Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Cherry picking and selective POV in lead

The lead says that Reagan advocated for tax cuts, but doesn’t say that he specifically advocated for billionaires and corporations. The lead also says that Reagan lowered taxes, but doesn’t say he lowered it for the richest Americans while raising taxes for the bottom 80% of earners. Once again, we see the fruits of continued POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of POV pushing....Reagan (in fact) pushed across the board tax cuts. And by 1989, the average (total) Federal tax rate was lower (or equal to) than what it was for every income quintile in 1981:[1]Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited demonstrates my point: Reagan raised taxes on the lowest earners and lowered taxes on the highest earners. This point is also supported by our best secondary secondary sources on the subject (listed many up above, but you can add Rossinow [2015] and Mayer [2016] to the list). In other words, Reagan’s policies (which were really given to him by the Heritage Foundation and authored on behalf of billionaires), did not benefit the working class, or the majority of Americans, and his tax cuts primarily were designed to help the 1% of the ruling class, who in fact, helped bring him to power. The lead, as it currently stands, makes it seem like his tax cuts benefitted everyone, when in fact they did not and were never intended to do so, which is why the Reagan administration is responsible for the beginning of massive income inequality in the US, and the transfer of wealth from the public to the private sector. The lead fails to indicate any of this, which is why the POV tag was added. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The source actually says the exact opposite. Effective Federal tax rates (eventually) fell across all quintiles (as I said). Only the lowest stayed about the same and that was because of a bi-partisan effort to fix social security. Nothing there (or anything else you've cited) backs your original assertion that taxes went up for the "bottom 80%".Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Added lead rewrite tag back in. This has not been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on most of this debate, but we cannot use raw stats to justify this sentence; that is original research. If the scholarly sources say Reagan raised taxes for lower income household, we cannot say he lowered taxes for everybody. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the text in the article body does not support the lead at all. There's a paragraph referring to the 1986 tax act, which did in fact reduces taxes on everybody; but there were very many other tax changes made by Reagan (see later sentence about raising taxes 11 times), and nowhere does the body say Reagan reduced taxes overall. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well first off the lead says he "advocated" tax cuts (more on that in a second) without saying who was to get the cuts. (It also says he "cut taxes" without saying on who.) But further points: net Federal taxes went up and down all over the place due to the various bills passed (first to give a overall break, then to fight the (resulting) rising debt, then to fix SS and so on), so we should get multiple RS that give the complete picture over his whole term. And secondly, the original claim was: RR "specifically advocated [tax cuts] for billionaires and corporations". Per RS, that is false. Reagan always advocated in terms of across the board: [2]Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not referring to his advocacy, I'm referring to the fact that the body does not say he cut taxes overall, and the lead does (without a source). This is a verifiability problem, and a neutrality problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You may not be referring to his advocacy....but the lead does. The way it is phrased (I didn't put it in) is likely to side step the very argument that is being made as to who actually got a tax cut. (And which tax.) It is a complex issue and probably phrased that way as to not be cumbersome for the lead.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're reading a different piece of the lead. I'm talking about the sentence that reads "Reagan enacted cuts in domestic discretionary spending, cut taxes, and increased military spending, which contributed to a tripling of the federal debt." In the absence of further detail, the only reasonable way to read this is that he cut taxes overall during his presidency, which is not currently supported by the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I am talking about a different part of the lead, but in the case of the "cut taxes"....we can probably best match what is in the main body by talking about the (across the board) income tax cuts, but also point out the increases (of other tax types, i.e. payroll, etc)....and the net effect was [whatever according to RS].Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you do agree we need RS summarizing the entirety of Reagan's tax policy in the body (not just the 1986 cuts) and to reflect this in the lead? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure.....as long as we don't ignore what came after the '86 Act and rounded out his second term.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Historian Doug Rossinow writes extensively about Reagan’s contribution to income inequality through his policies which were designed to benefit the rich, a very small percentage of Americans, while also fleecing the public. This is not mentioned in the lead.

Furthermore, we still have these outstanding issues with the lead, which fails to note that Reagan

• has the worst civil rights record of any president since 1920
• opposed civil rights legislation
• was allied with segregationists and white supremacists
• opposed laws prohibiting housing and education discrimination
• targeted POC with the "war on drugs"
• supported apartheid in South Africa
• armed and supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, members which later formed Al Qaeda
• supported brutal regimes and dictators like Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Ferdinand Marcos
• had the most corrupt presidential admin in history with 138 officials investigated, indicted, or convicted of crimes
• tripled the national debt in eight years. “By the time Reagan left office [the debt] had almost tripled in nominal terms, and in percent of GDP it had gone from 33.4 percent to 51.9 percent. At the end of his term, the debt stood at $2.6 trillion, with a substantial portion of it contributed by Reagan’s own policies” (Prasad 2012)
• millions of Americans lost their jobs under Reagan
• vetoed a farm credit bill that shutdown thousands of family farms
• changed the tax code causing businesses to fail to the tune of $150 billion
• looted the Social security trust fund
• ignored AIDS and proposed cutting research
• lowered taxes for the richest Americans while raising taxes for the bottom 80% of earners
• largest military procurement scandal in US history
• diverted $2 billion in funds from low-income housing to Republican insiders
• ignored inconvenient facts
• disdain for truth and disregard for law
• politics of white backlash against racial advancements
• called a “racist pure and simple” by Archbishop Tutu
• responsible for decline in federal grants to cities and total failure of urban policy leading to new underclass, unemployment, and worsening poverty
• “Reaganomics” was a disaster for the majority of Americans. According to Kevin Phillips corporate executives and investors were the primary beneficiaries, not the public
• current reputation due not to facts and evidence about his presidency, but due to conservative revisionism and mythologizing. For example, the economy produced more jobs in the 1970s and the 1990s than in the 1980s under Reagan (Rossinow 2015; Longley et al. 2015)

Will this be remedied soon? Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You've posted this stuff before......and it's been addressed. For example the apartheid & AIDS deal was addressed with a RFC. Saying millions of "millions of Americans" lost their job under Reagan is also addressed via the given unemployment rate.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"tripled the national debt in eight years." Entirely unsurprising. He cut tax rates, while increasing military spending. When you spend more than you earn, you go in debt. Anyway, the article on the History of the United States public debt already covers that. :

• Jimmy Carter's single term added 288 billion dollars to the public debt.
• Reagan's first term added 823 billion dollars to the public debt.
• Reagan's second term added 1,050 billion dollars to the public debt.
• George H. W. Bush's single term added 1,483 billion dollars to the public debt. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We give the total debt added during his term in the article. (In raw dollar amounts.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I take no issue with saying (in the lead) the debt tripled on his watch.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DR v FAR

