Talk:Ronald Reagan

drop minor episodes

Wiki has limited space and numerous short items need to be dropped--they are mostly about other people--a protester, a reduced sentence--usually ones that are hardly known--and say little or nothing about Reagan and do not help readers. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Rjensen, do you have specific suggestions? If so, go ahead and trim where you think appropriate; you have a good eye for detail. Drdpw (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks--I trimmed it a bit. Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So for my info: is this the desired length of the article? Or is there a consensus on that one way or the other?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical error

The Judiciary tab says he only had three appointees to the sc after listing 4 appointments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.5.238.37 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Y You are correct, Reagan did make 4 SCOTUS appointments: O'Connor, Rehnqust, Scalia and Kennedy; I will make the correction. Drdpw (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

CIA/Drug/Contra allegations

These allegations are sufficiently covered in other articles (directly/indirectly) referenced by this one. Furthermore, even bringing up Gary Webb's allegations are unnecessary as the scope of what he claimed (i.e. the most significant aspects) were proven false and are sufficiently covered in his article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a biographical article on Reagan -- not on the CIA. Gary Webb did allege the CIA was involved but his book never says that Reagan was trafficking cocaine. Nor does any reliable secondary source, not anor any of the sources listed in the controversial edit. Multiple investigations by Congress & leading newspapers have rejected Webb's claims about the CIA trafficking cocaine. see CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually Webb's book did make some (preposterous) allegations about the Reagan admin directly. But (like I said) his work has largely been discredited on this topic (despite all the recent efforts to rehabilitate his image). There isn't much doubt that many were willing to look the other way about who they were working with (witness the William French Smith letter). But that is hardly tantamount to advocating drug entry into the country. It's a result of the logistical issues of keeping a army in supply while simultaneously working within a natural drug route. (I.e. you've got to get supplies to people in the backwater of a third world country.) No serious expert on the drug trade has ever said the Contras/Nicaraguans who got mixed up in the drug trade played a pivotal role. One of Webb's own colleagues (while checking his story) called 30 cocaine experts, and none agreed with Webb's notions of the Contras "sparking" any epidemic.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

But none of the sources cited in the June 7th edit [1] (nor subsequent) are the San Jose Mercury News.

And since you bring it up, I understand the Washington Post was against the Gary Webb story primarily because of "not invented here" syndrome, and the whole story was much more interesting than merely Webb being "proved" wrong. Perhaps he blurred what he believed to be the case with what he could demonstrate was the case. In any case, we do have other journalistic sources, such as: "US Concedes Contras Linked to Drugs, But Denies Leadership Involved," Associated Press, April 17, 1986.

We need to go with these, neither overstating nor understating. And even though we often do go with merely one source, I'd like to have at least two, and preferably three.

And fairly or unfairly, presidents get blamed for scandals within their administration. Same for governors and mayors. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the need. If this resulted in something significant (something the DOJ investigation rejected completely).....I could see it. But this was a negligible impact on the drug trade and was par for the course with most rebel groups (on both sides) of the Cold War (especially in the latter stages). Including operational issues in CIA activities isn't something really noteworthy in a POTUSA bio. As for Webb.....it really was a case of a lack of editorial oversight. (And a guy just not familiar with the drug trade.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's part of Iran-Contra. And furthermore, it's something people know about and often hold misconceptions about. So, if we summarize the parts which are documented with references, we're doing a world of good and doing exactly what we're supposed to.

Rather agree with you regarding rebel armies. It's almost like we'd have to look to find the exceptions as far as ones which stay with their original high- or at least merely medium-minded goals. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Including this (operational aspect) in the President's bio is unnecessary. This is more of a CIA scandal than anything else.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeking solid secondary references -- yeah or nay -- on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra scandal:

A transcript of a House or Senate committee hearing would be a primary source. An article in a newspaper discussing such a hearing is a secondary source. In addition, a news article discussing a White House report is also a secondary source, such as:

• US Concedes Contras Linked to Drugs, But Denies Leadership Involved, Associated Press, April 17, 1986.

