Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Sourcing needed for "rollback of Communism that astonished the world"

In the 4th paragraph of the opening section, the statement is made regarding the invasion of Grenada that, "It represented a rollback of Communism that astonished the world." The sentence before this links to the wiki Grenada invasion page, but the linked pages does not document an "astonished world." Does this statement need sourcing or revising to perhaps a "surprised" world?" Should "rollback" and "astonishment" be linked as concepts as demonstrated by the linked documentation? Is this encyclopedic style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainlogic (talk • contribs)

That is a recent addition to the article. I agree that "astonished the world" is a very bold statement without a source. The closest statement I could find that even remotely suggests "astonished the world" is in the separate article on the invasion: "This was the first military restoration of a Communist nation to its former governance." I suggest replacing with that sentence unless someone can come up with a reliable source for "astonished the world". I also think "surprised" is inappropriate without a source; other countries might have been critical of the invasion but that's not the same as being surprised. I'll wait for other comments before making any changes. Sundayclose (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

NY Times the next day: "Most Congressmen were shocked and astonished at word that American troops had invaded Grenada, and they split sharply over the wisdom of the policy." also " Pierre Trudeau, expressed his astonishment over the US action." [1] Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that Congressmen and Trudeau are "the world". And "astonished" can have nuanced meaning and thus is imprecise. In the cases you point out, the meaning "shocked" is the best descriptor (as opposed to something like "impressed"). I have a good vocabulary, and the meaning I took was "impressed". If anything of this statement is retained, the specific meaning needs to be used rather than "astonished", and the person or group that reacted (i.e., most Congressmen, Trudeau) needs to be specifically identified. Otherwise it's misleading. One more point: I have access to the NYT article. It doesn't mention Trudeau. Sundayclose (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that sentence probably needs tweaking. Certainly the operation wasn't that impressive (as I remember many considering it bungled).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're on this, I suggest that "far-left elements took control" should be replaced with "Communist elements took control" to be more specific. Typeprint (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sundayclose (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! Typeprint (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Views on nuclear weapons

I think it is important to include a section on Reagan's views on nuclear weapons. These wiews developed over his terms as president, and this development highlights the world's relations to this subject. In particular, the influence on Reagan's thinking from watching "The Day After" and the impact of "Able Archer". Asgrrr (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

The section on the Berlin Wall has a small part on Reagan's show at the Brandenburg Gate and massively more on later developments that have precious little connection to Reagan - or to Gorbachev, whom he addressed during his self-glorification attempt. The opening of the Berlin Wall as it happened was more or less an accident based on a miscommunication, so hardly attributable to Reagan. --2A02:8106:258:3A00:7DC6:473F:F107:903A (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Reagan did more than make a speech and exert whatever political influence he had on the fall of the wall. As for the opening of the wall being "more or less an accident", there were some misstatements immediately preceding the opening of the wall, but to attribute it to that one event would reflect a profound misunderstanding of prior events eventually contributing to the opening of the wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Take some time to read about the history of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. You can start with something easy, like History of the Soviet Union (1953–1964), History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982), History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991), Dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Cold War. But you should go beyond Wikipedia articles. Sundayclose (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Modern era???

From the lead: "When Reagan left office in January 1989, he held an approval rating of 68%, matching those of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and later Bill Clinton, as the highest ratings for departing presidents in the modern era". What is the "modern era"???--Jack Upland (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably would be clearer/better just to give "in the last [X number of] years".Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know what that is. Mentioning Roosevelt gives an indication of the timeframe involved, so I'll remove the final clause. If someone can give a more specific timeframe they can add it in later.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the cited source is starting in 1943 and is updated to 2004. And according to our Obama article [2] his departing approval rating was right around 60%. So, without checking GWB's rating (I think we know that one) or Trump's (likely) low rating.....we can safely say something like Clinton, Reagan and FDR all had the highest approval ratings for departing Presidents in the last 75 years....or maybe WW II era/post-WW II era (tricky due to FDR dying right at the end of it).Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added "as the highest ratings for departing presidents in the 20th Century." Drdpw (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no discussion in the source of approval ratings from before 1943, so "as the highest ratings for departing presidents in the 20th Century." is not accurate. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think there is a need to elaborate. When did approval ratings start anyway?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but without clarification this statement is at best misleading. For example, readers might understand "in the 20th century" to imply that "Reagan had higher approval ratings than Teddy Roosevelt". If approval ratings were not measured for presidents before 1943, then this statement does not make sense; if they were but we don't have the data, then it may be false. Lester Mobley (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I think saying that his rating matched FDR and Clinton is probably good enough. On reflection, however, I wonder how meaningful this is. FDR and Clinton both had their detractors. Is this actually anything more than a piece of trivia?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That is pretty much the conclusion that I've reached; "When Reagan left office in January 1989, he held an approval rating of 68%" is a fact, the rest is trivia. Drdpw (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"A lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" --WP:MOSLEAD