• PLEASE STOP playing politics with a featured article. The presumption is that this article is high quality. Instead of tag bombing, please use WP:FAR if you think it has serious problems. You will get the bottom of it that way. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "The presumption is that this article is high quality." I do not share that presumption. It offers a rather rosy picture of a president who had a largely negative effect on the American economy and on civil rights legislation. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The fact that the article does not make him out to be unadulterated evil does not mean it "offers a rosy picture". Which is not to say that improvements via reliably sourced additions are not welcome, but "This article doesn't make this person seem as evil as I think they are" does not mean it is biased in the other direction. --Jayron32 15:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Jayron, Please don't mischaracterize or exaggerate the stated views of other editors. It is not constructive and it's the sort of behavior that destroys collaborative discussion toward article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The claim that it paints him as excessively "rosy" is an exaggerated claim itself. It presents a rather dispassionate view of him, and does not praise or condemn; which is exactly the tone I would expect of a Wikipedia article. But I take your point, and apologize for my rudeness. It was unbecoming and I should not have done so. As I said originally, however, "Which is not to say that improvements via reliably sourced additions are not welcome", a statement I stand behind. This article should be improved with additional reliably sourced content. All articles, including featured articles, can use such improvements. --Jayron32 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's a personal opinion, for better or for worse. But thanks for your strtikethrough. I agree, we should be ready and able to improve any artilce with well-sourced amendments. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, WP:FAR is not dispute resolution. I see lots of claims made above that don’t include sources, so it seems that a well-formed RFC is the way to go here. If the editors making certain claims lay out high-quality reliable sources that have not been included. Reagan has been gone for a number of years, and high-quality sources are available. FAR will not address the issues raised here, nor will stripping an article of its star resolve the differences; those are resolved by focusing discussion on sources rather than hyperbole and drama, and by engaging dispute resolution such as RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out we've had (fairly recent) RFCs on some of these issues....including the AIDS & apartheid deal being in the LEAD: [3]Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you may need to take additional steps in the WP:DR process. My point is that stripping an article of its star does not resolve disputes. The purpose of FAR is only to determine if an article meets WP:WIAFA (although we’re happy when improvements happen during FAR), and if an article with an unclear picture of POV (or who is or is not POV pushing) comes to FAR, it will probably just sit there for months while the editors continue to not avail themselves of the appropriate steps in dispute resolution. Walls of text with narry a source may be a starting place for re-focusing the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"focusing discussion on sources" Viriditas already suggested additional sources and related text back in September. His suggestions are located in the "Evaluation of his presidency" section, along with quotations from "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy" (2009) by Will Bunch. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am here to opine on how FAR is used, and not to get involved in this dispute. But, if that is the case, the questions one would ask would be things like: where are sources that may or may not say something different, how has the quality of these sources (all of them) been rated or viewed, where is the consensus on what sources are the highest quality for use in this article, what is the proposed text to reflect (all of) those sources, and where is the RFC on that text?? (Please don’t feel you have to answer those questions for my benefit, as I’m only here to explain the difference between article assessment —which is what FAR is part of— and DR, which includes the steps y’all should be looking at.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The notion we should re-build this article according to Will Bunch's book is absurd considering the sources already in the article. (Including a number of highly notable historians and RR biographers.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, am I right that maintenance tags are for serious article deficiencies, and that if this article needed a {{POV}} tag, then surely it would also need to go to WP:FAR? Given that this article has passed WP:FAC, what is the point for anyone to post walls of citation-less text to say the article has serious problems? The allegation seems exceptional and should be backed with significant evidence, no? If this is a content dispute, then shouldn't WP:DR be used instead of plastering the article with maintenance tags, which in this case would be a needless defacement of Wikipedia's best content? (Somebody pointed out that Reagan tripled the debt, which is cited in the article, and I made that change to the lead, because "tripling" was an improvement over the vague "increased" that was there before. If little nip and tuck edits like this are needed, just make them. Don't use maintenance tags to shame the article.) Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We are actually using Steven F. Hayward as a source, a Reagan supporter who credits Reagan with "important insight" on the Soviet Union's internal weaknesses and vocally agrees with many of Reagan's policies:

• "He praised Reagan for trying to reduce the size of the federal government, cutting certain social welfare programs, moving other programs to state control, expanding the U.S. military, advocating Constitutional originalism, and making disarmament pledges with the Soviet Union."
• So we get to quote a biographer who thinks that increasing military spending was not a mistake, and does not mention the side-effects of Reagan's welfare reform. The main article on the topic instead mentions that "In 1981, President Ronald Reagan cut Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) spending" The program was specifically aimed to offer "financial assistance to children whose families had low or no income.", and was thought to support unwed motherhood and single-parent families. (By the way, Bill Clinton was even worse than Reagan in his "welfare reform". His solution was to abolish the program.) Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We quote all sorts of people in the article....including Paul Krugman (who is certainly no fan of Reagan's). Sounds like you want to leave out the Hayward(s) but keep the Krugman(s). But in any case, we also cite noted RR biographers like Lou Cannon and Richard Reeves.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I could only find a single sentence sourced to Krugman, and it concerns a tax increase in 1982. "According to Paul Krugman, "Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of GDP, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase." " Do we have any comments on economic policies by economic historians? Dimadick (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There are actually 2 (see sources #178 & 195). And the 5 times Hayward is cited....it's things that are pretty much unquestioned/uncontroversial. (I.e. Reagan saying the Democratic Party left him, RR's belief that "his presidency would boost American moral", and so on.) The only substantive thing Hayward is cited on (and not ID's as a advocate) is the unemployment rate in December 1982 (which I verified at: [4]) and the "across the board cuts" which is a point being hashed out above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, This article passed FAC in 2006, when it was judged to be some of Wikipedia's best content; and was kept at an FAR in 2009. Those processes imply it shouldn't be far off of FA quality, but they don't guarantee it either. Standards have changed; large parts of the version that passed FAC were unsourced. The article has changed: version that passed FAC was about 8000 words long; the current version is 16,000 words, implying that a considerable portion of this was never reviewed at FAC or FAR. Perhaps most critically, source material may have changed. There has been considerable relevant scholarship published since 2006 that should be included (I have not reviewed in detail if it has been). All of which goes to say that dispute resolution and FA status are at least somewhat independent; long-lasting disputes ought to go to DR or be solved via RfCs, but concerns about content that are backed by sources ought to lead to an FAR regardless of what happens at DR. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm not getting involved in the dispute. Which means, I'm not opining on whether a POV tag has been justified (in the one small section I'm reading, it was not). Yes, if it is a content dispute, the best way to proceed is via DR, since stripping a star at FAR will a) take forever, and b) not resolve the dispute. I'm seeing lots of finger pointing and hand waving discussion in this one section, with very little discussion of sourcing. And the first step should be to list the possible sources and discuss which are highest quality, which are underrepresented, which are in breach of due weight, and so on. If these things aren't done first, and DR is not followed, FAR will not be a very useful step. For example, Vanamonde mentions scholarship that is not represented; discussion would be more productive if it started from that point (as in, here's a list of scholarship we should all consider and discuss). The threading in here is a mess, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could we please follow SandyGeorgia’s good advice? Can we please make a list of the best quality sources used in the article and a second list indicating sources that may be aren’t so high-quality that maybe don’t need to be used and perhaps a third list of new or high-quality sources that the article might benefit from. After we have that we might decide whether this article needs some revision or whether maybe it needs a complete review of its featured article status. Rather than disputing bits and pieces, I think a systematic evaluation would be beneficial. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Good advice. Do a complete reboot, stop shooting at each other, and start focusing strictly on which sources are the highest quality and should be represented here. A methodical approach via sourcing usually works. In a political (and I suppose others, too) article, it is too easy to think that running to FAR to strip the star "will show them" as in "I win, I win". But nobody wins anything by stripping the star if it means content isn't fixed. If the interest is in providing a neutral article to our readership, that is achieved by focusing on sources while leaving behind personalization and long diatribes that aren't "actionable". And if that is done, and the star still needs to be stripped, a much more effective argument (this recent scholarship has not been used, or this source is misrepresented, or that source is overrepresented) can be made at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  This, I agree with 100%. Content quality is central; everything else, FA status included, is secondary, and we should start by focusing on the content. If content issues are raised, and not addressed, only then should we consider an FAR; but the FAR doesn't fix the content issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Could you explain why you think this is a FAR issue instead of a content dispute? As for the article's sources, well-some of them are not third-party sources at all. :
    • We have statements about Reagan as a born-again Christian and his membership in the Hollywood-Beverly Hills Christian Church. They are sourced entirely to statements by Reagan himself in a press article from 1980.
    • A statement about Reagan's mother is sourced to Reagan himself.
    • Reagan's status as the "fifth most popular star from the younger generation in Hollywood" is sourced to a 1941 press article from Australia.
    • His supposed support for the capital punishment is based on a text Reagan wrote in 1965.
    • Bosley Crowther's dislike for Kings Row is sourced to a 1942 review by Crowther himself. Somehow, we fail to mention that Crowther disliked the film because it was "gloomy and ponderous", and that he was part of a minority view.
    • His work as an announcer for the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is sourced to a 1959 press article.
    • A 1961 speech against Medicare is quoted extensively in the article, sourced to the speech itself in a YouTube audio.
    • Extensive quotations from the speech A Time for Choosing (1964) are sourced to the speech itself.
    • Reagan's ambitions to become a "compromise candidate" in the elections of 1968 is sourced entirely to a 1968 magazine article.
    • His anti-abortion stance from the 1960s to the 1980s is sourced entirely to a text Reagan himself wrote in 1984.
    • Reagan's strategy in the elections of 1976 is sourced to a 1979 magazine article.
    • Reagan's support for homosexuals' right to employment in 1978 is mostly sourced to a 1978 editorial by Reagan himself. """Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles."
    • Reagan's support for states' rights in the elections of 1980 is sourced to a 1980 press article.
    • A 1984 speech in Congress is sourced entirely to statements by Reagan himself.
    • The article section about the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and its effects is sourced entirely to statements by Reagan himself.
    • The Today.com source is not talking about Ronald Reagan at all. It is about the political activities and public campaigning of Nancy Reagan. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    These are valid concerns; but who are you addressing them to? I not taken a position against an FAR. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    Many of those sources are completely appropriate for verifying the content (you say, I haven’t checked) they cite, as long as properly attributed and not considered UNDUE in the article. We would expect to use his own words to source things like whether he is a born-again Christian. If he said he supported capital punishment, we take his word for it unless we have an independent source demonstrating otherwise. We believe him if he says he was anti-abortion, absent an independent source showing he wasn’t. Examples only, most of the above are similar; this is not a good approach to resolving the concerns. FIRST, identify sources that should be represented or are not used correctly; THEN jointly decide how much weight to give each, etc, considering the best sources. If you repeat arguments like these at FAR, you would fill up the page with gobbledeegook that would resolve little. Consider a methodical approach to how much weight to give to each issue, and what are the best sources for each issue. The best source for whether he considered himself a Christian is … Reagan. The more relevant question is, does that belong in the article. I can’t imagine what the argument would look like that we should exclude his religion, but that’s not my issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    Aside from religious self-identification, most of these are valid due weight concerns. For an extremely public figure with decades of scholarship available, in an article that's topping 16,000 words, secondary and independent sources are necessary to determine coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    You are likely correct (that there are now higher quality sources), but (repeating myself), Dimadick did not make that case. They should be bringing forward high quality sources that could be/should be used in this article, and based on a consensus about sourcing and weight to each issue, deciding what to include. Dimadicks’s list was counterproductive and doesn’t present a way forward, and doesn’t indicate ANY newer scholarship that needs to be included. Filling the page with lists of complaints, without presenting actionable items that can be addressed, will go nowhere at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    For a article of this length, I would expect there to be some primary sources. (And PRIMARY ( btw) does not prohibit their use.) And a lot of these statements are 100% accurate. I have (for example) seen that "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles" statement in numerous RS sources. It's not a question at all. It makes me wonder if the issue here really is the quality of the sources....or what they are saying.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    The issue is not the use of primary sources per se, but the use of primary sources in places where secondary sources would be expected. Remember that a featured article requires high-quality sources, not simply reliable ones. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

    I'm aware of no rule that says all sources (485 in all) in a article (even a FA) have to be "high-quality", secondary sources. I can't imagine a bio where we cannot (for example) quote from the man/woman themselves.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

    I have said nothing about quotes; please don't put words in my mouth. All sources in an FA have to be high-quality, yes. The issue with primary sources is one of determining due weight; quotes supported by a secondary source, of which there are very many, are an entirely different issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

    Moreover, politicians and other public figures regularly misrepresent themselves, depending on the occasion and the audience. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

    Nobody (including me) is saying that we should run with a politician's quote only when it comes to examining a controversial issue....but it's not realistic to expect a full, reprinted speech (from 40+ years ago) in a recent RS/academic publication.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan tax cuts

In the third paragraph of the introduction, it states that Reagan raised taxes. However, in the fifth paragraph, it states that he cut them. Also, his 1981 tax cuts, amongst other smaller tax cuts throughout his presidency, outweigh the eleven times he raised taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.208.103 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Economic policy labels

We have articles on both Supply side economics and Trickle-down economics. Both terms were widely used to describe the Reagan policies, but in this article the latter term is attributed only to Reagan's critics. In our article on Trickle-down, there's a quote from Arthur Laffer calling Reagan's policies Trickle-down rather than Supply-side. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The latter term is specifically defined as pejorative, and that it is used by critics. It is unclear whether you wish to remove the term "supply side" or "trickle-down" from the article, but both terms appear to be being used appropriately as the article currently stands. --Jayron32 17:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually read the articles? Supply-side economics was an emergent ideological school in the 1970s which argued that "high tax rate progressive income tax systems and United States monetary policy" had failed, and lower tax rates would stimulate growth. Trickle-down economics was originally a criticism of the economic policies of Herbert Hoover, arguing that they were "economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen". We quote a former ally of Reagan in stating that he promised one thing, and practiced the other one.:

