quote is not prevalent or even relevant in the vast volumes of Reagan sources. (3) The comparison to the Trump Access Hollywood tape is flawed. The AH tape had an immediate impact on Trump's election campaign and was one of the things that almost cost him the election. This tape had no impact on Reagan during his life. All people can do with it is speculate what it suggests about his actual feelings with respect to a complex subject. Had it come out around the time the tape was made it might have cost Reagan an election but that isn't the case. Since it was in private modern writers are left to either talk about what it does to Reagan's legacy or infer what they think it means with regards to his actual views on race relations etc. (4) Not news does apply here since this had a splash of coverage at the time and little since. Yes, it has been quoted in some scholarship but not in a way that is being used to say "this quote changes what we know". Thus it isn't changing what the writers conclude. (5) Actually this "wait and see" is based on policy. It's based on WEIGHT. If the view of Reagan and people's discussions of Reagan don't change then it diminishes the significance of this quote. That makes it a question of weight. That also means people who oppose based on WEIGHT are making a policy based argument.

Finally, I will repeat my weight argument from below.[[22]] Remember, this article is 5x longer than Wikipedia recommends. We should be cutting not adding. So how would this content be added? Far too often we see low quality additions to Wiki articles where an editor inserts a damning quote but they says nothing about how the reader should interpret the quote. That is very problematic since it allows the reader to imply or assume something out of the quote that is not supported by RSs. So here is the question, if included, what should the reader take away from the quote? If we place it without telling the reader what to make of it then we are allowing the reader to come away with assumptions that aren't in the RSs. That makes it a kind of OR. Alternatively, we can try to find articles that tell us what this quote means (those sources have been few) but by the time we add the quote and the explanation we have given way to much prominence to a minor aspect of Reagan. It would make more sense in a section about Reagan's views on race to summarize several sources which might include one that includes this quote but not put the quote in the article. Basically there is no way to integrate such a quote into the article without spending a considerable amount of space talking about it so the reader knows what to make of it. That large amount of space then becomes too much WEIGHT devoted to the single quote (why not devote as much or more space to his actions on the subject vs a private quote who's context is murky)? The oppose based on weight arguments are policy based. Springee (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle said "WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS". The policy is about original research ("even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"). Citing that policy in this discussion is a red herring and irrelevant since, as you said, "No one has claimed the sources aren't reliable."

Reagan's comment only became public knowledge less than a year ago, and "vast volumes of Reagan sources" were written before this so of course the quote was not prevalent before the public knew about it.

Several editors in favour of "oppose" have emphasised that Reagan's comment was made in private. The relevant similarity was that Trump's comment was also made in private but it was nevertheless included in his page because, once again, there is no policy against including private comments. Pointing out the differences between Reagan's comment and the Access Hollywood tape ignores this point and is an attempt at moving the goalposts. The tape had no impact on Reagan while he was alive because it was not made public during his lifetime.

Even if you are correct that there has been little recent coverage, which you seem to have conceded is not entirely true, WP:NOTNEWS does not say that ongoing coverage is necessary for inclusion. There is no requirement that any the content on the Reagan page has to change people's view of him so I am not sure why you made that point.

The article could and arguably should be condensed but an improved shorter article can also have content not currently included in the page. I cannot agree with your point since you could hypothetically make an appeal to length in order to omit any new information on this page regardless of content or policy.

I agree that there is a policy-based argument for WP:WEIGHT, but it would be to ensure the comment is given the appropriate amount of weight when included. I cannot see how anything written in the WP:WEIGHT policy supports exclusion in this context.

The assumptions a person makes after reading a quote on Wikipedia is not "a kind of OR". I should also point out that it has not been established that this quote's "context is murky" and it is "a minor aspect of Reagan". Your view is certainly contentious. CowHouse (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that most of the volumes of work about Reagan were written before this recording was known. But that doesn't change the fact that most don't talk about it and it's WP:CHRYSTAL to assume they will going forward. Yes, several editors have emphasized the private nature of the comment but again in comparison to Trump where the comments came out during a campaign the impact on Reagan vs Trump is very different. Contrary to what you are suggesting, WEIGHT as part of NPOV can be a reason for removal from an article. Finally, yes context and presentation of quotes does matter. If it didn't then perhaps everyone would be fine not using the specific quote at all and just summarizing things. "In a 1971 recording released in 2019 Reagan used racial slurs". Regardless, that he said it isn't grounds for inclusion. What happens as a result is what we would base inclusion on. That means explaining to the reader why this quote was significant enough to include. If we can do that without UNDUE weight on the topic then we shouldn't include the quote. Springee (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL policy would be relevant if we added speculation about how people in the future would view Reagan's comment. The proposed text that I supported does not contain any speculation or presumptions. There is no policy which says "[w]hat happens as a result is what we would base inclusion on." Significance for inclusion has been established through the coverage in multiple high-quality reliable sources, not merely because "he said it".