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

The lead of this article is far too long. I am not going to edit the page (I still have setting myself on fire as a less painful option) but could you who are working on this page please come to an agreement on a lead that is a reasonable length? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I proposed a much shorter lead a while ago but participation was minimal at the time. --Wow (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia

I think we should add an image JoshuaSaver (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Please add GCB after Ronald Reagan's name, like in the article about American President Dwight Eisenhower. Both were Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. Thank you. 2601:547:A80:22C0:DCC7:B5F1:7DF7:DAA7 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done – American politicians don't use foreign honorifics. They have been added inappropriately to the Dwight Eisenhower page Infobox. Drdpw (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Change "in one of the greatest landslide victories victories in American history." to "in one of the greatest landslide victories in American history." Brambini (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Springee (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ketchup, trees

As for format, I think the usual Wiki policy is to correct a format problem, rather than delete the item.

The New York Post was saying that Reagan was right here too. Their choice of headline showed that they weren't just bowing to him. Ketchup as a vegetable was many things: a workaround to so pour it out when a school had upper-graders pour milk from quart containers for lower-graders rather than buy pints, and the school milk program at first refused to pay. The solution, negotiated by an experienced school head, was to obtain approval to buy chocolate milk, mix the two, and give the children a choice of white milk or the mix. No more "pour it out." When so much food was being thrown out, ketchup was the great equalizer. There is even a wiki article named Ketchup is a vegetable, to which the cited editorial refers. Please fix whatever about the format you dislike: there is a teaching, from all my teachers I've learned. (Ethics of the Fathers). Pi314m (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What you introduced was this: The New York Post headlined "Eat Your Ketchup, Too for a he-was-right editorial regarding smog.[433] In 1979, as a candidate, "Reagan said that trees produce smog" and the EPA confirmed this in 1999. No offense, but that's not particularly coherent, nor is it really relevant (in the section it was put it). Furthermore, doesn't even seem like it is worth mentioning either.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... based on the "was he racist" matter above, what comes to mind is Reagan's sidewalk is cracking comment. He was a good-hearted man, and there is no man who has not sinned (source: the wisest man who ever lived). I placed it right before the paragraph that begins "Reagan was known to joke" since it seems to go with The Post's headline. There is so much already in the article; compared to "Air Traffic controllers' strike" trees is certainly not going to add enough to Reagan's legacy. My edit was a 2-for-1, but twas not enough for your greater involvement with this article to accept. I gave it a try and more. As is. Pi314m (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. "good hearted" men don't compare African people to monkeys, or visit the graves of the Waffen-SS. The article must remain NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

gross oversight

No mention of the Bitburg controversy in the article nor a link to the article on the subject.50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It has been in there before but it was moved to the article on the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead Image

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.

---

• 
  Proposed image

Quick question, why is Reagan's lead image his first term official portrait vs his second term official portrait? For Bush and Obama, their lead images are their second term's official portraits. Just wondering. I've placed Reagan's second term portrait for visual reference. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added the image for the reasons stated above. Interstellarity (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think first one has a closer, higher quality zoom making it easier to identify the subject. Comparing ut to other articles like Obama or Bush is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I have reverted the change.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The standard for articles like this are the last image from their presidency. I've restored it. YODADICAE👽 15:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not the standard. The consensus lead image was, until this most recent back and forth, RR's 1st term official portrait. It is a higher quality, cropped image, and should remain in place unless there is consensus to switch to another image. Drdpw (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Concur.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Votes

Which image should we use for the infobox? 11:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Option A (Current image)
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E

