Talk:Ronald Reagan

Newly released audio

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to give others a chance to weigh in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reagan in college standing up for two African-American teammates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Per this RfC[5], there is a consensus to include Reagan's "monkeys" remarks. Text will be included – the only question is how to word the text. I am perfectly fine with this edit[6], which added the following text to the end of the "Cultural and political image" sub-section (which seems like the ideal place to put this content):

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

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

At least two of us (Toa_Nidhiki05 and myself) contested the closing. First, the closing was logically flawed as it claimed a consensus for inclusion when even in the most optomistic reading you have 10:5 for. However, that 10:5 assumes all editors who said "wait to see how this develops" actually meant "include now". Has anything come of this that would suggest those "not now" !votes have migrated to "include"? Additionally, the non-admin close was done by an editor who has clearly shown themselves to be "involved" in the topic and with a clear POV. The closing editor went as far as trying to recruit editors to put the material into the article [[7]]. That makes for a bad closing and certainly does suggest this was a neutral closing. Since there is not consensus for this inclusion at this time you should not restore it until the consensus is established. If we need a close review we can go down that road. Springee (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Ronald Reagan’s racist conversation

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

References

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

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

Last fall a RfC asked this question Talk:Ronald_Reagan#Newly_released_audio. A number of editors suggested a wait and see approach. It has been 9 months and an editor recently added the following to the article [8]

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

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

References

Comment from closer of prior RfC

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

For reference, here is the prior close:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey - Reagan 1971 comment