• "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean, where the Trickle-down economics article states Major examples of Republicans supporting what critics call "trickle-down economics" include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[8] and where the Ronald Reagan article states "Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect reaching the poor.[189]" Those uses seem to align perfectly. Again, as I said above, you haven't identified the nature of the problem. What text do you want to see changed in this article? It's entirely unclear what you believe should be done. --Jayron32 18:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest any changes concerning the differences between Supply side economics and Trickle-down economics. I was responding to SPECIFICO, and trying to explain why trickle-down economics is only used by Reagan's critics, not his supporters. Dimadick (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining. --Jayron32 18:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Edit: I have removed some comments I made earlier because they were rude and uncalled for, and do not advance the discussion in a productive manner. I apologize both to SPECIFICO who was the recipient of the rudeness, and to anyone that had to read them. I have no excuse, only apology, to offer. SPECIFICO did not deserve that, and I should not have done so. I am sorry. --Jayron32 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understood from his text, he wants us to describe Reagan's economic policies as Trickle-down economics because Arthur Laffer has used the term. Note that Laffer was one of the founders for the Supply side economics school of thought, but his political views often influence what he says. He served in the Economic Policy Advisory Board of Reagan throughout his term in office, he vocally supported the fiscally conservative Bill Clinton in both of his terms, and lauded Donald Trump administration's economic policies, wrongly predicting that they would "raise growth rates to as much as 6% and not increase budget deficits". He was in the news during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that Trump could improve the economy through "halting coronavirus rescue relief spending". Somehow, I don't think Laffer qualifies as an objective source. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Not objective for his own motivation in choice of language during his Reagan-era initiatives? My view is that both of the articles I mentioned at the outset are in poor shape and also that we could consider merging them. But this article does equivocate on the nature of the Reagan policies. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline of the Soviet Union

We are shown no evidence of "decline", only "stagnation". This seems to be an inappropriate heading. Also, the text implies that Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall led to the fall of the Wall. I don't think there is any evidence this is true.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: the article references the performance of the USSR during the relevant time period-which was a mix of stagnation and overall decline; the extent of which as well as the cause(s) for have long been debated. Regardless of one's stance on this issue, it is uncontested that the Soviet Union experienced a period of pronounced decline that accelerated as the 1980s wore on. It is important to remember that overall decline of a totalitarian superpower should not be considered synonymous or inherently require economic collapse; economic stagflation while the USSR's rivals in the West flourished economically, coupled with factors such as the failed war in Afghanistan and widespread social unrest within the eastern bloc clearly constitute an overall "decline" of a polity. The text does not expressly state that Reagan's speech led to the fall of the Berlin Wall but I do see your point that it at least leaves that open as a possibility. Without getting into too much detail, I think a simple change noting that Reagan was out of office by that time would make the paragraph neutral. OgamD218 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Welfare queen

Reagan's popularization of this trope, and its impact on US politics, has been covered in dozens if not hundreds of scholarly sources. I'm rather surprised the term isn't mentioned at all here. Here's some sources, based on a very quick search; there's very many more: [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Reagan popularized the term Welfare queen during his '76 and '80 presidential campaigns. How and where in this article would you propose it be mentioned? Drdpw (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I would mention it very briefly at the appropriate point in the chronology, and include a longer piece, perhaps 3-4 sentences, in the domestic subsection of the legacy section. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Would make more sense to have it as part of the '76/'80 campaign sections. Despite the rhetoric, AFDC really didn't change very much during RR's presidency.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree it should be placed there Gabrielle103 (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on infobox image?

Alternative image

Someone recently switched the main infobox image to this one on the left, which was reverted on the reason that a RfC would be required. However, I agree that the current image is not that good. The biggest issues, at least for me, is the unnatural lighting. Reagan's face looks way too red, and the whole image as a whole is very dark, the hair almost blends in with the background. This one on the right, I think, is a huge improvement. Rousillon (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure that's an accurate reproduction of his official portrait. I agree about the problems you cite, but it seems odd that his posterity pic would look like that. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell this is the original. It's not any better. Rousillon (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Me personally, I think the image we have is better.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The offical pic does have the advantage that it shows the guy whom the voters elected, as opposed to the guy in the mellower-looking substitute pic. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your argument does make sense and is a smart one to make. However, the pages for the rest of the Presidents that have two terms such as Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama always shows a photo taken during their second term or sometime near the end of their first term, with Wilson being taken in 1919, Eisenhower's in 1959, and Obama in 2012. Nixon is an expectation as it was sometime in his Presidency when the photo was taken and published ~ HistorianL (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support alt image I raised this point before such as in the case of Obama, a second term portrait is used in the infobox and I think Reagan should follow suit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

--

he also had a favorite stuffed animal named tingle bo dingleBvhebfufhbvue (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: First of all, your edit is unsourced. Secondly, this info is not notable enough to be put into the article. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Reagan also sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976

I am a pro-Reagan voice. While I appreciate the content and this Wiki entry, I would respectfully request that you include Reagan’s run for the Presidential nomination in 1976. Gerald Ford won the nomination, but the entire article is so thorough, I believe it should include this detail. Thank you. I always wonder what would have happened if he had won that nomination. 2600:1700:2D30:9620:30AF:FF57:218E:D650 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is already included in the "1976 presidential campaign" section of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what the anonymous commenter meant but I think it's worth mentioning in the lede. I took a shot at it, feel free to edit (obviously). –CWenger (^ • @) 15:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

change "becoming the first serving U.S. president to survive being shot in an assassination attempt" to "becoming the first in-office U.S. president to survive being shot in an assassination attempt" Kitauss (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to "becoming the first U.S. president to survive being shot in an assassination attempt while in office", which sounds more natural to me. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Reagan is single-handedly responsible for the modern student loan crisis

Source. Once again, this current article should be de-listed. It’s a disinformation and propaganda whitewash that promotes right-wing myths and legends, and fails to cite facts, history, and hard truths about Reagan, widely considered the worst American president of all time, and who is the one person most of the current problems in the US can be traced back to as a single origin point. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Wilson Reagan (PT 666) operated a patrol boat in the Pacific and saw off the Hun who were sinking their talons into the Panama Canal, in case you don't remember. He married a knockout astrologer called Nancy Wagon and employed a flack called Donald Regan (not to be confused with the IRA knitting needle assassin). Suffice to say, Reagan and Douglas Dragon were the brains behind the Gagarin double-switch and - yes - Ronnie could drink the Duke under the table. And as the Grand Jury said, "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio...?"--Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I voted against Reagan every chance that I had. That being said, calling him "single-handedly responsible for the modern student loan crisis" may be the opinion of a 2022 political pundit (or two), but it is nothing that should be said in Wikipedia's voice, because all rational people know that political responsibility is far more nuanced and complex. As for Jack Upland's unencyclopedic political satire, I was tempted to revert it per WP:NOTAFORUM but will give the experienced editor the opportunity to clean up their own mess. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. This guy has been having some sort of crusade against this article for quite sometime. (Mentioning it in other places on wiki hoping to undermine it's FA status.) As far as The Intercept goes, it's on our RS list....but for news. It is recognized as a biased source for anything else. Furthermore, as you noted, this is a single source.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Viriditas isn't the only established editor who views this article as laughably hagiographic and unencyclopedic. It's highly unlikely that this article would survive WP:FAR, given its cynical cherry-picking of sources and selective airbrushing, among other issues. But I'd agree that it's hyperbole to say that Reagan was solely responsible for the student-loan crisis, or that he is widely considered the worst US President of all time. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Improvement of the article based on better scholarship is invited and encouraged. Pre-emptively attacking everyone who doesn't whole-throatedly express undying hatred for Reagan is not. --Jayron32 16:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never, at any time, expressed "undying hatred for Reagan" anywhere, nor have I attacked anyone. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Well one of the last times this was brought up you [see the archives] accused me and others here of: "[whitewashing] facts which you and other conservative activists have spent years denying by rewriting and hiding the evidence from our readers". Sounds like you are getting close to that sort of thing again.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there’s a long history of problems with this article. The original writer of this biography claimed he was a former employee of the Nixon library. Even the Los Angeles Times found him to be engaging in myth making, promoting the ahistorical, rugged individualistic birth of Nixon at home, without any need for a doctor, bootstrapping himself out of the womb. Only problem is, Nixon was born in a hospital, according to his mother. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say this article has changed quite a bit since the first version.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I’ve repeatedly argued that it suffers from the same problems as the original author, namely the penchant for myth-making, which Will Bunch has specifically defined in his work vis a vis Reagan. Further, there are multiple allegations by other authors in the literature that I’ve either mentioned or alluded to, that involve a well-funded campaign to rewrite and whitewash the legacy of Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't think there is any current big plot to myth make this article. Certainly people bring POVs (as you certainly do).Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't help but see the last Mastcell edit summary and clicked on it out of curiosity, as someone who got through Stanford with loans (paid off) and scholarships thanks to Ronald Reagan. Re Mastcell on to whether this article would survive FAR, I don't believe there is any recent political bio FA that would survive FAR: they've all got similar issues. When is the same scrutiny going to be applied to Clinton? (Nancy Reagan was already defeatured. Obama was already defeatured, and was probably never at FA level anyway.) Whoever is promoting the absurd hyperbole that Reagan is single-handedly responsible for the student loan crisis probably has no business editing this article, with such an extreme and outrageous bias and unserious use of an article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