• @TDKR Chicago 101, Spy-cicle, Praxidicae, and Drdpw: I think we should probably take this to a vote since there seems to be disagreement on which image to use. I'll lay out a few options on which image to use so we can get a consensus on which image to use. If you have a different image you would like to use, I'll welcome that. I personally support Option D, but I welcome other opinions as well. Interstellarity (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option D or E As I said before, Obama and Bush both use portraits of their second terms in their infoboxes so I do not know why Reagan is the exception? I feel that Option E provides a close up and its a higher quality version of his second term portrait. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Actually George W. Bush's infobox image ([3]) was taken in 2003 meaning it was first term portrait not a second term one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option A (current) Just becuase some other articles use the second presidental portrait there is not an automatic reason for us to do the same on this page. If there was a valid reason provided as to why we should "follow suit" then perhaps I would understand. Option A is high quality and a great zoom and angle slightly better than the C-E. Actually even looking further into this argument of "following suit" it does not even check out. For example of recent two term presidents that I could find the dates for: Obama 2nd term (2013), W. Bush 1st term (2003), Clinton 1st term (1993), B. Johnson 1st term (1964), Eisenhower 2nd term (1959), Truman 1st term (1947).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) I think it's the best quality of them all.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) It's a high-quality, well-cropped image, and I see no compelling reason to change to one of the others. Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) - I agree with the previous posters that not only is this a good image to use, but there is no reason to change it only because similar pages use second term photos. It's not that Option E is a bad photo (although it is not as pleasingly cropped in my opinion), but there really is no urgent need to change the current photo. PraiseVivec (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) looks better than the other four in terms of quality and crop. Option B is fine too if it's cropped similarly to Option A. Some1 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) It has a better resolution and cropped better. Sea Ane (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose option A the image seems to be oversaturated. I haven't seen any faces that are that red in real life. (t · c) buidhe 09:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current)It serves its purpose well as an official presidential portrait photograph for a WP article. Not necessary to change.Writethisway (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) I think option A is the best as well. It's a zoomed photo that is clear and the color quality is better. 21:08, May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) Its a a good quality portrait and unless there is some rule that we should use a certain portrait because it was taken at a certain time, i think we should retail it. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Looks like a snowclose. ~ HAL333 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) I think option A is the *definitely* the best! --Whiteguru (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) Option A is the clearest, "professional", best resolution and complies with WP:IMGCONTENT. Is there a compelling reason to change the photo already in place? Jurisdicta (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (current) It's just a better photo, from a better angle, with better contrast. jp×g 19:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Can someone reinstert Reagan's second term portrait to the gallery, as i removed it when it was used in the infobox, but since the first term portrait has been reinstated in the infobox, it is now no longer on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done [4].  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Off topic conversation

@Spy-cicle, Rja13ww33, Drdpw, and PraiseVivec: What determines what image goes into an infobox? Is it the quality of an image or whether the photo was taken recently? I noticed that for Obama, there are two portraits: one for his first term and one for his second term. For Bush: there is no second term portrait and the same can be said for Clinton. For LBJ, there are portraits taken of him during his first and second term and the same can be said for Eisenhower and Truman. Compare the following images and tell me which one of these is better and why. I'm interested in your opinions. Obama's first term portrait Obama's second term portrait LBJ's first term portrait LBJ's second term portrait Eisenhower's first term portrait Eisenhower's second term portrait Truman's first term portrait Truman's second term portrait Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC) If you are interested in changing other US presidents infobox images I suggest you make the case on their respective talk pages.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Topped Greatest American poll

According to this, Ronald Reagan topped a poll to find The Greatest American, beating Abraham Lincoln into second place and Martin Luther King into third place. Should this be mentioned in this article? Rollo August (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A brief, one sentence mention in the Cultural and political image subsection would be appropriate IMO. Drdpw (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Archived RFC

A bot archived a unclosed RFC (that hadn't been voted on in 8 months). Should it be reverted? (Reverted and closed perhaps?)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: If you want archived RfCs closed (or RfCs in general), unarchive the discussion and leave a request at WP:CR. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

edit request

this sentence is no longer true.

"At 69 years, 349 days of age at the time of his first inauguration, Reagan was the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, a distinction he held until 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated at age 70 years, 220 days.

Jospeh Biden is the oldest elected President at 78 years old.

I suggest the sentence by edited or be taken out.

 Not done: The sentence is saying that Reagan was the oldest at the time, which is true. RudolfRed (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, please

Disclosure: I'm a non-partisan editor with a skeptical approach to public figures of any stripe.

• This article omits Reagan's repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980. An article by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey says Reagan led the worst policies on mental illness in generations, associating it with a legacy of violence and homelessness. It prompts a more general concern that in places this article reads a bit too much like a flattering hagiography. Let alone our WP:CRIT which might encourage a criticism section, WP:LEDE asks us to mention the existence of prominent controversies in the lede. The very well known debate around his social policy is surely a contender, alongside say the Iran-Contra scandal.
• We also have the issue of his economic policy, which afaics could go further than what we have covered here. A succinct paragraph of criticism puts it (in a source that we might improve on): Although the Reagan economic record is impressive, critics have claimed that Reagan did little to end the flow of manufacturing jobs overseas and that his policies exacerbated income inequality. The main criticism of Reagan, however, is that his administration increased the national debt by 186 percent. Reagan’s insistence on dramatically increasing the defense budget (by around 35 percent) and his inability to decrease domestic spending led to an explosion of the national debt. During his administration the debt increased by $1.86 trillion. --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I am old enough to remember descriptions of Reagan's America as a dystopia, and himself as either ineffectual or highly corrupt. The article presents him in a far too positive light. But his policies should be covered in Presidency of Ronald Reagan, not in his bio.