• 'Some individual Nicaraguan Contras may have engaged in activity with drug traffickers, but there is no evidence that leaders of the rebels were involved, the Reagan administration says.

• 'A three-page report from the administration said Wednesday that the Contra connections to the drug traffickers occurred in 1984 and 1985, when the rebels were ″particularly hard pressed for financial support″ because they were not receiving U.S. aid. . . '

• ' . . . In the paper, the administration asserted that ″we have no evidence that the leadership of the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO) is, or has been, engaged in drug trafficking.″ . . . '

---------------------------------

• Pilot, Heavily Guarded, Testifies at Hearing : Undercover Drug Agent Tells of Helping Contras, Los Angeles Times, Paul Houston, April 7, 1988.

• 'A pilot told a Senate hearing Wednesday that his firm contracted with the State Department to fly clothing to Nicaragua's Contras in 1986 at the same time he was operating as an undercover drug smuggler for two federal agencies. . . '
• ' . . . "There will be other witnesses who will testify about running drugs simultaneously while running supplies to the Contras," [Sen. John] Kerry said. . . '

And reader, I encourage you to look for other articles or sources and pull what, in your judgment, are the most pithy excerpts. And then we will still need to summarize. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly would this be worthwhile to include in the article?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the allegations are part of Iran-Contra. They are however, only tangentially tied to Ronald Reagan himself; thus they are immaterial here in this broad life-biographical article. So, summarize the parts which are documented with references in the Iran–Contra affair article. That's the place to include detailed information about these allegations, not in the main Ronald Reagan article. Drdpw (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The section of our article entitled Presidency (1981–1989) is going to include policies, actions, etc, above and beyond what Regan himself the man did. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The article, including the Iran-Contra subsection does that quite well as it is. I see no good reason for folding this tangential material into the mix. Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

-----------------------

• CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent (UK), Andrew Marshall in Washington, 7 November 1998.

• 'THE CENTRAL Intelligence Agency deliberately ignored evidence of drug smuggling by its Contra allies in the Eighties, the agency has admitted. . . former CIA Inspector-General Frederick Hitz . . . '

• ' . . . In six cases, "CIA knowledge of accusations or information indicating that organisations or individuals had been involved in drug trafficking did not deter their use or employment by [the] CIA." . . . '

• ' . . . Many allegations concern the pilots who flew military supplies to the Contras. . . . . . The CIA response was direct: "Would appreciate Station advising [DEA] not to make any inquiries to anyone re Hangar no. 4 at Ilopango since only legitimate... supported operations were conducted from this facility." . . . '

• ' . . . The Hitz report is adamant that the CIA itself did not indulge in cocaine smuggling to support the Contras' operations. "No information has been found to indicate that CIA as an organisation or its employees conspired with, or assisted, Contra-related organisations or individuals in drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras or for any other purpose," it says. . . '

As above, it's our goal to be right down the middle, neither over-shading nor under-shading. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said: mostly a CIA scandal. Adequately covered elsewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before FRO, the information you wish to add to this article is tangential here and belongs elsewhere. Drdpw (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

To me, it's a big part of Iran-Contra, which is a major political scandal. Don't see how it's tangential in any form.

In addition, people sometimes remember this or state this in shorthand form as "CIA running drugs." And even if one is to argue that providing cover to drug smugglers is not too different from doing it yourself, we can't blur in that way. Here at Wiki, we've got to stay right down the line with what our references say. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We need a goodly range of participants. Not just a few folks chatting around the office water cooler, so to speak. Have started the below RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

It seems that Rja13ww33 is canvassing !votes: [2][3][4] –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Just alerting regular contributors. Rjensen and Drdpw have in fact already expressed their opinions before this RFC. Just need them to record it formally.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve issued a warning for canvassing. User:Rjal3ww33, it would be more appropriate to provide notification to all WikiProjects tagged here. Regardless of motive, tagging individual editors looks highly suspicious. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

edit conflict What about FriendlyRiverOtter? And why did you notify Lionelt who hasn't been active here? –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

In case you missed it: FRO has already voted. Lionelt has been active here in the past and is a good contributor in the past. I have no idea what his view will be on this. I was not aware of this rule and will keep it in mind in the future.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, I'm thinking you asked people you're comfortable working with and whose past work you respect. I personally don't have a problem inviting three people.