RR (in general) is viewed favorably by heavyweight Presidential historians (in RS) and in opinion polls (despite the ludicrous statements by the OP). So it is perfectly natural that our article reflect that. None of the Presidential bios here are going to suit people with a political axe to grind.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not true. There was an effort by right wing, conservative groups to push the false historical narrative that Reagan was one of our best presidents. IIRC, I posted the source to this claim on this page the last time I brought it up and it’s in the talk page archives. The problem is the POV in this biography reflects this biased view, and I’ve also demonstrated that claim in the same archives, many times. It’s sad to see someone as educated as SandyGeorgia using whataboutism in her comment up above. It seems even that our best reviewers aren’t immune from such propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and your sources were a total joke. (Non notable people like Will Bunch and so on.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There’s no need to be deliberately dishonest. Your arguments should stand on their own merits without lying. Will Bunch is a notable journalist who covered Reagan’s presidency and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1992 for his work with his newspaper. He was never used a source for any of the proposed material here, as you are already aware. He was cited specifically for my claim that the writers who are POV pushing here are engaging in Reagan myth-making. That’s a meta argument that has nothing to do with specific content. Of course, you know that. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of lying, looks like you haven't lost your touch: the entire staff of Newsday got the Pulitzer. Bunch isn't mentioned in the award at all. And yes, you did cite him once before. You still have not produced a single source for this nonsense about Reagan being "widely considered the worst American president of all time".Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"Will Bunch is a notable journalist who covered Reagan’s presidency and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1992 for his work with his newspaper." I’m sorry you are having so much trouble with this statement. Give it time, let it soak in, slowly. You’ll get it. As for Reagan’s legacy, you may want to have a look-see at the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, which is a special project of the conservative activist group Americans for Tax Reform, which is funded by Donors Trust, a right wing, dark money slush fund. They are very active trying to rewrite and whitewash the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Will Bunch isn't mentioned in the Pulitzer....period. [10] The whole staff won it. Let that soak in. To claim he "was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1992 for his work with his newspaper"....is misleading at best.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing at all is misleading about it. You made a mistake, you’re unable to admit your mistake, and you persist in your error. Will Bunch, a member of the staff of Newsday, in Long Island, New York, received the Pulitzer Prize, along with the rest of the staff, for their news coverage of a midnight subway derailment in Manhattan that left five passengers dead and more than 200 injured. Those are the facts. I’m sorry you disagree. First you said he was a nobody, then you claimed he didn’t win a Pulitzer. You were refuted twice. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry no. The Pulitzer Prize doesn't mention him. Sorry to burst your bubble here. [11] You didn't mention the "the rest of the staff" before. Misleading facts and loading the dice are one of your talents.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• The claim that because a Wikipedia article does not exactly mirror a very specific, very recent opinion piece, it is wrong, is so patently ludicrous that it doesn't even bear addressing in this forum. I fall politically somewhere left of Marx, so your claims that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say must be a right-wing shill is bullshit, and you should know it. Just stop this. --Jayron32 15:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree: I didn't even read through to the beginning of the thread after seeing MastCell's edit summary, but the person who is abusing this talk page in this manner should not be editing here at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• MastCell is quite correct in saying that this article doesn't reflect the source material and doesn't meet FA standards; the prose length has doubled, there's 16 years of sourcing that hasn't been evaluated, and there's problems with cherry-picking, as he notes. But if someone wishes to challenge FA status, they need to list actionable problems and heavyweight sources that need to be considered. If those are actioned, well and good; if not, an FAR becomes a necessary exercise. A single opinion piece, no matter the source, doesn't cut any ice. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• I previously made a huge list of actionable items on this talk page. They were all dismissed and ignored. They are in the talk archives. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Viriditas: Then you could of course launch an FAR; that's the prerogative of any editor, and this article has moved far enough from its reviewed version that an FAR is likely necessary anyway. But if you wish for it to be a productive exercise with respect to addressing POV concerns, you need an actionable list that's backed by sources. And I mean that you need to show the article does not reflect the consensus of the source material, not that there's specific sources it contradicts. I know this to be the case in at least a few areas (the AIDS crisis and race relations; MastCell is more qualified to speak to the former). But if you can show this is true for a few other things, an FAR becomes much more urgent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be curious to hear how the current AIDS section (among others) doesn't "reflect the consensus of the source material". We capture the typical criticisms (not enough attention, underfunding, etc) with the other POV as well (the President eventually calling it a "top priority", the explosion of funding, etc).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