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

• 1. WP:DUE: The fact that a President makes racist remarks is obviously WP:DUE and it makes my heart ache that we have to go through multiple RfCs to make sure these atrocious remarks are included in the article. The remarks obviously affect his legacy and are obviously pertinent information for a bio of a President. No one would have sought to remove well-sourced content on the racist views and remarks of other presidents, so why exclude it on this page? Once uncovered, the racist remarks were covered in every newspaper (national or international).[12][13][14] If new information about the invasion of Grenada, the Libya bombing and Project Socrates (all content included in the article) were to be revealed, it's hard to imagine it garnering the same amount of RS coverage as this reveal did (which just goes to show notable it was). Despite the fact that the uncovered remarks are less than one year old, there have already (!) been books and scholarly publications that make note of the remarks, including one that specifically remarks on how it affects Reagan's legacy.[15][16][17] Note that in many cases, it takes months and years to publish scholarly works. It's not a reasonable requirement for DUE that newspapers continuously cover the remarks made by a dead president or that multiple Reagan biographies must mention the remarks within a year of their reveal. Harvard Kennedy School political scientist Leah Wright Rigueur: "Now, we actually have a broader context about Ronald Reagan — one wherein he is using racial slurs and that he is, you know, he is talking about black people, and in this case Africans, in a pejorative and negative and regressive sense. So, now, what we have to do is reconcile that prejudice with Ronald Reagan's actual policies and programs and the things that he did on the ground."[18]
• 2. WP:NPOV: The omission of this content is a brazen violation of NPOV given that the article includes content that emphasizes Reagan's "opposition to racial discrimination", says that his opposition to racial discrimination was "unusual" and that he even preceded the civil rights movement in opposing racism. In saying so, the article cites an op-ed by the conservative National Review titled "Reagan, No Racist". How can it possibly be NPOV to include content that emphasizes how uniquely non-racist Reagan was while omitting remarks by him calling blacks "monkeys"? 
• 3. Racial bias on Wikipedia: The omission of this content would serve as a glaring example of Racial bias on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia's mostly white editors decide that racism at the highest level of power in the country is just not important enough to warrant mention. The content already meets DUE and NPOV – the only thing it doesn't meet is some editors' subjective view that racism just doesn't rate. These racist remarks were hidden and censored by archivists who sought to present Reagan in a misleading and flattering light. Is Wikipedia also going to do that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Snooganssnoogans, the largest countries in the world that speak English-the United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia-have overwhelmingly white populations. Therefore, of course most Wikipedia editors are white. It would be shocking if they weren't. I reject the accusation that Wikipedia editors impose the inclusion of this content simply because of their own racial biases. Rather, the comment was made privately and has not recevied significant press coverage, and is therefore not notable. I also noticed that you had no problem voting in an RfC to oppose inclusion of racially controversial comments made by Joe Biden. [19] Are the votes in this RfC, including your own, another example of white racist Wikipedia editors trying to diminish racism, or is it acceptable because Biden is a Democrat? Display name 99 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This editor also opposed the inclusion of any content that referred to the Reagan administration's policy on apartheid in South Africa, even though it was important by any standard (Congress in a rare move overturned Reagan's veto on sanctions against South Africa).[20] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, I will repeat my weight argument from below.[[21]] Remember, this article is 5x longer than Wikipedia recommends. We should be cutting not adding. So how would this content be added? Far too often we see low quality additions to Wiki articles where an editor inserts a damning quote but they says nothing about how the reader should interpret the quote. That is very problematic since it allows the reader to imply or assume something out of the quote that is not supported by RSs. So here is the question, if included, what should the reader take away from the quote? If we place it without telling the reader what to make of it then we are allowing the reader to come away with assumptions that aren't in the RSs. That makes it a kind of OR. Alternatively, we can try to find articles that tell us what this quote means (those sources have been few) but by the time we add the quote and the explanation we have given way to much prominence to a minor aspect of Reagan. It would make more sense in a section about Reagan's views on race to summarize several sources which might include one that includes this quote but not put the quote in the article. Basically there is no way to integrate such a quote into the article without spending a considerable amount of space talking about it so the reader knows what to make of it. That large amount of space then becomes too much WEIGHT devoted to the single quote (why not devote as much or more space to his actions on the subject vs a private quote who's context is murky)? The oppose based on weight arguments are policy based. Springee (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose Simply not enough meat to add this. It appears to be a classically UNDUE situation. The proponent of this all but is calling anyone who opposes this a racist. Least we forget “Abraham Lincoln freed the black man, In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. . . . Where others — white and black — preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence.”[22].--MONGO (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Support inclusion. Sure, this was one offhand comment. But Wikipedia is not the arbiter of weight. The arbiters of weight are reliable sources, and without a doubt this "offhand comment" has been extensively detailed in reliable sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Dozens of reliable sources have articles specifically about the remarks. In fact, going down the green section of WP:RSP we have articles about it in The Atlantic, ABC, the BBC, CBC, CBS, CNN, The Telegraph, various Fox branches, The Guardian, The Hill, The Independent, NBC, The New York Times, The New Yorker, NPR, Reuters, Sky News, Time, The Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post, as well as non-English language sources such as Le Monde, La Vanguardia, TV Asahi, etc, and mentions in The Associated Press, Buzzfeed News, and Slate. You get the idea. That said, I feel the current phrasing could be condensed (although his daughter's response may have received enough coverage to mention briefly). What about: In 2019, a recording was released of a phone conversation from 1971 between then-President Richard Nixon and then-Governor Reagan in which Reagan can be heard saying, "those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!“. This was in reference to United Nations delegation from Tanzania, which had opposed the United States in a vote to officially recognize the People’s Republic of China. When the tape was initially released in 2000, the racist portion had been edited out. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose as UNDUE in the biography. It may be DUE in another article, e.g. one about his views or positions. But one racist comment... seriously? Why are we highlighting this racist comment? You can kind of break it down logically:
  1. Is this the only racist comment Reagan ever made in his life? Of course not. So why are we quoting this comment?
  2. Is this a famous Reagan comment? No, nobody even knew he said this until last year. This comment did not have any impact on anything during Reagan's lifetime, because very few people even knew about it.
  3. Is this comment indicative of Reagan's views? How do we know? Well, if there are a lot of other comments like this one, then we can say "Reagan made a lot of racist comments". There is no need to quote or highlight this one particular comment, if it's part of a larger trend of making racist comments. If it's not part of a larger trend (or if we don't have RS to support saying "Reagan made a lot of racist comments" in wikivoice), then that's how we know including it is UNDUE :-)
