Talk:Ronald Reagan

Rumors of Alzheimer's disease

The portion of the article that refers to rumors spreading after the '84 debate links to a piece that doesn't say anything about this. The specific line is "His confused and forgetful behavior was evident to his supporters; they had previously known him to be clever and witty. Rumors began to circulate that Reagan had Alzheimer's disease." But I don't see this discussed anywhere in citation 237 (https://web.archive.org/web/20080125155140/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/newshour/84_1stprez-analysis.html). If this is true (that Reagan's debate performance led to Alzheimer's speculation) then it needs a different source. Lcduke (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Lcduke

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.

Racist remarks to President Nixon

+

Yesterday I added this brief paragraph about Reagan's racism but it was deleted with the comment that no consensus has been reached but without invocation of any WP objection. I think it's important on its own and because it may shed light on some of Reagan's views and policies affecting African Americans.

In discussing diplomats of African countries at the United Nations voting against a position supported by the United States government, Reagan told President Richard Nixon: "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”

References

--NYCJosh (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Like the person said (that removed it): no consensus has been reached (see the section above) on it's addition.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, if we were to add such a section....having the heading "Racist remarks to President Nixon" is inappropriate and not NPOV. Even on (for example) Al Campanis's page, we do not introduce his remarks (on Nightline) with such a heading/label.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"No consensus" is not a valid reason to remove a contribution in the absence of an objection based on WP rules. To what section above are you referring? --NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No census is a very valid reason to remove a section. It's the whole point of having the section. The section I refer to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#Newly_released_audio.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The remark itself might be worth mentioning if it can be integrated with the text. But giving the remark an entire subsection would be a total violation of WP:UNDUE. Orser67 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I have closed the discussion about the audio clip above as rough consensus to include a concise mention of Reagan's remarks integrated into the narrative of the article body. Discussion about specific wordings or placements may now take place here, although editors are cautioned that they should use the results of the above discussion as the launching point for the rest of this one. Sdkb (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wow and Scribatorian: I've noticed you two have been editing this page a bunch recently. You may be interested in taking on this task. Sdkb (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Change "Reagan was the oldest person to have been elected to a first term" to "Reagan was the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency" to match WH Harrison page and it is also grammatically correct 148.77.10.25 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Y I have made the change. Drdpw (talk) 00:08, 28 January 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

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)

Good read

I read the Nancy Reagan article and considered it a "Good read". There was just some comments concerning the "External links".

This article was also a good read but it seems the "External links" section has grown to stand alone status. I can't imagine that any editor would consider that all twenty-four links are absolutely essential to the article. It has evolved past link farming to a cultivated plantation or dumping ground.

The section is suppose to be created and maintained with consideration of ELPOINTS #3, links to avoid, and EL official, with a goal of minimizing the number of links and I think stating this has been overlooked would be an understatement. Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Goldwater rule and Reagan's Alzheimer's disease, i.e. "I don't recall"

Include Goldwater rule regarding Ronald Reagan § Alzheimer's disease (specifically Iran–Contra affair testimony example)? X1\ (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Even the article you cite doesn't mention the Goldwater rule. I for one don't get what you are talking about.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is something, but I'll need to get back to you, as I am in the middle of something at the moment. X1\ (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

More

• The American Psychiatric Association issues a warning: No psychoanalyzing Donald Trump Aug 7, 2016 washingtonpost.com
• What is the public entitled to know about a president’s mental health? thehill.com 03/29/17 with "questions still linger over whether Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease had begun to affect him in his second term."
• Concerns About Reagan’s Mental Health Were Handled Very Differently Than Concerns About Trump’s nymag.com Jan. 14, 2018
• Donald Trump's presidency has some in the mental health community re-evaluating their role. usnews.com April 21, 2017 with "his father showed signs of the illness while he was in office"
• Lawmakers Will Meet to Discuss Trump’s Mental Health Next Month vice.com Aug 16 2017 with "showed speech changes indicative of dementia while in office."