No two private conversations have an identical context. It is a waste of time to point out the differences between them while ignoring the relevant point that several editors suggested private conversations should not be included at all. For example, your own oppose vote said This was a private conversation and there is no evidence Reagan knew it was being recorded. The argument that his comment did not have an impact during his life is an entirely separate, but equally flawed, point. Given you are making this point about a quote that was not made public during his lifetime then, according to your argument, Reagan could have said literally anything on the tape and it would still not merit inclusion.

WP:WEIGHT can be a justification for removal of content, I agree. However, I said "in this context". Please show me anything in the policy which supports exclusion in this context. CowHouse (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Support - this revelation received widespread media coverage and is highly relevant given the role of race as a frequent third rail issue in American politics. It should of course be properly contextualized but that does not mean excluding it from the article. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Simply not enough meat to add this. It appears to be a classically UNDUE situation. The proponent of this all but is calling anyone who opposes this a racist. Least we forget “Abraham Lincoln freed the black man, In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. . . . Where others — white and black — preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence.”[23].--MONGO (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Supportinclusion. Let people make their own assessment.Markewilliams (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Textbook undue weight. The amount of rebuttal quotes over his entire life for proper context would overwhelm the article focusing on an insignificant private moment of his life describing three individuals that he was quarreling. It offers no insight on his overall views on race and no RS have posited that it does. Creating inferences is beyond encyclopedic. It is certainly an offensive comment but not enough to judge his views on an entire race or nationality and creating that perception is beyond the pale. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the insignificance of it in the grand scheme of his life and presidency takes it beyond UNDUE. Does inclusion have encyclopedic value? No. What value does it have if all anyone can do is imply racism which cannot be factually proven? Cherrypicking insignificant incidents in history to denigrate notable people over something as insignificant as an insult during a phone discussion serves no good purpose. NOT SOAPBOX, ADVOCACY, RGW. The man is dead and can't defend himself. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose UNDUE for the main article, possibly DUE for one of the sub-articles. (I see it is already included in the "Political positions of" sub-article.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Clear WP:UNDUE violation. This is a single off-hand comment from Reagan that doesn't come anywhere close to defining his biography. WP biographies aren't intended to include every minor comment/incident, particularly one like this which hasn't had any real impact on Reagan's image. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Sure, this was one offhand comment. But Wikipedia is not the arbiter of weight. The arbiters of weight are reliable sources, and without a doubt this "offhand comment" has been extensively detailed in reliable sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Dozens of reliable sources have articles specifically about the remarks. In fact, going down the green section of WP:RSP we have articles about it in The Atlantic, ABC, the BBC, CBC, CBS, CNN, The Telegraph, various Fox branches, The Guardian, The Hill, The Independent, NBC, The New York Times, The New Yorker, NPR, Reuters, Sky News, Time, The Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post, as well as non-English language sources such as Le Monde, La Vanguardia, TV Asahi, etc, and mentions in The Associated Press, Buzzfeed News, and Slate. You get the idea. That said, I feel the current phrasing could be condensed (although his daughter's response may have received enough coverage to mention briefly). What about: In 2019, a recording was released of a phone conversation from 1971 between then-President Richard Nixon and then-Governor Reagan in which Reagan can be heard saying, "those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!“. This was in reference to United Nations delegation from Tanzania, which had opposed the United States in a vote to officially recognize the People’s Republic of China. When the tape was initially released in 2000, the racist portion had been edited out. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as UNDUE in the biography. It may be DUE in another article, e.g. one about his views or positions. But one racist comment... seriously? Why are we highlighting this racist comment? You can kind of break it down logically:
  1. Is this the only racist comment Reagan ever made in his life? Of course not. So why are we quoting this comment?
  2. Is this a famous Reagan comment? No, nobody even knew he said this until last year. This comment did not have any impact on anything during Reagan's lifetime, because very few people even knew about it.
  3. Is this comment indicative of Reagan's views? How do we know? Well, if there are a lot of other comments like this one, then we can say "Reagan made a lot of racist comments". There is no need to quote or highlight this one particular comment, if it's part of a larger trend of making racist comments. If it's not part of a larger trend (or if we don't have RS to support saying "Reagan made a lot of racist comments" in wikivoice), then that's how we know including it is UNDUE :-)
  4. Is this comment indicative of Reagan's views (part 2)? Maybe in 1971. What about the rest of his life? Is there something about his racist views as governor of California in 1971 that would merit highlighting that particular year in his life? Did he do something racist as governor in 1971? If so, the comment might be DUE in the context of discussing Reagan's racism in 1971 (which means, include it in an article about his governorship, or his views and positions). If not, then it's UNDUE.
• To me, all roads lead to UNDUE in this article. It's a single statement made in a private call in 1971, years before he was president, that no one knew about until after his death. By the way, "Reagan was racist" is not some kind of revelation. You can pretty much bet that every single white man in power has said something like that at some point. It's not really a revelation that white people are racist or call black people monkey's. Do we think there's a problem with race in America because no Americans are racist? The only thing that makes this quote special is that it was recorded. Believe, it's not like this was the only time ever that Reagan and Nixon said racist things to each other on the phone. Reagan's views on race are DUE; this particular quote has shock value, but not DUE value. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion - Reagan 1971 comment