  4. Is this comment indicative of Reagan's views (part 2)? Maybe in 1971. What about the rest of his life? Is there something about his racist views as governor of California in 1971 that would merit highlighting that particular year in his life? Did he do something racist as governor in 1971? If so, the comment might be DUE in the context of discussing Reagan's racism in 1971 (which means, include it in an article about his governorship, or his views and positions). If not, then it's UNDUE.
• To me, all roads lead to UNDUE in this article. It's a single statement made in a private call in 1971, years before he was president, that no one knew about until after his death. By the way, "Reagan was racist" is not some kind of revelation. You can pretty much bet that every single white man in power has said something like that at some point. It's not really a revelation that white people are racist or call black people monkey's. Do we think there's a problem with race in America because no Americans are racist? The only thing that makes this quote special is that it was recorded. Believe, it's not like this was the only time ever that Reagan and Nixon said racist things to each other on the phone. Reagan's views on race are DUE; this particular quote has shock value, but not DUE value. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Like JOEBRO64 01:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion within a paragraph about Reagan's racism and suspension of civil rights gains such as affirmative action, with new material drawn from Daniel S. Lucks Reconsidering Reagan: Racism, Republicans, and the Road to Trump and from Steven A. Shull's A Kinder, Gentler Racism?: The Reagan-Bush Civil Rights Legacy. There's also Jeremy D. Mayer's chapter "Reagan and Race: Prophet of Color Blindness, Baiter of the Backlash" within the scholarly book Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America's Fortieth President. A lot has been written about Reagan's view of race, and this bit in front of Nixon is a widely discussed part of it. Of course we should put it in; our readers will be dismissive of us if we don't. We will have been derelict in our duty. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The first book hasn't been published yet and the other two don't include this quote. How can these three books support including this quote? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not here because of a shortage of sources discussing the 1971 incident with Nixon. We already have plenty. The reason I'm here is to say that the many sources covering that incident can be combined with other sources which go deeper into Reagan's views on race, and into how those views came to bear fruit in the political realm. The books I brought to the attention of the discussion definitely talk about Reagan's views on race, and can be used to flesh out a new paragraph covering the topic. The one that's not yet published will be available in less than a month, and the others are ready to go now. Thanks for asking. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Reagan's views on race, taken from a number of quality sources and preferably ones with differing points of view would be good. However, we would need those sources to say why this particular quote should be in the article vs simply summarizing what this quote indicated about Reagan's overall racial views. This is my issue with including the raw quote. What is the reader supposed to take away from it? Do they take away that Reagan was a hard core yet closeted racist? Do they take away that Reagan was willing to use racist language to express frustration with a group that was doing something he felt was bad (siding with the Chinese if I recall correctly). Was he simply following the lead of Nixon in the discussion? Let's assume that a number of historians concluded that Reagan was personally racist via insensitivity to the sort of comments he made but felt that all people should be treated equally by the law. Well if we were space limited we might include a sentence or two covering that conclusion. We wouldn't put in examples (good or bad) that were used by others to reach their conclusions. Essentially this quote is supporting evidence but it isn't a conclusion and shouldn't be treated as one. We shouldn't include it but if it changes what historians have said about Reagan's overall views, actions etc on race then we include/update those conclusions. That is why I'm opposed to including the quote in this article. That it might change the previous views on Reagan and race is true and that material can be updated. However, as a stand alone, provocative quote it simply allows the reader to assume too much and that makes it problematic. Springee (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Which is why I'm very much in favor of a new paragraph talking about Reagan's views on race and his political legacy of reduced benefits to minorities. I agree with you that the 1971 quote is unsuitable alone, by itself, but it's widely discussed in today's media, and I'm looking forward to putting it into this biography in proper context with respected voices lending their analysis for the reader's benefit. Right now the biography says nothing about Reagan's strong opposition to affirmative action, which is a telling absence. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • A proper paragraph would be good but we have to be careful about sourcing claims from more than just sources that might be critical of him. Reagan was in favor of reducing benefits but was that because he wanted to harm people or because he felt an over sized welfare state was bad for the country overall? Reagan's strong opposition to affirmative action was consistent with his views (and actions) that all people should be treated equally. For example, he opposed at least one civil rights bill because it applied specific restrictions to southern states but not northern states that engaged in the same bad practices. Do not conflate being against affirmative action programs with being against minorities. One might be against affirmative action due to inherent racism but they also might be against it due to a feeling that the rules should never favor one group over another. Lou Cannon talked about this in President Reagan: The role of a Lifetime. He emphasized that Reagan had a strong sense of "fair" and felt that programs that resulted in special treatment by the government, either positive or negative, based on one's ethnicity were unfair. Back to the quote, we've discussed the "widely in the media" part. We are in a click bait media landscape. The quote was superficially discussed in a number of sources but those were effectively flash in the pan articles. Several other articles have been discussed but in those cases, as discussed above, the quote was either used to reinforce an already assumed aspect of the GOP or of Reagan. None of the sources have suggested this changes what we know of Reagan's views on race thus a paragraph on the subject from last year would be no different than this year. The quote doesn't change our understanding. Even if it did why would we include it vs just saying what the impact was? Springee (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
            • When the 1971 quote is the featured topic of a piece in The New York Times[23] and a piece in the Atlantic[24] and a piece by the BBC[25] and a piece in US News & World Report[26] and a piece in the Times of Israel[27] and a piece in NBC News,[28] we have moved beyond "click bait" and into legitimate topic of discussion. I will repeat myself and say that if we don't insert this 1971 incident into the biography then our readers will think us deficient, and rightly so. Naturally we should do it in such a way as to present Reagan's views on race in a neutral manner. I would expect no less of this community. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