As to homelessness, see the article Homelessness in the United States:

• "The number of homeless people grew in the 1980s, as housing and social service cuts increased and the economy deteriorated. The United States government determined that somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 Americans were then homeless. There were some U.S. federal initiatives that aimed to help, end and prevent homelessness; however, there were no designated homeless-related programs in the Office of Management and Budget."
• "The history of the United States illustrates that this was a time when there was economic distress, high unemployment, and was the period when chronic homelessness became a societal problem. In 1980, federal funds accounted for 22% of big city budgets, but by 1989 the similar aid composed only 6% of urban revenue (part of a larger 60% decrease in federal spending to support local governments). It is largely (although not exclusively) in these urban areas that homelessness became widespread and reached unprecedented numbers. Most notable were cuts to federal low-income housing programs. An advocacy group claims that Congress halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 (the government's housing voucher subsidization program) and that between the years of 1980 and 1989 HUD's budget authority was reduced from $74 billion to $19 billion. Such alleged changes are claimed to have resulted in an inadequate supply of affordable housing to meet the growing demand of low-income populations. In 1970 there were 300,000 more low-cost rental units (6.5 million) than low-income renter households (6.2 million). By 1985, the advocacy group claimed that the number of low-cost units had fallen to 5.6 million, and the number of low-income renter households had grown to 8.9 million, a disparity of 3.3 million units."
• "In response to the ensuing homelessness crisis of the 1980s and after many years of advocacy and numerous revisions, President Reagan signed into law the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987; this remains the only piece of federal legislation that allocates funding to the direct service of homeless people." Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick, if the rationale for exclusion of said criticism was that "his policies should be covered in Presidency of Ronald Reagan, not in his bio", then by that token we would need to delete the many successful policies described in this article, right? Don't get me wrong, I am not on a mission against Reagan and admire many things about him. My point is rather that for our project to remain credible it needs to incorporate criticism. Which is our policy, after all. --Chumchum7 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The whole Deinstitutionalisation charge against Reagan (whatever vehicle one wants to try with it) is a bum rap. Deinstitutionalisation was in place decades before Reagan. From 1955 to 1980, the number of patients in state mental hospitals fell from 559,000 to 130,000. (See the book: 'Madness in the Streets : How Psychiatry and the Law Abandoned the Mentally Ill', p.139) In addition the Supreme Court ruled in the 70's (for some very good reasons) that people could not be confined against their will unless they are a danger to others, themselves or cannot live on their own. As far as HUD's budget goes, it's true that HUD's budget authority did shrink in the 1980's....but authorizations and actual outlays are 2 different things. In actuality, the Federal housing assistance rose from 5.5 billion in 1980 to nearly 14 billion in 1989. (See Table 8.7 here: [5]. (The White House budget tables are certainly better RS than claims from Common Dreams.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, thank you for your point of view and the information you've brought. Personally I don't have a view on the matter either way. As we know, Wikipedia fairly represents the range of views of reliable sources, which often differ and which we are asked to represent in a non-partisan manner. Let's together build a paragraph on Reagan's mental health policy which does this. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that such a paragraph would warrant inclusion in this article. (Perhaps elsewhere? This article has already been criticized as being too long.) That being said....I wouldn't mind writing up something (to go somewhere).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent deletion of navboxes - let's discuss

The {{Ronald Reagan series}} & {{Conservatism sidebar|politicians}} navboxes were first deleted here with the edit summary of "These 'series' boxes, crowd up the infobox.". I reverted, stating "this deletion should probably be discussed on the article's talk page..." My action was then reverted itself with the edit summary of "These 'series' boxes, crowd up the infobox." So, let's discuss. All the similar navboxes were also deleted from US President articles, maybe this should be discussed with an overarching RfC somewhere but let's settle on what this article should have/shouldn't have first. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Recommend an RFC be held at the appropriate location, covering this topic for all the US presidents & vice presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Joe Biden is now the oldest President elect at 78 years old. This is a significant event and should be noted. 70.31.71.56 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the infobox ?