Comment about prior RfC The previous RfC has a questionable close. The closing editor was uninvolved with the Reagan article at the time of closing but immediately became involved and with a clear POV on what should be included. This is not to say the POV was or was not valid, only that it was not neutral with respect to the topic. Further evidence that the closing was not neutral can be found here where the editor is asking for other editors to put the content into the article. It is notable that despite the RfC closing the content was not added until 9 months later. Additionally, by a !vote count the consensus was at best 10:5 if we assume all the conditional yes/wait for now opinions were "yes". If we consider those as abstain for the time then it was a clear no consensus. Since we have had at least a bit of time since this release we can reassess if history has decided this is a significant part of Reagan's legacy. Springee (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible canvasing an involved editor has notified Project:Discrimination [24]. I'm not sure how this can be considered neutral. Springee (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment (Seeing mention of this on Jimbo's page) Is there any more context on any possible claims towards Reagan's views on race here? Just because he made these racist statements that were scrubbed from the "official" record and only recently revealed doesn't given much context to why they are immediately relevant, though I can clearly see the concern of why they would want to be highlighted. I think more should be added to Political_positions_of_Ronald_Reagan#Civil_rights before this statement can be added - there's got to be academic studies and the like that give more depth to this aspect to give more context. If more context can be provided, then per all other policies and guidelines this is fair game for inclusion, but it just should be part of a better "narrative" to explain his views and attitude on race/racism. Masem (t) 23:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I tried to provide additional context on the topic of Reagan and race in this edit[25] but it was of course promptly reverted and there's a complete unwillingness by the gate-keepers on this page to even discuss the inclusion of any content unless it emphasizes how uniquely non-racist Reagan was (which the article currently does). Note that Reagan is notable in the academic literature in terms of "dog-whistle politics" on the subject of race (i.e. it's part of his legacy), yet we are not allowed to even broach the subject. That the 'Oppose' votes in the RfC above insist that there must be extensive scholarship on a topic for it to be deemed worthy of inclusion, yet they fight to exclude content with extensive scholarship, is indicative of how flexible the goalposts are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The "dog whistle" stuff is covered in other pages (linked to) in this article. You still haven't figured out concepts of WP:WEIGHT & WP:POV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Don't put it on this page, put it on his political positions page, where there is already mention to a degree. I think it needs more there though to better justify it. I would have to agree with how little that the racism aspects are covered on the political positions page that to bring that up into this page is improper at this point as undue; it's just not well-established as a consistent ... theme? of his Presidency to be called out at a top level page. --Masem (t) 00:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The author of this book about the Republican Party finds this statement important enough to include. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, there have been two books and two academic journal articles about this 11-month old issue. But why haven't there been 20 books and 20 articles about these remarks in the last 11 months??! We all know that an 11-month old issue isn't important unless it's been the subject to dozens of academic treatments within those 11 months. /s Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. It remains to be seen how much (if any) this will impact his image. A handful of obscure references (and on-line articles by organizations with a clear left wing agenda) aren't particularly persuasive. When objective, notable historians (people like James Patterson, David M. Kennedy, etc) start including this in their bios.....or if this becomes more regular in other treatments (as another poster noted: media coverage fell off fairly quickly on this).....then it is probably worth including. It would be worth including anyway if this article was long enough.....but it has already been criticized (previously) for being too long as it is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd take this comment seriously if you weren't shamelessly hypocritical (in the talk page section below, you're fighting for the inclusion of primary source content) and racially biased (unable to discern that it's racist to call blacks "monkeys"). I'd also like to note that of all the 'Oppose' vote above (by editors who claim to be against the inclusion of content that's not very very thoroughly supported as DUE by a large literature), none of them have bothered to chip in on the inclusion of primary source content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you refer to the drug section.....that was a case of you wanting to delete a argument (which I found was backed by RS). You wanted to keep the arguments you agree with and omit the ones you don't (even though they were backed by RS). That's not NPOV. (And this is coming from someone who wants to legalize drugs....to show you a example of someone who can put their personal beliefs aside and edit objectively.) The rest of your comments are the same old personal attacks that I have replied to.....and don't feel the need to reply to anymore.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The book that I cited shows that this has already impacted Reagan's image, being an academic study of the history, present and future of the Republican Party that includes this as something relevant to its topic. It is neither an "obscure reference" nor an "on-line article by an organization with a clear left wing agenda". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems pretty obscure to me. (Even more obscure author.) One reference to make this case (after just one year) isn't enough.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It's one more reference on top of those identified above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question for inclusion What should inclusion of this quote mean or indicate? This isn't a flippant question as this is an encyclopedia and as such we shouldn't include things without some sort of obvious reason why/how this helps the reader better understand the subject. In a biography we include birth date and location because those are self explanatory. For similar reasons we would include death and cause of death. However, if we include a quote the question has to be why. I admit this question is often not asked when quotes are added to biographies of people when politics is involved. Still, if the quote is added how would it be added? What sources support the context? Often on Wikipedia such a quote would be added with some factual statement about where it came from.