              • Sorry, no. That is the result of the low cost of producing such articles in the age of the internet. We aren't writing an article about things Reagan said but Reagan the person. If RSs have used this quote as evidence of something, sure we can include it. We can say they felt that this quote was proof that Reagan was [claim here]. That doesn't mean we should include it. Perhaps you should consider that if we include it readers will think it was included for it's shock value rather than because its specific inclusion helps paint a more accurate picture of the man. It would appear that to put this quote in a full context would take far too much space in an article that is already far too long thus creating a WEIGHT issue. Springee (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                • It's revealing to see your dismissive attitude but the topic of Reagan and racism is considered quite a legitimate one by scholarly authors such as Daniel S. Lucks, Stephen A. Shull and Jeremy D. Mayer who asks, "Ultimately, was Reagan the man a racist? The question is difficult to answer in part because of the multiplicity of definitions of white racism... Reagan was the first prophet of Republican color blindness on race... His faith that he lacked racial prejudice allowed him to take positions widely perceived as antiblack without any hesitation. A more introspective or ambivalent white politician might have retreated in the face of nearly unified black anger at his policy positions and campaign tactics." Reagan didn't retreat. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • It's revealing to see your gross mischaracterization of my comments and your enthusiasm to see bad in Reagan. Your comments here have clearly focused on including the negative views. I'm OK with that but we also need to include the views, from reliable sources, that don't support that narrative. It's been a while since I read Cannon's book. I recall it also said something to the effect that Reagan believed he was treating all fairly to the point that he was often deaf to arguments to the contrary. That isn't racism so much as insensitivity. He thinks all should be treated fairly (an ideal of a non-racist world) but was unable to see that some policies don't impact proportionately. Of course, this sort of understanding of Reagan's view on race is far more illuminating to a reader vs a comment said without context of Reagan's mind's intent in private in 1971. The story about Reagan sticking up for his team mates is more illustrative of Reagan's attitude vs a private comment related to diplomats that did something Reagan found questionable. That circles us around to the central question here, do we include this quote. Again, no because it's a minor part of the bigger, legitimate discussion of Reagan's views on race. We should be summarizing what others say, the conclusions others reach which may include their consideration of this quote. We shouldn't be deciding to include a shocking quote simply because others thought it was shocking. That doesn't summarizes Reagan's views on race nor the notable views related to that topic. Springee (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • If you think I've grossly mischaracterized your comments I'd like to understand what comments they were, and how I mischaracterized them. Regarding enthusiasm, I have enthusiasm for truth and balance. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Your suggestion that I'm against including a discussion of what others have said about Reagan's views on race is the mischaracterization. Like you, I have an enthusiasm for truth and balance. How many editors say otherwise? That I don't think this quote is DUE for inclusion doesn't mean I don't favor the same things you do and I hope you aren't suggesting otherwise. If you have a suggested paragraph summarizing the opinions on Reagan's views on race we can consider it instead of this quote as a stand alone insertion. I'm willing to be proven wrong. So far all we are debating is if the sentence should be added without anyone saying how it should be added. That alone should given editors pause. Perhaps what we need is the paragraph you are proposing so we can debate it rather than something abstract. Springee (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Put it in a subarticle per WP:DUE and WP:Article size. This article is too big. This snippet of Reagan history is too early relative to his Presidency, and it was too off-the-record; too-private (in his mind); too informal to be presented alongside the WP:DUE level of other things given space in this article. Bury in a subarticle, because Wikipedia wants to include all information, and this qualifies, but not at the expense of overpacking articles to the point of being beyond the reading comprehensibility of most readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Ronald_Reagan#Religion, which is in the "Early life" section, is overly glowing, almost sickly sweet, and I am feeling confident that on backtracking the sources to primary sources, it is autobiographical or from people very very close to him. This snippet in question might serve well to provide balance, which is missing on this reading of the top sections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: the incident is WP:UNDUE, relatively trivial coverage and a trivia item long after he is dead not part of his life. WP:NOTEVERYTHING Trivia that had no significant part in the outcome of that conversation or any other event in his life, let alone an impact big enough for biographical notice. And problematic - including just the negative trivia anecdote would be biased, so WP:NPOV would then lead us to include the tale of putting up his two black teammates, and trying to accurately portray where all these stand in context of 1950s and 1960s attitudes despite the 2020s attitudes attached to editors. Skip it all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support including Ronald Reagan's racist comment comparing black people to wild animals. Reagan's racist comment is not a "one off" for Reagan's racism. Reagan had a long, long history of racism long before that call with Nixon. In the 1960s Reagan was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act [29] and Reagan characterized those supporting Civil Rights as supporters of totalitarianism and communism. Reagan opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Reagan said the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is "humiliating to the South," [30] In 1966 when Reagan ran for Governor of California he promised to get rid of the Fair House Act, Reagan said, "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so." In 1980 Reagan launched his run for President in Neshoba, Mississippi where 3 civil rights workers had been murdered by the KKK and Reagan promised the crowd that if elected he would return the laws governing discrimination back to the states, "state's rights." [31] According to wikipedia's article on Reagan's speech in Mississippi, "'States' rights' had for decades been a rallying slogan for racial segregationists, including Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968." In 1988 Reagan vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act [32]. Therefore, I support including Reagan's racist comments comparing black people to "monkeys" as DUE and is just one more, of many, examples of Reagan's blatant racism. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll make two points here: First, even some of the architects of the civil rights legislation of the 1960's (starting with Everett Dirksen) began to question it based on property rights. And secondly, Reagan threw around "state's rights" all the time with no racial context at all. He once (for example) mentioned state's rights before a Senate subcommittee on water issues in 1967. That was part of his the-Feds-are-getting-too-big standard stump speech.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Because Reagan ran on a racist platform, Reagan gave a segregationist's "states' rights" speech at the cite where 3 civil rights workers had been brutally murdered by segregationist's in the KKK. "States' rights" has been a mantra for racist since 1861 through today. In 1964 when GOP Barry Goldwater ran his racist "Southern Strategy" platform for president, with Reagan right by his side, Reagan and Goldwater appealed to segregationists by spreading racist "states' rights" rhetoric. [33] You're mistaken about Reagan's 1967 comments to the Senate. In his 1967 comments, Reagan was begging the Senate to write legislation to help California with their depleted water supply. It was not a speech on "states' rights." Reagan condemned the Civil Rights Acts, while Everett Dirksen supported and helped pass the Civil Rights Acts. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to find out how anyone could have run on a "segregationist" platform in 1980 and not get called on it. I don't recall a single, objective national media figure who did so. (And we are talking quite a few left-wingers here.) In fact, I can think of a few who said the exact opposite. The fact that you would mischaracterize Goldwater's views on this issue (as racism) along with the fact you don't even know that Dirksen himself eventually began to question some of this legislation on the property rights issue I think says it all about your knowledge and objectivity. To quote Reagan's comments (to the Senate subcommittee in 1967) directly: "...that the rights of the states and regions be fully respected...". Maybe (in your mind) was talking about segregating different colored water.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To @Rja13ww33: - This section is about Reagan's racist comments in 1971. In 1971, at the time Reagan said his racist comments to Nixon, comparing blacks to wild animals (which is what this section is about) Reagan had a long history that spanned over a decade of extreme racism (as I discussed above. In 1971, and before, leaders of Republican party like: Barry Goldwater, Reagan (with Goldwater), and Nixon openly courted segregationists and denounced the Civil Rights Act (also discussed above).