For some reason on my computer there's an error on the infobox on the "spouse" parameter thats making the infobox excessively wide and displaying an error. I looked and can't tell what's wrong. If this is a problem that everyone else is seeing it needs to be fixed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: see Template talk:Marriage#Malfunction inside of infobox? –CWenger (^ • @) 03:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Change to lead sentence

The first sentence should say "Ronald Wilson Reagan (/ˈreɪɡən/ RAY-gən; February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who served as the 40th president of the United States from 1981 to 1989 and became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism." He is notable as an actor as well as a politician. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not totally opposed to this, but it's already mentioned in the second sentence. Even though his acting would have been notable by itself, his political career so overwhelmed it in importance that I think it's appropriate to leave actor out of the first sentence. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Oval Office astrologer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oval Office astrologer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24#Oval Office astrologer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation of his presidency

Evaluations of his presidency among historians and the general public place him among the upper tier of American presidents.

Yeah, no. Reagan appears pretty far down the list, and he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history on "people's history" lists outside of evaluations made by right-wing conservatives. He basically destroyed the lives of working Americans, redistributed wealth to the rich, gutted social programs, lied about virtually every scandal his admin participated in while robbing the treasury blind and negotiating with terrorists, all the while demonizing people of color, flooding their communities with drugs, and arresting them on trumped up charges with draconian drug laws. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of OR to me. The polls used to back those statements are RS and linked to in other articles. There is also a bit of irony in you repeating the "flooding their communities with drugs" balderdash....as that is the garbage you defended on the Gary Webb page some years ago and led to a overhaul of that page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This entire biographical entry is a right-wing whitewash of the historical facts, facts which you and other conservative activists have spent years denying by rewriting and hiding the evidence from our readers, most often by deleting it from the main bio and transferring it to daughter articles. Reagan is rated poorly as a president, did more harm to the US in eight years than almost any other leader besides Trump, and is generally regarded as one of the worst US presidents when it comes to the lives of working people, people of color, and the majority of Americans. Reagan is only rated highly by wealthy elites who benefitted from his looting of the US treasury and tax relief for billionaires. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All I am hearing so far is your (worthless) opinion. The polls are here: [6]. There is nothing that backs your POV that Reagan "is generally regarded as one of the worst US presidents". We work with facts here....not your opinion.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

These are historical facts, not opinions, facts you and other conservative activists have spent years deleting from the article. Facts (Lucks 2020) for example, showing 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

Why are these historical facts about Reagan not mentioned in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. If we are wrong to say that about what polling shows.....you need a RS. As far as why [this or that] isn't in the lead....we've debated some of that on talk before....in fact, even had a few RFCs on it. I would advise you to go through the archives.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing the subject, like you referring to changes in the article about Gary Webb that I wasn't responsible for? That kind of thing? I'm not changing the subject. I'm showing that Reagan isn't widely considered a great president. You are clearly changing the subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No changing the subject as in not giving any RS for what you are claiming. And it raises the disturbing parallels with the Webb article that you defended.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No such incident ever occurred, but I will note, that the DOJ OIG wrote that it was "undisputed that individuals like Meneses and Blandon, who had ties to the Contras or were Contra sympathizers, were convicted of drug trafficking, either in the United States or Central America. There is also undeniable evidence that certain groups associated with the Contras engaged in drug trafficking. The pervasiveness of such activities within the Contra movement and the United States government's knowledge of those activities, however, are still the subject of debate, and it is beyond the scope of the OIG's investigation". You are of course welcome to take your off-topic concerns about this subject to the talk page of allegations of CIA drug trafficking, since you seem to have a personal interest in this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah such a incident did occur. You suggested there we leave out the opinion of a writer because he supposedly had a personal issue with Webb and also that we ignore the results of a Federal investigation. Here you want to ignore RS polls. (And a RFC.) Sorry: not gonna happen. And the DOJ Report blew away almost every premise of Dark Alliance. You just include what you like. Here is what you leave out: "the claims that Blandón and Meneses were responsible for introducing crack cocaine into South Central Los Angeles and spreading the crack epidemic throughout the country were unsupported.....we did not find that their activities were responsible for the crack cocaine epidemic in South Central Los Angeles, much less the rise of crack throughout the nation, or that they were a significant source of support for the Contras." Just goes to show how ill-equipped you are to edit here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are welcome to take your off-topic concerns about this subject to the talk page of allegations of CIA drug trafficking, since you seem to have a personal interest in this subject. You seem to be very, very interested in that subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Coming from a guy who use to camp out on Gary Webb's talk page? lol ok.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the RFC on having South Africa (& AIDS) in the LEAD: [7]. Sorry you don't like the outcome.....but that's how we operate here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No idea how you operate, but Reagan's presidency is not considered good. For example, Reagan