In a 1971 private meeting with Nixon Reagan said, [quote].

OK, what is the reader suppose to get out of this? Clearly some will take it as proof that Reagan was a closet racist and it confirms all the dog whistle accusations thrown at him over the years. But is that stated by multiple RSs? Do others dispute it? If we are going to include a very inflammatory quote we must also include expert interpretation of that quote else we are inviting the readers to jump to their own conclusions which may not be supported by RSs. This is one of the big problems with the inclusion of "sound bite" type quotes. Without context, explanation to explain why they are important and how experts have interpreted these quotes we open the article up to the equivalent of "click bait" comments. So if the comment is included what sources will provide a full context (and all POV on how to interpret the comment)? Are those sources really to tell us what to think about Reagan or just to support their existing ideas regarding left vs right? That is, are they saying "this tells us something about Reagan" or are they saying "this tells us something about Republicans"? Will that full inclusion result in an unduely long paragraph to talk about this comment? Many are saying it's obvious to include but absent a proposal for the context of how including what experts say about the quote in context of Reagan (not politics in general) we have the WEIGHT issue that many have been concerned about. Springee (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Excellent points. It definitely is unencyclopedic. I've got about five old sets of encyclopedias around here and you don't see this sort of stuff in any of them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Understanding racial bias on Wikipedia – I just want to document this for our future readers, as they try to understand racial bias on Wikipedia: this RfC spurred two administrators' noticeboard threads. Those threads were not about the fact that Wikipedia editors claim that it's not necessarily racist to call blacks "monkeys" or that racist slurs are "utterly irrelevant". Rather, the 'Oppose' votes (including an administrator) were offended by the fact that MastCell said on Jimbo Wales's talk page that it was "shameful" to reject that "monkeys" is a racist slur, and that I had called out the racial bias inherent in trivializing racism.[26] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Gaffe: I was unaware of this discussion and put my foot straight in it by adding this bit of history, (which was then removed). Is an RfC banner on the edit page possible, to prevent the likes of me? (Will check general Talk first next time.)

I find it important to include that which reveals, by his own admission/utterance, that the top public policy maker in the most powerful country on earth demonstrated a scathing racial bias. Prominently displaying the influential thinking that feeds systemic racism is a duty of historians. Having jumped the gun, I digress. J.D.718 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The "War on Drugs" was a success because [Insert correlation]

The following line is in the article:

• Defenders of the [War on Drugs] effort point to success in reducing rates of adolescent drug use which they attribute to the Reagan administrations policies: marijuana use among high-school seniors declined from 33 percent in 1980 to 12 percent in 1991.