Goldwater admits that the presidential campaign Reagan helped him with was extremely racist; [34] Goldwater said, "By the time the convention opened, I had been branded as a fascist, a racist.... So yes, Goldwater & Reagan ran was very racist campaign; even Goldwater admits it, why can't you?

Anyone who reads Reagan's comments will see Reagan was begging the Senate to write legislation with California depleted water supply, [35] Reagan said, "The necessity for finding a legislative solution to the Colorado River water supply problem has been one of the paramount concerns of my administration since it took office.We concluded early that Californias new administration would join with sister states and the Congress in an all-out effort to obtain constructive legislation at the earliest practicable date. As you can see, Reagan is not giving a "states rights" speech about water. Reagan went on to say, "What the entire Pacific Southwest needs now is legislation which satisfies the regions immediate needs through added development of the limited resources of the Colorado River". If you actually read his speech, you'll see that during Reagan's entire speech he was begging Congress for legislation to help their water supply; he was not giving a "states rights" speech.

History is written so that others, who are less-informed, cannot get away with re-writing it. Reagan's racist comments belong in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you think this section "is about Reagan's racist comments in 1971"....why did you drag all these other (supposed) racial incidents into it? Goldwater says he was "branded as a fascist, a racist" and obviously rejects the notion(s) (as per your own article).....and I'm supposed to admit to something he is rejecting? Is this a joke? As far as reagan's testimony to the Senate.....did he or did he not reference state's rights? (The answer is (of course) "yes" as per the quote already provided.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Well, if you take time to read my original comment (here [36], you'll find the answer to your question; I wrote, that I "Support including Ronald Reagan's racist comment comparing black people to wild animals. Reagan's racist comment is not a "one off" for Reagan's racism. Reagan had a long, long history of racism long before that call with Nixon.". Then I used RS to list some of Reagan's racist comments and deeds that were documented at the times Reagan made his racist comments & deeds. You incorrectly said no one ever wrote/talked about Goldwater/Reagan's racism at the time; the RS proves you are wrong. The RS shows Goldwater admits that even Republicans were calling his campaign racist; Goldwater said "By the time the convention opened, I had been branded as a fascist, a racist.... And you are also wrong when you incorrectly claim Goldwater "obviously rejects the notion(s)." In the RS article Goldwater did not did not "reject" it at all. He made excuses for it, but did not "reject" it -- so it is not clear why you made that claim when the article does not say that. Reading is a wonderful thing, especially when we read with our eyes wide open, not shut. So many questions are answered when we take the time to open up our eyes and read.

And if you read, one thing you'll learn is that since early 1960s Reagan's racist comments & deeds have been documented & were geared to oppress blacks. So naturally, Reagan's 1971 racist comments to Nixon do belong in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So Goldwater "made excuses for it".....but didn't reject it? Do realize how ridiculous that is? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. And again I challenge you to name a respected national media figure who thought (at the time) RR's campaign was about this sort of thing. Can't do it can you? Your "documented" cases of Reagan's "racism" are things that can easily be interpreted in other ways.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is an argument for a paragraph on Reagan's views on race. That Reagan did X which some attributed to racism isn't a logical reason to include Y. Springee (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: - oh please! Because Reagan had racist ideology (Y), Reagan said (X): ""If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so." [37] Because Reagan sympathized with racists, Reagan said Voting Rights Act is "humiliating to the South,". Because Reagan ran on a racist platform, Reagan gave a segregationist's "states' rights" speech at the cite where 3 civil rights workers had been brutally murdered by segregationist's in the KKK. Because Reagan had racist ideology, Reagan vetoed the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act. Because Reagan spoke like a racist, Reagan compared black people to wild animals in his phone call with Nixon, who was also a racist. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Who exactly was looking to resurrect segregation in 1980? And where Reagan gave his "states rights" speech is NOT the "cite" where 3 civil rights workers were killed in '64.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: - You're mistaken. Reagan did, in fact, began his campaign for president giving his segregationist's "states' rights" speech at the cite where 3 civil rights workers had been brutally murdered by segregationist's in the KKK. From the Washington Post, [38] "Mississippi's Neshoba County, is famous for a couple of things. That is where three civil rights workers -- Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman -- were murdered in 1964. And that is where, in 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan chose to launch his election campaign, with a ringing endorsement of "states' rights."". And, to answer your question, Ronald Reagan is who was looking to resurrect segregation in 1980, evidenced by Reagan starting his campaign where the KKK murdered 3 civil rights workers & giving his racist "states' rights" speech to the segregationists in the crowd. In fact, because Reagan vehemently opposed Civil Rights Act, in 1980, if Reagan had had his way regarding Civil Rights Act, whites would have still been able to legally discriminate against blacks, blacks would not even have the "civil rights" to drink from the same water fountain as whites, would not be able to sit at the same lunch counter as whites, and whites would be able to discriminate against blacks in housing, Reagan said, ""If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.". BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And that's nonsense. They were not killed on the fairgrounds. (Or the "cite" as you put it.) It was miles away. A lot of politicians speak there. (Both before and after Reagan.....and that includes Mike Dukakis who didn't bring up the murders either.) And I'll make the same point I made above: I don't recall a single, objective national media figure who thought Reagan was opining for the resurrection of segregation. All that stuff appeared years later in the attempt to explain defeat after defeat.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To @Rja13ww33: you are still mistaken. In 1980 Reagan was the very first presidential candidate to speak before the segregationists in Neshoba, Mississippi since 1889 (almost 100 years prior).[39]

In 1971, at the time Reagan said his racist comments to Nixon, comparing blacks to wild animals (which is what this section is about) leaders of Republican party like: Barry Goldwater, Reagan (with Goldwater), and Nixon, openly courted segregationists and denounced the Civil Rights Act (as discussed above). A few years prior to 1971, while Reagan ran for Governor of California he promised to get rid of the Fair House Act, Reagan said, "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.". During the time Reagan said his racist comments to Nixon, both Reagan and Nixon had support from major Republican talking heads like: William Buckley, Pat Buchanan, and Milton Friedman who also supported segregation and denounced the Civil Rights Act. As for the "stuff" that appeared "later" - that's how history works. History is written by writing about things that happened at the time.  

This survey asks if Reagan's racist comment in with Nixon should be added. My response is that yes, Reagan's racist comments comparing black people to "monkeys" is DUE and is just one more, of many, examples of Reagan's blatant racism. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I said "A lot of politicians speak there. (Both before and after Reagan.....and that includes Mike Dukakis...)". And that's a fact. I said nothing about whether they were presidential candidates at the point they spoke. I suppose you aren't going to tell me Mike Dukakis was playing a "southern strategy" by not mentioning the murders either right? (One of the things Reagan took heat for.) As far as your comment about "that's how history works". Well, I'd suggest reading a bit more on history (and this time). As I said: you'd be hard pressed to find a national media figure who made a issue of this. I could give a million examples.....but I'll stick with 2 now: Dan Rather (someone I am going to assume nobody will accuse of being some sort of lap dog for the right) said on election night [1980] that Reagan ran a "smart, classy, high-road campaign....". In the debates, no journalist posed this question, and although the topic of race relations came up....nobody went in this direction. I (also) can't think of any book written on the campaign in the years that immediately followed that made the point this was central to the campaign. One of the best measures of this though (I think) is: what did the President's opponents do? In response to two landslide losses, the Democrats formed the DLC (to bring the party to the center). One-time DLC Chairman Bill Clinton, ran as a "new" Democrat in '92. Unless someone wants to say there is a racial angle in that.....they are stuck with the fact that the Democratic party (at least in the eyes of the public) changed on a whole host of issues outside of race.....and were losing elections because of it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