• 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
• 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

This is a very partial list of things Reagan is famous for, yet I can't seem to find them in the lead. This biographical article is a hagiography authored by conservative activists. It is not based on reality. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just shows your laughable bias. (And inattention to the rules here.) I ask for RS on polls and you give me a laundry list of the (usual) talking points. Are we to ignore a RFC here? Well, according to you: yes. You could (by the way) say that stuff about a lot of Presidents. For starters....you know what president was first to back the Mujahideen? I'll give you a hint: his initials were J.C. You think the first President to do business with guys like Marcos or Noriega were Reagan? As far as the overhauling the tax code goes...ever hear of the Tax Reform Act of 1986? It was Reagan's baby and passed the Senate by a heavy majority (including a yea from a guy named Joe Biden). So yeah, we need some RS here. Your personal opinion (obviously) lacks historical perspective.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's true, reality has a liberal bias. Reagan is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history on the basis of his domestic policies and his foreign policies. Claiming that he is polling at the "upper tier" is Newspeak for "Reagan ranks low in comparison to eight others". This article is a conservative wet dream, a hagiography of one of the worst performing presidents other than con man Trump, a racist, B-movie actor who destroyed the fabric of America so billionaires could buy a second yacht. There's no modern historian who can look at Reagan's record and glorify him like conservative activists do on Wikipedia. It's a con job. All of the information I've posted here is supported by reliable sources and is based on data, facts, and evidence, unlike this hoax of an article. This biography is a post-truth farce. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry we work with RS. If you've got a group of RS polls.....fire away. But until then....we run with the RS we got. Just about every poll I cited places RR very high. Out of the 10 public polls cited here: [8], Reagan came in first or second in 8 out of the 10 polls. In other words: your claim that "Reagan is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history" is in complete ruins. You need to go back to the good old days of suggesting we leave out the results of Federal investigations in articles (because you didn't like the results of them).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This article omits reliable sources and presents the history of Reagan in a selective manner, repeatedly violates NPOV, and then asserts it is a neutral biography while conservative activists like yourself act as gatekeepers to the false Reagan myth you've constructed to prop up your failed ideology of conservatism. This should not be a featured article—it doesn't even qualify as a Good Article.

This article commits three major fallacies associated with Reagan myth-making discussed by author and journalist Will Bunch (2009, Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy):

1. This article attempts to eliminate, whitewash or play down any references to negative things that took place during Reagan's presidency from 1981 to 1989.

2. This article awards Reagan more credit than he deserves for good things that happened while he was president, or asserts things that took place when they didn't.

3. This article whitewashes Reagan's better qualities that no longer fit the modern day conception of the right wing.

This article should be delisted and rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

So is there a poll anywhere in our future? We've heard the I-hate-Reagan diatribe/OR for quite sometime now.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens of polls that directly contradict the framing of this article. Let's start with an arrow to the heart of the Reagan myth. After the Berlin Wall came down and the Cold War was at an end, "a poll published in USA Today just four days after the tumultuous events in Berlin found that 43 percent of Americans gave the credit to the Soviet leader, and only 14 percent named Reagan (it was far more pronounced in Germany, where 70 percent credited Gorbachev and only 2 percent hailed the former U.S. president)." The Reagan myth is a myth for a reason. ("Respondents Say Gorbachev Most Responsible for Wall's Demise," Associated Press, Nov. 13, 1989.) Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That (of course) isn't what I am asking for. I asked for a poll to back your claim that "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history". Needless to say: that's different territory.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean, the American people don't count? Let's find out what they thought about Reagan at the end of his presidency: in 1987, in

...early July of that year, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 62 percent of Americans thought that “things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track.” That was the highest number in the five years since the Post and ABC had been asking the question, a period that overlapped with the double-digit unemployment rates of the president’s first term, and Reagan’s pollster Richard Wirthlin, who’d been asking the "right track, wrong track" question since the Carter years, said at the time that the numbers were comparable with the late 1970s. And the "wrong track" number stayed in positive territory for much of the final third of Reagan’s presidency.