At the moment it's a lot of he-said-she-said, with more weight being given to the administration's POV (see how the activists are said to have "claimed", while the administration "noted"). This is interspersed with stats that aren't narratively connected to anything. We have enough scholarly sources on the subject to write a more authoritative paragraph. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside what may be MOS issues....there is another side to this (from RS) we cannot ignore. Yes, most RS treatments of RR on this subject are critical on the whole...but we cannot leave out a lot of what is currently there. Interestingly enough, we currently cite 'And the Band Played on....', and anyone who has ever read that book (including myself) will tell you: Shilts points the finger at a lot of people (even the media).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that last comment, as nobody is proposing blaming Reagan for the entirety of the pandemic. You yourself acknowledge that RS are on the whole more critical than our material, which is an NPOV violation needing to be fixed. And of course we can leave the current material out. Aside from a few sources none of it is sacrosanct; certainly comments from within the administration are not. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is putting things in the proper context. Our article criticizes Reagan for ignoring the crisis....and the fact is: it wasn't just him. It was across the political spectrum. In 'And the Band Played on...' Shilts notes this by late 1984: On November 6, Ronald Wilson Reagan was reelected president....Throughout the campaign, the burgeoning AIDS epidemic never became an issue of import. Neither candidate made any public pronouncement on the administration's "number-one health priority," and no reporter thought the issue significant enough to raise"(p.495). So if we are going to be overhauling it, this fact should be noted. The RR admin wasn't working in a vacuum.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's utterly irrelevant. This article needs to contain a short summary of what reliable sources say about Reagan and AIDS. Societal neglect of AIDS belongs elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not irrelevant. If RS places this in context....so should we.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that you yourself acknowledge RS are more critical of Reagan than our content, further discussion is indeed irrelevant, and I'm therefore disengaging. If those issues aren't fixed, the article will end up at FAR sooner than later. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "RS are more critical of Reagan than our content"...what I actually said was "most RS treatments of RR on this subject are critical on the whole"....and before that "We capture the typical criticisms (not enough attention, underfunding, etc) with the other POV as well...[and later]...we cannot leave out a lot of what is currently there".Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but you're quite incorrect. When the sources are by and large critical, a section that mostly isn't is an NPOV violation. Context is appropriate when included by sources discussing this topic, but context needs to be weighted appropriately; it's not an excuse for sticking a history lesson in for an analysis of policy. None of the material currently in the section is sacrosanct, and if this is to survive an FAR, much of it cannot remain. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure the section mostly isn't critical? I ran a word count on the critical part and came out with 133 vs. 116 for the defense. (And if we were to eliminate the comments by Bauer, that would cut it down to 67.). And I am not proposing a "history lesson" at all.....I am suggesting some quick notation (which isn't currently there) about what the overall climate was at the time. As far as this surviving FAR as is....lets just note the fact that 2 of the 3 sources in the last paragraph are from the NY Times (definitely on our RS list).Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Reagan, widely considered the worst American president of all time" I am no fan of Reagan, but where are you basing this placement? We have an article on Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. The lowest ranking of Reagan in recent polls gives him the 18th place. Which ranks him above the likes of Joe Biden (19th), George H. W. Bush (20th), and Ulysses S. Grant (21st). Reagan is nowhere near the bottom of the list. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Supporting sources

• Camilla E. Watson, Federal Financing of Higher Education at a Crossroads: The Evolution of the Student Loan Debt Crisis and the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 2019 Mich. St. L. Rev. 883 (2019)

1. The Reagan Administration (1981–1989)

Ronald Reagan ran for President on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education, calling it “President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle.”146 As part of his “New Federalism” agenda to reduce the size of the government by “reduc[ing] the federal budget deficit, . . . attack[ing] inflation, . . . cut[ting] taxes,147 and . . . decentraliz[ing] as well as deregulat[ing] a wide range of federal social welfare programs,”148 Reagan cut funding to education in his first year in office by more than 15% (which amounted to around $1 billion).149 He also oversaw the Postsecondary Student Assistance Amendments Act of 1981,150 which rolled back some of the strides in higher education President Carter had made. This Act implemented a student loan origination fee, repealed the six-month loan repayment grace period, increased the annual repayment amount, repealed the increased guaranteed loan amounts for independent students, and increased the PLUS loan interest rate, although it expanded eligibility under the PLUS program to include independent undergraduate students and graduate/professional students.151

The following year, Congress enacted the Student Financial Assistance Technical Amendments Act of 1982,152 which again amended the Higher Education Act of 1965. This Act restricted the amount of the Pell Grant that a student could receive in the academic year 1983–1984; revised the need-based criteria for supplemental educational opportunity grants, work-study grants, and direct loans; and terminated the authority of Sallie Mae to consolidate student loans as of August 1, 1983.153

By 1984, there was growing concern over the student loan default rate.154 So that year, Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act, which included private student loans within the exception to bankruptcy discharge.155 Two years later, there was a more student-friendly reauthorization of the HEA.156 Under this legislation, the Supplemental Loan to Students (SLS) program was created to extend loans to graduate, professional, and independent students;157 authorize student loan consolidation;158 and increase the loan limits for all guaranteed student loans.159 Also under this legislation, National Direct Student Loans were renamed Perkins Loans.160 But amid continuing concern over the large number of defaults, the legislation provided that any student in default would be ineligible for any subsequent government-guaranteed student loan.161

Secretary of Education William Bennett had been sounding the alarm for some time over the rising student loan default rates.162 In late 1987, he proposed regulations to terminate federal funding of schools with a default rate greater than 50% and to investigate schools with a default rate greater than 20% by the end of 1990.163 The Democrats, along with representatives of proprietary schools, objected that the regulations disproportionately affected proprietary schools, which in turn enrolled many underprivileged, lower-income students.164 But some leading Democrats, such as Senator Edward M. Kennedy, changed their views after the release of a Department of Education (DOE) study documenting fraud, misrepresentation, and student loan abuses at proprietary schools.165 However, the majority of Democrats remained staunchly opposed to the restrictions on proprietary schools,166 and with a presidential election looming, Bennett’s proposal was never implemented.

By the end of Reagan’s term in office, not only had the issue of student loan defaults not been adequately addressed, but the cutbacks in education funding had taken their toll on higher education. Over Reagan’s two terms, college tuition and fees increased by approximately 82%.167

References

146. Neal McCluskey, Cutting Federal Aid for K-12 Education, Downsizing the Federal Government (Apr. 21, 2016), https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ education/k-12-education-subsidies; see also Valerie Strauss, Ronald Reagan’s Impact on Education Today, WASH. POST (Feb. 6, 2011), http://www.voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school/school- turnaroundsreform/how-ronald-reagan-affected-tod.html. Reagan’s other ideas for reforming education included mandatory school prayer and tuition tax credits for private schools. Id.

147. Reagan wasted no time implementing his supply-side economics to stimulate the economy. See Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-34, § 101, 95 Stat. 172, 176 (1981). He lowered the income tax rates from a maximum of 70% to 50%, where they remained for the next six years until he lowered them again in 1987 to a maximum rate of 38.5% in a complete overhaul of the tax code. Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-514, § 101(h)(2), 100 Stat. 2098–99 (1986). At the beginning of 1983, unemployment reached a high of 10.8%, the highest since the Great Depression, but it had fallen to half that by the time Reagan left office. Sicilia, supra note 102.

148. A Brief Synopsis, supra note 20, at 45. At that time, the Democrats controlled the House, but the Republicans controlled the Senate.

149. Id. He argued that many of the programs had not warranted their expense and that students should be paying a larger share of their own costs. See Gene I. Maeroff, After 20 Years, Educational Programs Are a Solid Legacy of Great Society, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 30, 1985), https://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/30/us/after-20- years-educational-programs-are-a-solid-legacy-of-great-society.html [https:// perma.cc/39YZ-PJG8].

150. See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-35, §§ 531–40, 95 Stat. 357 (1981). This was part of Title V of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. See §§ 531–40.