To @Rja13ww33: Why do you keep repeating the same mistaken, incorrect comment even after I gave you a 1980 New York Times article proving you are wrong, mistaken? In 1980 Reagan was the very first presidential candidate to speak before the segregationists in Neshoba, Mississippi since 1889 (almost 100 years prior).From 1980 New York Times (pdf [40] the NYT writes, "Mr. Reagan, the first presidential candidate of a major party to speak here since the event was first organized in 1889 (1889 is 91 years prior to 1980).

I have provided you with RS that support Reagan's racist comments and deeds. You have not. What you have done though, is toss out a lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric, with no RS to support you claims.

Like I said above, history is written so that others, who are less-informed, cannot get away with re-writing it. Reagan's racist comments belong in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I never said he wasn't the "very first presidential candidate" to speak there. I said: A lot of politicians speak there. (Both before and after Reagan...). Get it? It's been a popular venue for politics for quite sometime. (And still is.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• 'Support inclusion;. The comments are part of the historical record on Reagan's views on race. If such comments were made by any other major American political figure, there would be no question that at least a brief mention is appropriate. However, many seek to sanctify Reagan, and this comment is inconvenient to that effort. In fact, Reagan was a man of his times, with good and bad qualities, and the role of Wikipedia is to present a balanced picture. Cbl62 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose — This version is UNDUE and is not brief as supported by an RFC Nine months or so ago. For a version that is DUE, see Alternate proposal of a briefer version as a Note below.

Discussion - Reagan 1971 comment

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

Possible canvasing an involved editor has notified Project:Discrimination [41]. I'm not sure how this can be considered neutral. Springee (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• I tried to provide additional context on the topic of Reagan and race in this edit[42] but it was of course promptly reverted and there's a complete unwillingness by the gate-keepers on this page to even discuss the inclusion of any content unless it emphasizes how uniquely non-racist Reagan was (which the article currently does). Note that Reagan is notable in the academic literature in terms of "dog-whistle politics" on the subject of race (i.e. it's part of his legacy), yet we are not allowed to even broach the subject. That the 'Oppose' votes in the RfC above insist that there must be extensive scholarship on a topic for it to be deemed worthy of inclusion, yet they fight to exclude content with extensive scholarship, is indicative of how flexible the goalposts are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Springee: From your comment above here, I appears you have not taken the time to listen to the audio of Reagan saying those blatant racist comments. Reagan said, "To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them. They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”. The inclusion of the quote confirms that, prior to that 1971 phone call (not meeting), with Nixon, Ronald Reagan had a long, long history of being an open racist, (not a closet racist). Yes, along with Reagan's other racist comments & deeds, this quote of Reagan comparing blacks to wild animal does belong in this article. To answer your question: No, no RS "dispute" it because it's on tape, audio recording that was released by the National Archives. To your other question: Yes, the audio tape of Reagan saying those vile racist things to Nixon are reported by multiple RS: New York Times, [43] The Atlantic, [44] Washington Post [45] and more. To answer your other question: the experts, and most likely even you if you bother to listen to the audio, interpret those comments as "racist" -- I mean how could anyone hear Reagan say that and not conclude the obvious: racist comment. What it does is "tells us what Reagan said." I suggest you take the time to read or listen to the comments Reagan saying those racist comments before passing judgement on others who support including them in this article. Reagan's racist comments to Nixon are DUE and are just one more explample of Reagan's racism - so yes, the quote does belong in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think Binksternet may have hit on an issue with this discussion. Currently we are debating if a quote can be included in the article but the context of how that quote would be inserted is not being discussed. I think many of the "supports" would be against something as random as "In 1971 Reagan said, "[quote]"" with no additional added text. Conversely, in context of a well written paragraph/section on Reagan's views on race I think editors who are opposed, myself included, may flip our votes. Perhaps the this discussion should focus on the larger proposed change to the section in question rather than if this quote itself can or cannot be included. We are handicapping the discussion by allowing every editor to imagine how the statement might be included. Springee (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Understanding racial bias on Wikipedia – I just want to document this for our future readers, as they try to understand racial bias on Wikipedia: this RfC spurred two administrators' noticeboard threads. Those threads were not about the fact that Wikipedia editors claim that it's not necessarily racist to call blacks "monkeys" or that racist slurs are "utterly irrelevant". Rather, the 'Oppose' votes (including an administrator) were offended by the fact that MastCell said on Jimbo Wales's talk page that it was "shameful" to reject that "monkeys" is a racist slur, and that I had called out the racial bias inherent in trivializing racism.[46] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Alternate proposal of a briefer version as a Note

The Note is:

In 2019, a recording was released of a private conversation between Governor Reagan and President Nixon in 1971, with Reagan referring to U.N. delegates from Tanzania as "monkeys".}}

References

The placement of this Note would be at the end of the sentence about Reagan's racial equality speeches, as in this edit [47], which was reverted.