Lets quickly recap: the majority of Americans disagreed with Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1987, and that number didn't change much towards the end. What changed, then? Conservatives mounted a massive propaganda campaign to rewrite the history of Reagan's presidency (Rossinow 1999; Dallek 2009) and what we are seeing here is the fruit of that effort. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So you cite a poll from 1987 (during Iran-Contra) and say all the good polling since then is just right-wing marketing? Ok....thanks again for your opinion....but that doesn't erase those polls.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, here is where Reagan was polling by January 1989 (@ the end):[9].Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

More myth-making. Bunch 2009:

Over the eight years of his presidency, Reagan's average approval rating in the Gallup Poll was 53 percent, placing him squarely among the middle of the pack among just the modern presidents, let alone on any all-time list. Not only is Reagan's cumulative approval rating considerably lower than that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but it also notably trails two other post-World War II presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, neither of whom now have active campaigns to become the fifth face on Mount Rushmore. In fact, three other postwar presidents, Lyndon Johnson, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, had slightly higher approval numbers than Reagan, even though Johnson was essentially run out of office over the Vietnam War, the elder Bush received just 37 percent of the U.S. popular vote when he sought a second term, and Clinton, of course, was impeached while in office. The modern presidents who polled worse than Reagan were Harry Truman, mired in Korea and a slumping economy, and the disastrous three who came right before Reagan—Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter—a fact of good timing that proved a boon to the Reagan legacy. In fact, the Gipper's approval rating was under water for most of his first two years in office and again for much of his second term. Nor was it true what was also widely reported at the time of his death, that "Ronald Reagan was the most popular president ever to leave office," as ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas put it. FDR was more popular right before his death—not surprising with America on the brink of victory in World War II—but also the much-maligned Clinton had better poll numbers leaving office than Reagan...

The majority of voters disagreed with Ronald Reagan on most of the major issues facing America, from the time he took the oath of office until the day he left.

Two academics, Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers, published a remarkable article in The Atlantic in May 1986 called “The Myth of the American Turn to the Right,” which looked at a number of polls taken from the New Deal through the first five years of the Reagan administration. They showed that, if anything, the American public had grown slightly more liberal, that large numbers thought that business should be regulated and supported the kinds of federal programs that the White House wanted to cut or eliminate. The authors showed that while broad Reaganesque appeals against big government and for free markets might resonate with voters, “when it comes to assessing specific government programs or the behavior of actual business enterprises, however, they support government spending in a variety of domestic areas and are profoundly suspicious of big business."

They noted a Los Angeles Times poll from 1982 on regulation that showed that Americans favored keeping existing rules instead of Reagan-backed rollbacks on a broad range of issues that included the environment (49 percent to 28 percent), industrial safety (66-18), the teenage minimum wage (58-29), auto emission and safety standards (59-29), federal lands (43-27), and offshore oil drilling (46-29). By 1983, the number of Americans who said they favored even stricter environmental regulations, regardless of cost, had increased to 58 percent. Even after Reagan's landslide in 1984, the authors noted, only 35 percent of Americans favored substantial cuts in social programs to reduce the deficit, and as late as 1986, according to a New York Times-CBS News poll, “fully 66 percent think the Government should spend money now on efforts similar to those of the Great Society programs to help the poor people in the United States." Ferguson and Rogers found polls showed strong public support during the Reagan years for legalized abortion and the ultimately unsuccessful Equal Rights Amendment, and against prayer in schools. Public support for affirmative action was now in the majority in the 1980s and continued to increase. Support for defense spending, which rose briefly during the end of the Carter administration because of the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, had fallen back down by Reagan's second term, and of course an overwhelming majority favored a freeze on nuclear weapons.

So we see, post-truth, conservative myth-making at every level of this biography, from soup to nuts. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of myth making.....Will Bunch? So essentially you are saying the President's poll numbers since his Presidency should be discounted.....and we should only consider the poll numbers while he was president? (We already (by the way), note his slip in the polls during the '82 recession and during Iran-Contra.) Furthermore, we should discount his landslide victory in 1984 because the American people disagreed with him on some issues Bunch cherry picked? Furthermore, even Bunch here seemingly acknowledges Reagan's popularity at the end by bringing in FDR and Clinton. (For comparison.) Sorry, this still sounds like a lot of OR to me. Reagan of course had some turbulent times.....but to claim as you did "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history" when your own sources don't back that? Nah.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You appear not to understand what OR is, even after multiple editors tried to teach you back in 2014. Leopards, spots, eh? Speaking of myth-making, Haynes Johnson notes in Sleepwalking through History (1992) that in the post-Reagan years

Virtually every political poll and grass-roots sampling of public opinion showed people becoming more pessimistic about economic conditions. The Iran-contra affair had reinforced a sense that conditions were in danger of slipping out of control. Reagan's lack of leadership throughout that episode left the public troubled. Polls showed people were looking for a different kind of president to lead America into the nineties, suggesting the public was ready for a leader who would make up for years of neglect in vital areas of education, health care, environment, and quality of public services.