The line is sourced to primary sources (an interview with a former Drug Czar who clearly has a stake in the matter). The content is not defensible. There's an enormous academic literature on the subject, so there's no excuse to include idiotic content about correlations from a person who clearly has a conflict of interest. There are countless factors that may affect rates of drug use, and there are academic studies that use various strategies to draw causal inferences. It's absurd to include this content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So why not write up a summary of this "academic literature" that disputes this (with RS cited) and lets take a look?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that the academic literature disputes the text above. I'm saying that the text should rely on the academic literature or at the very least on secondary RS coverage (such as newspaper coverage). The text in the article shouldn't be sourced to primary sources, in particular on controversial subjects and on subjects with extensive secondary literatures. It's pretty tendentious of you to insist that I need to source any content that I want to add to academic publications and run it by you first whereas you can add piss-poor content sourced to primary sources and will revert anyone who contests the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If the claim is backed by "academic literature", I see nothing wrong with keeping what supporters argue (with this RS added in). In your previous edit, you wanted to eliminate the reduction in drug use in it's entirety. You are now admitting it is backed up by RS. Seems to me that your approach was wrong.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. I'm neither saying that the content is backed up nor refuted by the academic literature (I have no idea if it is). I'm saying that text on Wikipedia should be sourced to RS and the quote in OP isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So you claim there is "enormous academic literature on the subject".....you just don't know what any of it says? Ok. Well, I'll see if I can find a RS to back this up and add it in. Otherwise, we can reduce it to something he claims.....ok?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Found this [27]. To quote: "...a 12th grader in 1978 was fully 3 times as likely to be a current marijuana user (defined as any use in the past 30 days) as a 12th grader in 1992 (prevalence rates of 37% vs. 12%)." There is also a chart illustrating this on p.889 of the article. Since this is the American Journal of Public Health, I assume there are no RS issues. So I would assume everyone would be ok with me adding this as a RS for Dr. Kleber's (quite correct) claims?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The source does not as far as I can tell attribute the change to the War on Drugs or Reagan's policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's why the text "which they [supporters] attribute to the [the reagan admin's efforts]" was added. We are clearly presenting the opinions of supporters of this policy.....and are not necessarily saying they are right. We cannot present the detractors case only (for outcomes; as you wanted to do) and leave out the other side of the argument. That is not NPOV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to build a case for one side. That's original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We are here to present a balanced perspective. The fact you want to include the criticism and exclude the arguments of supporters (whose data is backed by RS) says it all. I (believe it or not) am a serous critic of the drug war and question the connection made there as well. But NPOV means putting aside one's personal feelings and editing fairly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the Reagan administration's War on Drugs is sourced to an overview article by PBS: "Mandatory minimums become increasingly criticized over the years for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine."[28] The criticism is also so notable as to be the subject of an article (Race and the war on drugs) and substantiated by a large academic literature which shows that the War on Drugs indeed did boost racial disparities. That the Reagan administration's policies successfully reduced drug consumption should likewise be sourced to excellent RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazing what you do know the "academic literature" literature says and what you don't. In any case, there is nothing wrong with including the argument of a supporter(s) claims. (Especially if it is backed by RS.) We clearly delineate his opinion from causation. It is impossible to prove causation.....but that doesn't mean we can omit the arguments of supporters.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Springee, since you in the RFC above claim to be a stickler for a high DUE bar, can you please instruct Rja13ww33 that content sourced to a primary source does not meet DUE, and that we need to source content to high-quality RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans [[29]] Springee (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The brazen hypocrisy is not surprising in the least at this point, but thank you for once again confirming it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The brazen incivility is not surprising. If you have a problem with another editor you ask them, not me. Springee (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I can verify the 12% in 1992 number but the 1980 number seems off (this same report suggests it ought to be much higher). Public Health Report v170 issue 3 "PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, PEOPLE", 1992. Also this Monitoring the Future also gives facts for long term studies that match the statements but point out that that 1991/1992 was right when the curves bottomed out (fig 5-4a pg 272). --Masem (t) 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reagan's greatest regret

I didn't remove the statement from the article. But it is a strong statement and the source appears weak. "Years later, no-fault divorce became Reagan's greatest regret." TOP IOWA CONSERVATIVE: Divorce Is Not The Answer to Domestic Violence Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I would expect to see the source for such a strong statement to come from a more in depth look at Reagan and one that was not as self serving. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)