Although I think there is strong polarization on the subject's inclusion in any form, I thought I would suggest this compromise to at least see what the situation was. Please note that this version is closer to the previous RFC nine months or so ago that supported a brief version of the information, not the more extended version that is the subject of the above RFC. Also, as a Note I think there is more flexibility in its placement, which I suggested at the end of the sentence about Reagan's racial equality speeches. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416, I appreciate the effort at proposing a compromise. Still, this doesn't answer the question that is at the core of my objection (I don't know if it's at the core of others' objections): Why this quote? Why not another quote from Reagan, why this particular one? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. What other one did you have in mind? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of a Reagan quote that is WP:DUE for inclusion in Ronald Reagan that is not already included. When I think, "What Reagan quotes should be in a Reagan biography?", the quotes that come to mind are "tear down this wall", "youth and inexperience", "evil empire", "gov't is not the solution to our problems; gov't is the problem", and Nancy's "just say no", all of which are already in our biography, and in every biography of Reagan; that's what makes their inclusion DUE in our biography: every secondary source includes those quotes, so when we summarize secondary sources in our tertiary-source encyclopedia, we should include those quotes as well. I don't see that this quote comes anywhere near those other quotes in terms of coverage in secondary sources or DUE for his primary biography, mostly because it's WP:RECENTISM, having been reported one year ago. If every bio of Reagan henceforth written includes that quote, then I'd think it was DUE, as well. But until then, I don't see how this quote can be put alongside those other very famous quotes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be DUE because it would be given less weight than the quotes you referred to. Also, I think it's informative about the man. People can be complex. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a critical point about the quotes Levivich mentioned is Reagan was known as the great communicator. Those are examples of quotes that stick in that regard. That said, it's different to suggest including the specific phone quote vs mentioning the statement. Mentioning the statement as you have proposed does make more sense since the exact statement is less important than that the statements contained racist terms. I think the "it's informative about the man" is problematic because it basically is a type of WP:OR. What does it say about him? As editors we aren't supposed to answer that question, we need RSs to say what it means about him. Reagan's statements and actions are evidence to support conclusions others have drawn about him. The summary of those conclusions is what should make it into this top level Reagan article. Springee (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The Note is not OR because it's supported by an RS about Reagan and it doesn't go beyond what is stated in the RS. What you are referring to as OR is a Talk Page comment where WP:OR does not apply. BTW, I remember putting that at the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR years ago [48] and I think it has been tweaked since then. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Bob K31416 (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll second what Levivich said both in terms of appreciating the effort and why this quote. I think it would make more sense to put together a paragraph or two on Reagan's stated views and the opinion of others with respect to Reagan and race. Primarily this would be a summary of RSs but might include examples if they are particularly prominent. Often when people fight to insert content like this they forget that an encyclopedia should be a summary rather than a catalog of the details. Springee (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion of a paragraph or two, sounds good and you might want to start another section to pursue that proposal. But anything negative about Reagan that has much more weight than this Note may not have much chance of success. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The following line is in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found this [49]. To quote: "...a 12th grader in 1978 was fully 3 times as likely to be a current marijuana user (defined as any use in the past 30 days) as a 12th grader in 1992 (prevalence rates of 37% vs. 12%)." There is also a chart illustrating this on p.889 of the article. Since this is the American Journal of Public Health, I assume there are no RS issues. So I would assume everyone would be ok with me adding this as a RS for Dr. Kleber's (quite correct) claims?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Criticism of the Reagan administration's War on Drugs is sourced to an overview article by PBS: "Mandatory minimums become increasingly criticized over the years for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine."[50] The criticism is also so notable as to be the subject of an article (Race and the war on drugs) and substantiated by a large academic literature which shows that the War on Drugs indeed did boost racial disparities. That the Reagan administration's policies successfully reduced drug consumption should likewise be sourced to excellent RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

We cannot present the detractors case only (for outcomes; as you wanted to do) and leave out the other side of the argument. We absolutely can. In fact, we are required to do so if we can't find adequate sourcing for the "other side"; crowbarring in weak or poorly-sourced arguments to 'balance out' something according to an editor's personal perspective is WP:FALSEBALANCE. And in this particular case the sourcing is subpar. The cite to the National Institute on Drug Abuse is unusable because it is a self-published unduly self-serving claim per WP:ABOUTSELF, while the interview is WP:RSOPINION at best; it is not citable for statements of fact the way it is being used here. If the statistics are genuine, relevant, and mean what you want the article to say they mean, it should be easy to find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources rather than an interview with a political appointee. --Aquillion (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, if you will look further down in this thread, another editor verified these numbers with other sources.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Snooganssnoogans [[51]] Springee (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reagan's greatest regret

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

Too much of a testimonial

I liked Ronald Reagan. I voted for him twice, always thought that he was a nice guy, and, in retrospect, a definitely better than average President. Parts of this article, however, have far too much of a testimonial flavor about them. Fine for the Reagan Library, perhaps, but not for an encyclopedia article. Take this paragraph from the Religion subsection:

Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people; this faith stemmed from the optimistic faith of his mother[1] and the Disciples of Christ faith into which he was baptized in 1922.[1]For that period, which was long before the civil rights movement, Reagan's opposition to racial discrimination was unusual. He recalled the time when his college football team was staying at a local hotel which would not allow two black teammates to stay there, and he invited them to his parents' home 15 miles (24 kilometers) away in Dixon. His mother invited them to stay overnight and have breakfast the next morning.[2][3] His father was strongly opposed to the Ku Klux Klan due to his Catholic heritage, but also due to the Klan's anti-semitism and anti-black racism.[4] After becoming a prominent actor, Reagan gave speeches in favor of racial equality following World War II.[5]