My big issue is that we need significantly more people participating. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked people who had already expressed and opinion and one more who is a regular.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Inviting past editors of Reagan article, say, within last three months

The past editors who haven't already participated here, and everybody but the bots! And something simply such as:

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

And this won't even be within a country mile of polling because we're inviting all previous participants. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I invited all editors of the Reagan page up through and including March 24th, except for those who had already participated in the RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra

Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. It's a major part of the Iran-Contra affair, which was the scandal of the Reagan administration. In addition, it's something people remember and occasionally talk about. It's a bit of a glaring admission for us not to include it. Furthermore, we've got good references, such as:

  CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent [UK], Andrew Marshall in Washington, 7 November 1998:

  " . . . The Cold War was in full flood in the mid-Eighties, and the then president Ronald Reagan was on a crusade. He was intent on ousting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua with the assistance of his CIA boss, William Casey, and Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council. . . "

  To me, this is a big enough part of Reagan's presidency and should clearly be included in the longish Presidency (1981–1989) section we already have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• No - This is already covered in other articles and is only tangentially related to Reagan. This content belongs in other articles. Honestly this RFC is completed unnecessary given everyone else here has said it isn’t worth including. Toa Nidhiki05 16:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  But this "everyone else" only included two persons. And on as important a topic as our Ronald Reagan article, we're going to need a few more more folks than that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  In actuality, 4 editors (including myself) total have rejected this (either in the talk section or here): Rjensen, me, Drdpw, and Toa.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  In the above section "CIA/Drug/Contra allegations," I discussed whether to include or not with only two fellow editors: Rja13ww33 and Drdpw. I see that Rjensen made one comment before I got there. And on the history page for the article itself, I see Toa twice deleted the drug angle. Hey, it's all good, we're all pressed for time. Whatever contributions people are able to make is for the better. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• No - This is really more of a CIA/Contra scandal and doesn't have much connection to the Reagan admin. True it was (loosely) part of the Iran-Contra scandal, but it was also a normal byproduct of the Cold War as it was not unusual at all for rebel groups to get mixed up in the drug trade. The fact that the CIA was willing to look the other way makes it worth noting in it's article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  "doesn't have much connection to the Reagan admin" ? ? . . . . . More assertively confronting the Soviet Union was a big part of his foreign policy, and Iran-Contra was almost certainly the major scandal of his administration. I see the Contra drug smuggling as a medium part of a big part and well worth including. Now, this said, of course not to the extent of bogging the article. More like a medium-length paragraph or two short paragraphs, something of this length. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Very tenuous connection at best. It's rare to include field snafus in clandestine ops in a President's bio unless it results in something significant. In this case, it meant nothing as numerous investigations have established.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as was significantly covered in reliable sources in connection to Reagan Atlantic306 (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• No no biography mentions this--and no RS in recent years acdepts the claim, which was refuted decades ago. No CIA employee shipped drugs. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• ^This vote was canvassed.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• No the information is already covered in other articles and is only tangentially related to RR. This content belongs in those other articles, not in this one. Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• This vote was canvassed.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes because it's quite an important thing to mention, but it should only be mentioned very briefly because it's only indirectly related to Reagan himself. --Pjoona11 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Here because I stalk Susmuffin's talk page. It's related enough that this should be covered in line with whatever reliable sources have to say on the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• No This article is supposed to mostly cover Reagan's biography. The Iran–Contra affair is extensively covered in the article Presidency of Ronald Reagan, along with other aspects of his Foreign policy. We also have a separate article on Reagan administration scandals, since the "Teflon President" is mostly known for his administration's endless scandals. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. If we're mentioning the scandal, it needs an adequate summary. The controversy is prominently associated with Reagan in sources about him; restricting criticism of his Presidency to a separate article would be a violation of NPOV. As an aside, some people !voting "no" have obviously not read the RFC properly; the question is about the Contras making money of of drugs, not the CIA shipping drugs on their behalf. The former fact is well-established. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Perhaps. It, along with the fact that the actions of the Reagan admin disobeyed congress and the fact that weapons were sold to a hostile nation, is a major reason for the outrage generated by the scandal. SecretName101 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• One sentence at most, not "a medium-length paragraph or two short paragraphs" which FriendlyRiverOtter proposed, which would be way out of proportion here. Leave the details for detailed articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