151. See §§ 534–37, 95 Stat. at 454–57.

152. See generally Student Financial Assistance Technical Amendments Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-301, 96 Stat. 1400 (1982) (amending the HEA).

153. See § 2, 96 Stat. at 1400; §§ 10–11, 96 Stat. at 1403–04; § 14, 96 Stat. at 1405.

154. See Student Loan Default Rate Soars in ‘85: Officials Forecast $1-Billion Problem, Worse Years to Come, L.A. TIMES (Aug. 29, 1985) [hereinafter Student Loan Default Rate Soars], https://www.articles.latimes.com/1985-08-29/news/mn- 237251default-rate [12].

155. See Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-353, § 456, 98 Stat. 376 (1984); see also supra notes 112–113, 125–126 and accompanying texts.

156. See generally Higher Education Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99- 498, 100 Stat. 1268 (1986) (reauthorizing the HEA). This reauthorization bill was sponsored by Senator Robert Stafford of Vermont.

157. See § 428A, 100 Stat. at 1384–86.

158. See § 428C, 100 Stat. at 1388–91. This applied to Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) under the Act.

159. See § 425, 100 Stat. at 1359. The limit was increased from $2,500 for all years of undergraduate study and $5,000 for graduate students, to $2,625 for freshmen and sophomores, $4,000 for juniors and seniors, and $7,500 for graduate students. § 425, 100 Stat. at 1359. In this 99th Congress, the Democrats were in the majority in the House, but the Republicans were in the majority in the Senate. See HISTORY, ART & ARCHIVES, Congressional Profiles, U.S. HOUSE OF REPS., https://history.house.gov/ Congressional-Overview/Profiles/99th [13] (last visited Oct. 28, 2019).

160. See § 461(a), 100 Stat. at 1439. The following year, in 1987, the guaranteed student loan program was renamed the Stafford Loan Program in honor of Vermont Democrat Robert Stafford, a long-time supporter of education. See Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 100-369, § 8, 102 Stat. 835, 837.

161. See Pub. L. No. 99-498, § 484(a), 100 Stat. 1480.

162. In 1985, approximately one-third of federal funding for the guaranteed student loan program went toward servicing defaults. It was projected that by 1987 almost half of the funding would go toward paying the defaults. See Whitman, supra note 105.

163. Id.

164. See id. The Democrats accused the Republicans of having “their heads buried in the sand.” Id.

165. See id. at 4.

166. See id. at 5; see discussion supra note 134.

167. See NCES, supra note 70, at 579. This affected student enrollment because while general enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased a little over 9% during Reagan’s two terms in office, the percentage of students attending college part-time increased only 1% and enrollment in two-year programs increased only 0.5%. Id. at 403. Students who were likely to have attended part-time or enrolled in two-year programs were also likely to have been lower-income students. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

All of this is from a single article.....and even it doesn't blame RR as far as I can tell. (See the conclusion section.) In fact it specifically points out the cause: "The public’s attitude toward education began to change during the 1970s, however, with the decline in the economy and the increasing distrust of the government over the Vietnam War. The demand for greater accountability in education spending and concern over growing student loan defaults, the majority of which were attributable to borrowers from proprietary institutions, were probably factors in the first congressional encroachment on student borrowers’ rights in the bankruptcy process in the third reauthorization of the HEA in 1976.408 But instead of addressing the problem of defaults in a rational manner by imposing additional restrictions on proprietary institutions, which were responsible for the largest number of defaults, Congress instead chose to “punish” student borrowers by limiting their ability to discharge federally insured student loans in bankruptcy.409 At the same time, it provided an unlimited statute of limitations on collection of these loans.410 The “no free rides” mentality persisted and caused Congress to decide at several points to forego the route of scholarships and grants for students and support to educational institutions, in favor of student loans.411 The die was cast by the HEA’s initial shift of support from educational institutions to students and from government lenders to government-guaranteed private lenders. This was the root of today’s student loan debt crisis. At the time the HEA was enacted, however, these shifts probably made the legislation more palatable politically and thus increased its chance of enactment,412 even though at the time, there was concern over the rising costs of higher education.413 While there are numerous factors that have contributed to the high cost of post-secondary education, the biggest factor has been the decrease in state support, particularly during periods of economic downturns, which has forced colleges to raise tuition.414 But in the initial enactment of the HEA, as well as in subsequent reauthorizations, Congress relinquished any significant role in moderating the spiraling costs of higher education by focusing on aid to students, rather than aid to educational institutions.415" Note this was in the 70's....and before Reagan.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Josh Mitchell, Wall Street Journal reporter, in conversation with Meghna Chakrabarti, summarizes the key historical points:

Reagan was crucial. And the Reagan era was crucial because there were a lot of things going on. The first thing that happened was there was a deep recession in the early eighties, and when the country came out of that downturn, businesses really started to invest in technology. The computer age came to be. And so this era of globalization started to take hold, which meant that if you were a worker who had gone to college, your wages were going up. Because workers with skills in this new globalization environment were being paid a lot. Employers were looking for highly skilled workers. Meanwhile, workers who did not go to college, a lot of workers who worked in manufacturing, for example, their wages were going down. And so the so-called college wage premium, the difference of what college graduates make versus non-graduates. It was the 80s when that really started to increase. And so what that meant was you all of a sudden had all of these families in the 80s and 90s that felt this economic imperative to go to college and graduate school, and they were just pounding on the doors of schools. Now, coupled with that, that is when loans really started to come into play. Because like I said, Sallie Mae was created in 1972. But it wasn't until the 80s that Sallie Mae and the Education Department, or the federal government, really started to learn how to run this program, and in a way that banks were paid on time. And so it became a really efficient operation. And so just at a time when all of these families were seeking to go to college, students were seeking to go to college. The federal Education Department and banks and Sallie Mae were making it extremely easy for these students to get access to loans. And that's when schools started to raise their prices in response. You had more people going to college. You had more people with more money through loans to go to school and pay the price of going to college. And if you look at a chart of when tuition really started to pick up, it was right around this time. And by the way, this was also when President Reagan was really emphasizing this idea of, You should pay your own way, individual responsibility. And paying for college as the burden of the household. It's not necessarily the federal government's responsibility to pay for college. Students should do it themselves through loans.

Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Well this is a different source. (And not sure if it is RS.) But Josh Mitchell has written in the Wall Street Journal on this before [14] without bringing Reagan into it. And even here he doesn't lay 100% of the blame at RR's feet.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Cherry picking individual articles that support your already set-in-stone thesis that you've already decided is true is not how intellectually honest research happens. --Jayron32 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Change autobiograhy to autobiography Polygnotus (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Strange lack of context in "Cultural and political image"

This section states that "Reagan did not fare well with minority groups in terms of approval, especially African Americans." It seems very strange that there is no context for this assertion. Is there a specific reason why there is no mention, not even one additional sentence, of possible reason for this dearth of support among minority groups, specifically African Americans (welfare cuts, War on Drugs, "states rights" rhetoric, redbaiting of MLK and Angela Davis, etc) ? Jaydenwithay (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of too many Republicans that have faired well with African-Americans over the last 50 or so years. (Even Gerald Ford. And I don't think anyone has ever accused Ford of race baiting.) But some of this is in the article now (i.e. the MLK holiday deal, the racial issues with the War on Drugs, etc). By the way, this is about the third section you've opened over the last week with some of these issues. No need to flood the talk page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph that sentence is about how different demographic groups view Reagan. --Wow (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC); modified 07:44, 16 December 2022

I read the sentence again and conclude that it is in the wrong section, so I moved it to the domestic and political legacy section. However, the sentence doesn't have a source for it, so someone needs to add a source or remove the sentence. --Wow (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Delayed improvement of AIDS subsection

In about seven months I will likely make some substantial edits to the subsection of the response to the AIDS epidemic. I am delaying this because I just recently finished writing and submitted a 4000 word research paper on the government response to AIDS that will be graded in the summer, and I would not like my paper to be flagged for plagiarism because of similarities to material on Wikipedia that I myself wrote. See y'all then! Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

2 things to keep in mind: be careful not to include any OR. And secondly be careful as far as the length goes. The AIDS section is probably already longer than it should be (for a overall biography).Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Which means that these edits should be made at Presidency of Ronald Reagan instead. --Wow (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Those 4,000 words could be enough for a new page about this subject. Something like Ronald Reagan and the AIDS epidemic could do it. --Wow (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

More could be said about the federal government's response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the HIV/AIDS in the United States article. Drdpw (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I would absolutely love to see a quality, lengthy article on purely that subject, but my paper is focused specifically on the creation of the Understanding AIDS national mailer in 1987 (which I know has its own article) and the roadblocks, dysfunction, and cynicism leading up to it. Jaydenwithay (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to touch on the religious right's reaction to AIDs education in one of my edits on this article. Perhaps it could be expanded upon in another.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of included material in "Early life"

The third paragraph of the "Early life" section of this article consists of scattered anecdotes about supposed opposition to racism in his youth. To what extent is this relevant to the article and the topic as a whole? Considering actions and rhetoric in his presidency (let's face it, that's the significant part of his life) that had deleterious effects on minorities in the US, such as drastic cuts in social spending and the rabid War on Drugs, as well as personal comments that denigrated Africans, one cannot truly in good faith describe the man as a resolutely anti-racist figure. Jaydenwithay (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Part of any article on such a pivotal, significant figure will include such content. The idea is to give the reader a sense of the person. Similarly, in Obama's article, there are anecdotes of his awareness of his own race and so on early in his life.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but my question still remains, to what extent is this relevant to the article and the topic as a whole, especially considering that these sentiments seemed to evaporate as his life progressed? Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A further consideration here is that this article is far longer than necessary; 14.5k words wouldn't pass FAC easily these days, and the suggested guideline recommends under 60kb readable prose, while we're at 89 here. Anecdotes that are encylclopedic may still need pruning or moving to subsidiary articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is too long but trimming should probably be done across the article rather than in just one section. Early life is a rather common bit of background in many biographies. Trimming the background to create room for more controversy type material is probably not a good idea. Springee (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow has been doing a pretty good job trimming so far.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That they "evaporated" is your opinion. I've given the reason why.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• My major concern is that some of the anecdotes about Reagan's opposition to racism early in his life come from sources that specifically contrast it with his later enthusiastic exploitation of anti-Black racism and white racism as a politician. We mine these sources only for positive anecdotes while ignoring their actual content and emphasis. It's dishonest cherry-picking, but it seems to be accepted in the culture around this article. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  My point exactly. Jaydenwithay (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  The article does touch on the fact RR "was accused of appealing to white racial resentment and backlash against the civil rights movement" in his career. I think I will add a link directly to these controversies from the campaigns. (Needless to say, they don't belong in the "Early Life" sections.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is in contrast to the early life material, any critique of Reagan's racial views is not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Mulford act

The Mulford act is described as the beginning of modern gun control [15]; it really needs mention in the article, alongside its recognized goal of disarming the Black Panthers. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I've started writing on this, but I don't know how to gain access to Cambridge's journals, so I'm using this book on guns and gun violence as a refernece for now. --Wow (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't have the time to help with writing, but may have access to sources; feel free to ask. There's also WP:RX, if you haven't seen it already. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote a brief paragraph on the Panthers and Mulford Act using that journal and two other sources. Wow (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Civil rights

@Wow: While you're writing it, it seems to me that the civil rights section should refer to the entire books written on the subject, rather than just biographies; see [16], [17], for instance, both written by scholars, and among the most cited works on Reagan vis a vis civil rights. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Crops? Possible typo

One sentence reads: "He was assigned as a private in Des Moines' 322nd Cavalry Regiment and reassigned to second lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Crops."

Did you mean to say "Corps"? The article is semi-protected so I can't edit it myself. 81.159.205.146 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks! –CWenger (^ • @) 14:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede

User:Nick9289, in this edit, you said that the lede was changed without a consensus. That's true, but with that said, the reason why I changed it was mainly because one, the note in the second paragraph is redundant per the text At the time of his first inauguration and two, it's very strange to include specific numbers in the third paragraph like the American economy saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5 percent to 4.4 percent and an average real gross domestic product annual growth of 3.6 percent, especially since they aren't mentioned in the body at all. Also, there's no need to say On June 5 in the last paragraph as there are no other notable events involving Reagan in 2004. For these reasons, I believe that the lede should be changed to something like the one right before your revert. Wow (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC); modified 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

While we are at it, I've been thinking about adding a statement from the body about the recovery (starting in '82) beginning the longest peacetime expansion up to that point. I think that is important because it helps explain subsequent elections.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to restore the newer lede per WP:IAR. There's no reason to continue using outdated text and a broken note for a very important part of this article. For the inflation and GDP sentence, those numbers are rather estimates, which is even worse than hard numbers. However, the lede could definitely go through some more refining. --Wow (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC); modified 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the changes being discussed here, but any additions to material about the economy will need further discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I plan a statement (at some point in the near future) to be added to the lead about the length of the recovery (as noted above and possibly a average growth rate as noted below, haven't checked the RS on that)....not sure if that is/isn't something you have an opinion on....but if so, please advise.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we at least include the 3.4 % growth under his presidency, quite significant to say the least. I respect the opinion of relaxing with a smaller lede, but this economic achievement should be included. I’ll give you the option to add the detail. Nick9289 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer Rja13ww33's inclusion of the economic recovery beginning in 1982 instead of just saying a measurement. --Wow (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll probably drop in something in that regard early next week.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Certain editors have been trimming this lede to appear to cover up Reagan's accomplishments and economic record. The lede reverted by Wow should be restored, as my neutral opinion. 2600:1700:D090:3250:ECFF:D8A7:D1E2:4F32 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who this IP editor is but the statements that were removed from this lede were the Hollywood blacklist and Berlin Wall speech by other editors. And how was By the end of Reagan's presidency in 1989, the American economy had seen a significant reduction of inflation, the unemployment rate had fallen, and the United States was in its then-longest peacetime expansion. a "cover up" Reagan's economic record? Wow (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ten minutes before editing on this page, the IP vandalized another page. We can assume an absence of good faith here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)