etc. Not "No connection to the subject of this article." X1\ (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

From Is Something Neurologically Wrong With Donald Trump? theatlantic.com (January 2018), Tracking Discourse Complexity Preceding Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: A Case Study Comparing the Press Conferences of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. X1\ (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The article already deals with the suspicions on at what point his Alzheimer's began. Bringing up the Goldwater rule with regards to Reagan (and I am speculating as to what you mean because you haven't been clear) is a fallacy because (as per the RR main article) 4 of his White House doctors have been quoted as saying they saw no signs of Alzheimer's from him while President. These are people who saw him regularly. Furthermore, the Iran-Contra testimony is irrelevant. If the point there is (and again I am guessing because you aren't clear) the "I don't recall" type answers.....there is nothing unusual in that in any testimony of any significant length. If you want to make a point here....you need to use your own words and stop (just) referencing 3rd parties.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Trump defends fitness for office by saying he’s ‘stable genius,’ in book fallout seattletimes.com January 6, 2018 with "Reagan, who some believed suffered from mental deterioration in the latter years of his two terms, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease after leaving office." (ec) Here's another one.

Iran-Contra testimony is not irrelevant as his memory may actually been failing when he said "I don't recall", i.e. he might not have been lying. While it isn't unusual now, it was then; particularly for the sitting US president. X1\ (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sitting President? He had been out of office for about a year when he gave that testimony.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And again I have to ask: how is the Goldwater Rule relevant here? No 3rd party answers please.Rja13ww33 (talk)

X1\, might you be trying to put a square peg into a round hole here? It would be helpful for me if you would please state in one brief sentence how the Goldwater rule article is related to the topic of the article – the life of Ronal Reagan. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected advertising in Sub Section: Cultural and political image

There's a link under the Sub Section: Cultural and political image: See also: Reagan (film). I think this is advertising. I have personally never heard of the film nor see how relevant it is to the subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGusep (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The link is to a Wikipedia article germane to this article; it is not advertising. Drdpw (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, while it is germane to the article, it seems like an insignificant piece of media and seems like in my belief advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGusep (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldest person elected to end in 2020

Maybe we should add a note that Reagan's reign of being the Oldest person ever elected will end in 2020 by either a Trump re-election or a Biden or Sanders election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B018:EA6D:D0AF:EA0A:C4E6:6B54 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies. What if there were a contested convention, Buttigieg ends up with the nomination, and defeats Trump? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Section on AIDS

I have tagged the section on AIDS as unbalanced. The section leads off with ACT UP's attacks on Reagan and continues with a critical tone. That should not be the focus of the section. The section should be rewritten in a neutral and thorough way by someone who knows the history. SunCrow (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.....although I will be the first to admit: the Reagan admin's record (at first) is a degree of inaction. But one thing I think we should communicate on this point is: so were a lot of leaders on this (on both sides of the aisle in America). A good book on that is already cited in the article (i.e. And the Band played on...).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite this, an RFC is already underway to include this info in the lede. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

1966 results map

@Scribatorian: if you have a reason (besides WP:OSE) why the map should remain in the governorship section, please explain here. Per my previous edit summaries, it's an insignificant image. The 1966 election makes up about a sixth of the whole section. Furthermore, for widescreens, the map is placed in a bad location, making a case of MOS:SANDWICH. This section already has another image related to the election, so one is enough. --Wow (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the map is a good one, assuming that it is statistically accurate. It does need a key explaining what the various shades of red or blue mean. The map indicates that Reagan win by a landslide throughout the state, losing only a handful of the 58 counties. A reader has no idea from the text whether the election was a squeaker or a landslide. The fact is that Reagan win by 57-43, which was quite a blow to the Democratic Party at that time. If you think the location is bad, move it elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the situation at the time, I suppose it's a significant map, I just can't think where else to move it. Would removing the celebration photograph instead be a better option? --Wow (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)