People have such misconceptions about this, I don't see how a single sentence is going to do it. Maybe three sentences if we really get it tight. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If it has to be included (and I wish it wasn't because it is covered well elsewhere), I'd agree with that. You'd have to make clear the CIA wasn't being a particularly good watchdog.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning against inclusion. It seems disproportionate to mention such a tertiary aspect of the event in the biography of a subject not directly involved in that aspect. bd2412 T 20:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I'm new so I apologize if I'm not following the right protocol. I'm actually the cause of this discussion because I originally added a section that was since removed. My thought is that there should at least be a sentence to direct others to other articles with more info, because without including it there is no way someone would even know to look. It feels like censorship to not mention that many Americans do associate RR with the influx of cococaine in the US...Again, please have patience with my inexperience.Marialeeg (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone was interested in this subject.....I'm not sure why they would come to this article in the first place. The first place most people would start (I would think) would be the Contra article which has references all over the place. There is (also) a entire article devoted to the CIA's "involvement" with drug trafficking as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Marialeeg, I re-added your work twice (June 12th and 13th), only changing the beginning a little, because I think your work's plenty good enough and our article is better with it than without. Now, I would like to have clickable links if possible, even though that is not an etched-in-concrete policy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, I envision someone coming to our Reagan article maybe because they're heard him referred to a couple of times and would like a good overview. Or, maybe there's a particular aspect of Reagan they'd like to dive into. Now, you write CIA's "involvement" adding the quotation marks. If the CIA is providing cover to even a couple of drug smugglers, that does sounds like involvement to me. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone coming here for that has been listening to a lot of urban legends. All this is beat to death elsewhere in wiki. And I put the involvement of the CIA in quotation marks because rarely do I see it quantified/qualified (as I have done elsewhere in this discussion). Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am inclined to say no, we do not include. The contents are adequately covered in other articles, and Reagan denies direct involvement anyhow. The article's arc on Iran-Contra was basically that it was a scandal that affected Reagan's presidency, because he ought to have known, and perhaps put a stop to, the payments to the Contras. If one wants to know about the drugs - they can go to the myriad of other articles available that describe this topic. Colipon+(Talk) 20:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nicely stated; adding tangential information to the Iran–Contra affair section doesn't enhance or improve it. If anything, adding CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking to section hatnote would suffice. Drdpw (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No already covered in other articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - The scandal must be mentioned, since it was an important element of the Reagan administration and the drug smuggling must be mentioned, since it was an important part of the scandal. Simple. It is also a very well documented element, even if some people aren't aware of it, given the cleaning operation that has been done on Reagan's image over the last three decades or so. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What cleansing operation? The man is still blamed for the negative effects of his financial policies. To quote the article on his Presidency: "Critics contend that Reagan's economic policies resulted in rising budget deficits, a wider gap in wealth, and an increase in homelessness. Liberals especially disapproved of Reagan's simultaneous tax cuts for the wealthy and benefit cuts for the poor. " Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Dimadick, Reagan is absolutely elevated to sainthood! The negative facts are usually simply not mentioned. And that our article tries to include both positive and negative is to our credit. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure how anyone can say it was a important part of the scandal. I recall it being virtually nonexistent (outside of the occasional article(s) in places like The Nation and the Kerry committee findings which were in the back of most newspapers). It wasn't until The San Jose Mercury News allegations that this became what it is now (in the minds of many).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes The more information the better. (Posted by GyaradosInTheSea on Monday, July 1, 2019 at 8:48 P.M.)
• No The current level of detail devoted to the Iran-Contra Affair is appropriate. The section provides a good overview of what happened, notes that it became an important political scandal that badly damaged Reagan's standing with the public, covers the subsequent investigations, and briefly discusses the international response. Nothing further is needed on this page. Further coverage can and is given at presidency of Ronald Reagan, Reagan administration scandals, and Iran–Contra affair. I know it can be hard to determine exactly what should and shouldn't be included in a given article, but we need to be cognizant of Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:INDISCRIMINATE or we'll end up with a huge article that contains random information *cough*, rather than an article that provides a fairly concise, comprehensive summary of the subject. Orser67 (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Add a very brief mention to the last paragraph such as:"Many Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, calling him an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses and drug trafficking, while others say ..." (addition bolded). Jschnur (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) Covered thoroughly elsewhere, only minor ties to the article subject. CThomas³ (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes To the best of my knowledge, being such related content(s)/matters in the article can make the page to be more informative/helpful for the readers; especially by paying heed that it is a related famous significant issue. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously. It is one of the most notable parts of his presidency and should be described to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• The closer of this RfC should take into account that the editor Rja13ww33 has brazenly engaged in canvassing for this RfC[7][8][9] (solely alerting editors who were likely to vote one way in this RfC), and the editors Rjensen and Drdpw only voted in the RfC after being alerted by Rja13ww33. I have on occasion been alerted about RfCs and on-going content disputes, but I always abstain from participating if there's even a hint of impropriety and canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If you actually read the section....every editor I alerted had already expressed an opinion on this subject (except for one) and I wanted them to record it formally.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion

US Concedes Contras Linked to Drugs, But Denies Leadership Involved, Associated Press, April 17, 1986.

' . . . The drug allegations have clearly hurt Reagan’s efforts to win more aid to the rebels, partly because the president has repeatedly denounced Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government for its alleged role in drug trafficking. . . '

' . . . The report to [Representative Charles] Stenholm was promised by President Reagan personally while lobbying congressmen last week for support of his $100 million Contra aid package. . . '

Sure looks like the ol' Gipper is investing himself personally in the issue. One more reason to include it in our article.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean by that. Yes Reagan accused the Sandinistas of trafficking in drugs....while the Contras were doing the same. But this is hardly worth mentioning for the reasons I stated. But lets cut to the chase: the people who have wanted to do this in the past (even a watered down version) are doing so in a calculated attempt to try to connect the crack "explosion" to the Reagan admin and the Contras. And I'm sure you'll deny that is your intent (and it may very well not be your intent).....but that is what it is (plain and simple). This is no more worth noting in the Reagan bio than Air America is in Nixon & LBJ's bio (and it isn't). About the closest it gets is Ollie North probably being aware that some of the people he was hiring were likely mixed up in the drug trade....which is meaningless. If he turned them in.....then what? Crack/cocaine would be gone? Of course not. 3 Federal investigations established that the numbers of Contras involved were insignificant to the trade. (The Medellin cartel employed 750,000 while the entire Contra movement had about 25,000 people. And I'd like to add that even a lot of the advocates of this have carried on about the grand total of 50 pilots, traffickers, etc the CIA supposedly paid.) This whole thing was a normal byproduct of funding a rebel group in the third world on a active drug route.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, you're saying that because of other people who have caused problems in the past ? ? This is pretty much the worse attitude I've heard in some time! In fact, I think there's an old saying, "Never let the fact that they're doing it wrong prevent you from doing it right," or something to this effect. We should strive to be down-the-middle with references, regardless of what other people are doing.