I'm sorry, I'm sure a lot of work went into this and the bio as a whole, but this is not encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia shouldn't be declaring in its own voice that Reagan had faith in the goodness of people, and it shouldn't be presuming to know that this faith came from the "optimistic" faith of his mother. If we are going to include testimonial fluff/stuff like that (and we shouldn't include too much of it) at least let it come as the opinion of reliable sources whose opinions are attributed to them within the text. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• One of the issues with this article has always been: how long should it be? One editor (a admin no less) said above that this thing is already 5 times longer than it should be. So I can see a case for cutting the "fluff"....but the fact is, a lot of the fluff would have to stay in if some of the efforts (above) are successful so that we may have balance. Also, even in the case of a encyclopedia, they do try to give a flavor of the man. (And in the case of Presdients, typically pretty flattering.) In The World Book Encyclopedia (1989 version) for example, it says this about Reagan the man in the introductory paragraphs: "Reagan was a skillful campaigner and a gifted speaker. He stressed such traditional values as work, the family, patriotism, and self-reliance. At the age of 69, Reagan was the oldest man ever elected President. But he looked far younger and was vigorous and athletic. Reagan listed his chief interests as drama, politics, and sports. Reagan especially enjoyed horseback riding at his weekend ranch, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara, Calif." I'd like to add that the racial stuff (both pro and con) are for the most part missing from the article as well. (Especially as any campaign tactic. Just the facts ma'am vibe.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with the IP; that passage is a particularly egregious example. With regard to size, WP:AS is the guideline. This article is too long, too detailed, and has NPOV problems. Instead of a neutral biography, it's a mixture of flowery praise, damning condemnation, and mind-numbing detail that is clearly the efforts of somebody to prove something at some point (i.e., federal income tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7 billion to $549 billion ... no context provided. Is that good growth? Slow growth? Did it have anything to do with Reagan's policies? Or was it the policies of the Democrats in Congress?). Meanwhile, entire sections of relevant information are altogether missing (e.g, Tip O'Neill isn't even mentioned). It'd be a long haul to bring this article up to shape, but in my view, the next step for this article should be WP:FAR. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• To Rja13ww33: Yes, but World Book Encyclopedia (does it still exist?) was the reference set that we always told school kids to use first since it was easier to read and less sophisticated than Britannica, Americana, or Collier's. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Look at Britannica's current (on line) article on Reagan: ..."[Reagan was] noted for his conservative Republicanism, his fervent anticommunism, and his appealing personal style, characterized by a jaunty affability and folksy charm. The only movie actor ever to become president, he had a remarkable skill as an orator that earned him the title “the Great Communicator....[later on] After a successful screen test at Warner Brothers, he was soon typecast in a series of mostly B movies as a sincere, wholesome, easygoing “good guy.” (As many observers have noted, the characters that Reagan portrayed in the movies were remarkably like Reagan himself.)” So no, it's not unusual for a encyclopedia to get into a bit about the man himself. I've got a set of Britannica(s) (from 1968) right here on my shelf and the articles about other significant figures are similar. The whole question here is: how long do we want this thing? (And that controls the "fluff".)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. I suspect Britannica has changed a bit from the 1952 edition which was handed down from my grandparents to my parents and then from my parents to my brother. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The section on religion is fully sourced to a major book from a major publisher: Kengor, Paul (2004). God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life. HarperCollins. The reviews have been positive (see https://www.amazon.com/God-Ronald-Reagan-Spiritual-Life/dp/006057142X It's Wikipedia's role to summarize wha tthe reliable secondary sources like this one actually say. I have not seen any other RS that deny the points made at grfeat length by Kengor. I do not see a problem. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So how did Kengor determine that Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people? Did he compare Reagan's faith in the goodness of people against the average person's faith in the goodness of people and find that Reagan's faith was particularly strong, and if so, how did he measure faith? I'm surprised to read you say that you do not see a problem with saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that a person had a "particularly strong" faith in anything. At the very least, that should be prefaced with "according to Kengor". In fact, I'm going to go add that now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

read his book. he talked to people who knew young RR and president RR, and read many thousands of pages of documents = years of work. That's what professional historians do and why they can produce reliable sources. All the bios of RR discuss his religiosity and to my knowledge no one disputes Kengor. Historians have also given a lot of attention to religion & Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Carter. Rjensen (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How does he know how much "faith in the goodness of people" is the "average" amount of faith, and how much is a "particularly strong" amount of faith? What I'm saying is, it's a BS description, because it purports to quantify an unquantifiable, subjective assessment (faith in the goodness of people). We can't really say, as fact, that one person's faith in his fellow man was greater than average, unless we claim to be able to measure such a thing, which we obviously can't. We can say Reagan was religious; we can say he was an optimist; we can say his optimism came from his faith; but we can't say he had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people, in wikivoice. We can say people thought he had particularly strong faith in the goodness of people, we can say he had a reputation for it, but we can't say it as if it were an objectively true fact, and not a matter of opinion, even if widely-held. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"How does he know how much" Scholars do that by studying a lot of people using very good sources, and then discussing their conclusions with fellow experts. If there is disagreement then that leads to LOTS of discussions at meetings and in scholarly journals (there are over 1000 scholarly history journals in USA today, most of them online with critical reviews of books by historians). It's the main line of work of historians. It enables them to say, for example, that Reagan was better at politics than Jimmy Carter, and that both Reagan and Carter were strongly influenced by their deep religion. -- on the last point look at: William Steding. Presidential Faith and Foreign Policy: Jimmy Carter the Disciple and Ronald Reagan the Alchemist (2014) Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Levivich is exactly correct here. Editors are obliged to use reliable sources but editors are not obliged to include anything and everything those sources say about a particular subject, that's the role of an editor, to be sagaciously selective. And editors are most certainly not obliged to parrot fine sounding but inherently subjective statements about the subject, just as they would not be bound to parrot scathing subjective criticism of the subject, even if it comes from highly respected reliable sources. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)