And ideally, since you and I are among the most active, I'd like us to agree on a general approach and a short summary and pull 2/3's of other participants along with us. This may or may not be possible, but I'd like to try. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to try too. But I can't imagine why any "down-the-middle", knowledgeable person would want to include this in a president's bio.(Especially considering the fact they try to keep these trim.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how this works; it's not about you (or even a few "most active" editors) "pulling" others along, it's about listening to what other editors say in response to your question. It appears to me, given that you're desiring to plow ahead with "a general approach and a short summary" of drug trafficking activities in spite of the fact that a consensus to add such has not developed, that you are not listening. Drdpw (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Drdpw, I am listening, even if the word "tangential" has been used often enough that it might well be a mantra.

And yes, with participants split about 50-50 between yes and no, it does seem to me that something succinct and middle-of-the-road might well achieve two-thirds support.

And if you were to say, well, truth is not always in the middle, I'd very much agree. For example, in the 1700s, germ theory was not a majority position, but it sure turned out to be true. And I bet we could come up with a hundred similar examples.

Okay, another way would be if each of us tried to get one or two solid, fact-based references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Since there is nowhere near a consensus (at this time) for inclusion.....I don't know why those of us who oppose this idea would need to "to get one or two solid, fact-based references" to include something that we feel has no place here. You've gotten more than "just a few folks chatting around the office water cooler" (as you put it) to weigh in on this.....and it's more than just us water cooler folks who disagree with this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm counting 10 yes, 8 no, two leaning against ("Leaning against," and "inclined to say no"), and if we count as in the middle "Perhaps" and "One sentence at most," then we almost have a dead heat! And I know consensus means (most of all!) that we should keep working. So, yes, I welcome fresh ideas.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to include....I don't know exactly what we (especially those of us who oppose this addition) should keep working towards. I think it warrants no mention at all in this article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

------------------------

CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent [UK], 7 Nov. 1998:

' . . . The CIA response was direct: "Would appreciate Station advising [DEA] not to make any inquiries to anyone re Hangar no. 4 at Ilopango [El Salvador] . . " . . . '

' . . . Three days later, he [CIA station chief] called Mr Castillo over to his office, and pulled $45,000 from his desk drawer. "`I've got money left over from my budget," he said. `Take this for your anti-narcotics group. Go buy them some cars'." . . . '

Notice that it's corruption on the cheap, which I understand in the real world is often how it works. And much of the time, the person still feels guilty enough, and compromised enough, not to follow up. And/or they correctly perceive that it's risk to them without enough potential upside of improving the situation and/or correctly perceive that they don't have colleagues likely enough to skillfully stand in solidarity with them. But in this case, the DEA agent did later go public. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

How you phrase things seems like you have an axe to grind. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If you read the DOJ/CIA report, they get into the allegations here. (And (I think) raise several important questions about Mr. Castillo's story.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add: this illustrates one of the problems with this. It's absolutely rife with misinformation and innuendo. It's going to be difficult to drop anything in with brevity and accuracy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, you very welcome to include a good journalistic account of the report (which might be the same report which the Independent article talks about). And you say you think this raises important questions about Mr. Castillo's story. Now, I know you're savvy enough not to say we should therefore dismiss the whole topic. But many people do. Many people seem to have a mental map in which a whistleblower is so perfectionist (and even Billy Graham-like!), that if he or she ends up having human foibles afterall, they will kick at and dismiss the entire topic.

As citizens, we should know that being a whistleblower is really difficult. Having support from family is crucial. In particular, it's recommended that a person ask their spouse ahead of time, and not merely tell them after the fact.

CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent [UK], 7 Nov. 1998. This article focuses on the CIA's own internal report. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Especially given that this “rife with misinformation and innuendo” information, which is already covered in other articles, is only tangentially related to Reagan, making it not noteworthy in this biographical article. Drdpw (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor, on the question of whether I have an "ax to grind" . . . well, I don't like official corruption. And I'm guessing that you don't like it either, right? And to me, it's obvious we should include the Contra-drug angle, but it's also obvious not everyone feels that way! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And if it had a direct tie (rather than a tenuous one) to the subject of this bio......I'd want to include it too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If a topic is "rife with misinformation and innuendo," that's an argument to do it right! (rather than an argument to not do it at all) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's done right elsewhere on wiki. No need to do it here (IMHO).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is our Reagan article pristinely perfect as of 2019?

I say, perhaps even some major issues.

Judiciary section

For example, this edit from June 19, 2019, regarding the supreme Court in which we're really trying to nail down and communicate clearly that Reagan promoted Rehnquist from Associate Justice to Chief Justice and then appointed three brand new faces to the Court. And I'm still not sure that on a quick reading, or partial reading, that we really got it right. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph so that it more clearly conveys the fact that Reagan made 4 Supreme Court appointments (to fill 1 chief justice vacancy and 3 associate justice vacancies). Drdpw (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just the way you phrase it right there: " . . made 4 Supreme Court appointments (to fill 1 chief justice vacancy and 3 associate justice vacancies)." A lot of people are going to read it quickly and make the assumption, 4 brand new faces on the Court. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely; your argument is based a false premise. The subsection clearly communicates that Reagan elevated Rehnquist from AJ to CJ and appointed three new members to the Court. Drdpw (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Article lede

Or, this edit as of July 19th, "condense lede; move material . . ." For a total loss of 1,369 bytes. That's a pretty major change. And I don't see other editors jumping in to help this editor, or at least give it a good once over. Well, we're all pressed for time, and have our specific interests, that's a fact. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In your estimation, what specifically should not have been moved or redacted? Drdpw (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm deep-diving on the Contra drug issue, and now the Court issue, plus my other interests. It doesn't have to be me. But it is disconcerting that seemingly no one has taken a look at a pretty major change. Oh, well, hopefully we'll get lucky. And again, sometimes you have to just jump in there and make a major change. I'm glad the member did so. But then, like any writing, sometimes it's helpful to have a fresh pair of eyes to review something. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the drug issue is in the process of being addressed.....so I'm not sure why you would make it an issue here as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of OTR's reason, following this discussion has taken all who watch this page on a convoluted journey. Drdpw (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran–Contra affair

Well, big changes, small changes, sometimes if you don't make the change, it doesn't get done.

On the specific subject of Iran-Contra, because it is controversial, I favor step-by-medium-step, with solid support by references. Nothing fancy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There are no "pristinely perfect" articles anywhere. But this article is excellent shape considering the space allotted.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, outside of the drug issue, would you care to be more specific about what is the issue with the Iran-Contra section?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Newly released audio

Is this worth mentioning somewhere? From The Atlantic: [10]. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. Seems 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[11], 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[12] 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)

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

No mention of apartheid

How is it possible that this article fails to cover Reagan's 1986 veto of apartheid sanctions, which prompted Congress to override his veto (the first time since the War Powers Resolution in 1973 that a presidential foreign policy veto was overridden)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's covered (in detail) elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_engagementRja13ww33 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Which only further demonstrates that this is notable enough to include in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's adequately covered elsewhere.....i see no need to go into detail on it here as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I don't get why you tried to put this under the "racism" section. There were a lot of reasons to support the minority government in South Africa that nothing to do with racism. (Starting with the fact they were a strategic ally in the region.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither the word "apartheid" nor "constructive" appear anywhere in the article. Given the preeminence of the matter during the period, I would suggest that at the very least, an acknowledgement of Reagan's involvement ought to appear in the man's article. Kotkijet (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No need for them to appear here. It was a minor part of his tenure. We don't include US-South African relations (which were good for decades) in every President's bio.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe It is mentioned on his Presidency page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan. Do you suggest we just copy that and put that in here? Dy3o2 (talk)

I support mentioning the veto, but caution Snooganssnoogans to adhere to a neutral point of view in doing so. SunCrow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem with an addition like that is: to adequately cover it.....you need to add a lot....and the question then becomes: do you want to add that much to this article? It's been criticized in the past for it's length.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Reagan's dog whistle politics

The term "welfare queen" does not appear anywhere in this article, nor are any of Reagan's coded racial appeals. Ian Haney López's Dog Whistle Politics (Oxford University Press) devotes considerable attention to Reagan. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Also covered elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queenRja13ww33 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Which only further demonstrates that this is notable enough to include in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really....especially considering the errors Lopez makes on this subject....including claiming (in the book you mention) that the Reagan's welfare queen was "mythical". That has been completely debunked. See my link above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I eagerly anticipate your peer-reviewed publication rebutting Lopez's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Already done. Even Slate (finally) admitted that the "welfare queen" was real.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html (And was guilty of far worse than RR ever accused her of.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Somehow you (1) don't understand the concept of peer-review and (2) link to a piece which is a summary of a book literally titled, The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth. It would be funny if it weren't a good indication of why this Wikipedia article has been scrubbed of all kinds of highly notable content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So I point out (with indisputable proof) where Lopez is wrong on this and you would like me to write a book to be peer reviewed? Interesting. By the way, what "peer review" (other than a book review) did Lopez's book get? Academics crawled all over it to check it's accuracy.....or did he get a pat on the back on places like MSNBC or The Nation?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth are you rambling about? The link that you yourself plastered on this talk page as a purported rebuttal of the welfare queen myth is a book that is literally titled The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the link (in particular the first few paragraphs). The author discusses others who (like Lopez) claimed she didn't exist. The fact is: she did, and her crimes (as is also laid out) were even worse than that. Any of this making sense yet?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree this should be covered. The fact that these issues are covered elsewhere is unhelpful when those articles are not even linked here. And if the issues are covered here, they also require a summary. The newly released tapes are directly linked to that and clearly relevant to this article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

These issues are relatively minor compared to his overall life.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV provides that we "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The welfare queen issue is certainly significant and has been discussed widely in numerous RSs. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well obviously we disagree as to if it is significant enough to include here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• No Ian Haney López is clearly a partisan figure that sees racism in everything. Although presented as one, dog whistling is not an exact science. The fact that the term 'stop monkeying around' can be seen as a dog whistle depending on who says it, depending on who its said to, demonstrates my point. So I don't think it's fair to mention welfare queen as a form of racist dog whistle when the intention of Reagan was not to bring race into it, but to acknowledge the real abuses in the welfare system. If you want to bring up the term welfare queen in this article, make it neutral and mention that Reagan's intent was to shine light on abuses and bring about reform. Dy3o2 (talk)

• The source in question is a peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear what this alleged "peer review" actually consisted of (considering the fundamental facts of the book are screwed up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reagan referring to black people as monkeys seriously calls into question your claims of his intent. Taken together they support the necessity to include this as a significant issue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not more than a sentence or two - Lopez's opinion/interpretation regarding Reagan's words should not be accorded undue weight. SunCrow (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• No My reasons are given above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Uh, yeah It was a big part of his politicking. He used the case of an alleged "welfare queen" in his 1976 and 1980 races for president. It goes along with the policy positions he favored as president. Here's a WaPo article on it from May 2019. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment You need to show not that it is mentioned in literature about dog whistle politics but that it is mentioned in standard biographies of Reagan. To what degree did Reagan appeal to racism in order to win the presidency and how racist were his policies? None of this is addressed in the article, but then I don't know the extent to which the literature on Ronald Reagan address these issues. TFD (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• No Per Wja13ww33.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)