So much for another one of your myths. Reagan did not have massive public approval after leaving office, nor did he have it during office. His policies were never popular, and the American people never supported them. If Reagan was great at anything, it was in spending like a drunken sailor and putting the US into massive debt while neglecting the needs of its people. History is clear on this. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh so now you do remember? Glad to see it. And (again) this laughable claim that Reagan had no support.....he just won 2 landslide elections.....by accident? (Not to mention GHWB knocking off Dukakis running on "stay the course"?) Honestly this is ridiculous (albeit highly amusing). So what is your proposal here? If it's adding "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history" when your own source says he was in "the middle of the pack among just the modern presidents" (while he was President).....I'd say you are the one with the issue here in terms of understanding what OR is. We can't throw out more than a dozen polls because you (and Will Bunch) don't like them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, "The majority of voters disagreed with Ronald Reagan on most of the major issues facing America, from the time he took the oath of office until the day he left." That's a fact. Furthermore, Reagan's economic plan was a lie from day one, just like all the rest of his policies, lies upon lies. Johnson (1992):

...on February 18, 1981, Reagan presented Congress with what proved to be the most wildly inaccurate economic forecast in American history, a program that called for cutting taxes by 30 percent, increasing defense spending by three-quarters of a trillion dollars (a sum that over five years would amount to an increase of $1.46 trillion), and achievement of a balanced budget after three years. The national debt then was just under $1 trillion. Reagan said his plan would cut that deficit to $45 billion after one year, to $23 billion after the second, be balanced at the end of the third, and produce a surplus after that.

Facts matter. This article has no regard for them, apparently. Reagan failed on virtually every level, and whenever conservatives are confronted with these failures, they either ignore them or blame someone other than Reagan. This "cult" of Reagan is evident in this non-critical hagiography which presents a distorted, uneven, glorification of a mythical man that never existed. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Major issues" according to Bunch. So are you going to make a concrete proposal or just spray I-Hate-Reagan all over the place? This isn't a forum.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I cited multiple authors, and I pointed out a dozen problems with the lead section which fails to adhere to NPOV and only shows Reagan and his legacy in a positive light. In response, you repeatedly tried to distract from these points, you attempted to bring up a discussion on a different page from 2014, and you continue to try and change the subject by personalizing this issue. The Reagan legacy was controversial, filled with scandals and corruption, bad policies and even worse appointments, and marred by massive unemployment, a market crash, a recession, terrible hardships for American workers, and the AIDS crisis, which Reagan made worse. None of this appears in the lead in any kind of historical light, and the article itself attempts to whitewash anything negative about Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I personally don' t think you have a case. (In fact, your own sources wreck this "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history" stuff.) This feels more like a rant than any proposal. (I.e. there is no proposed change like a edit request or RFC.) You've also suggested we ignore prior RFCs. But in any case, you are entitled to your opinion....and maybe other editors will weigh in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead does not belong. At all. It's not substantiated by the article it links to; there's no way multiple rankings of 40th place can be considered "among the upper tier". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple rankings of 40th place? Not sure where you see that. And that same notation is in Obama's LEAD.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I had my stupid hat on. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with Viriditas that The Teflon President mishandled the economy and increased the public debt (as seen in History of the United States public debt), any changes to the article should be based on reliable sources. Not on how we feel about Reagan and his groupies. Which changes do you suggest, and based on which sources? Dimadick (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My overarching concern is NPOV, which IMO, this article fails to adhere to in the lead and the body. For example, historian Doug Rossinow reviewed the literature on Reagan (Collins, Troy, Ehrman) in 2007 for the journal American Quarterly (Johns Hopkins University Press). He (and others he cites) made note of the myth-making in the literature about Reagan, and raises many of the missing points that don't appear in this article. Some of the most notable have been described on these talk pages many times, with local consensus overriding our site-wide policies. Mentioning the failure of the Reagan recovery to benefit working people is a good start, but I should note that the lead only accentuates conservative talking points and fails to give a balanced perspective. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot of your own sources don't back what you are saying. In your very first post in this thread you start out by saying Reagan was "considered one of the worst US presidents in history" & that he flooded minority "communities with drugs". Even Bunch doesn't say that (in 'Tear Down This Myth') and no other RS says it either. You present here the view of a handful of people and ignore the fact we cite multiple surveys of historians and the general public that back the POV on Reagan's legacy. You also are basically suggesting we ignore the results of RFCs on some of these issues. So yes, everything you have said (so far) is highly problematic. For the record, I don't have much issue with a short statement (maybe in the legacy section) in noting that Reagan's post-Presidential popularity has been engineered according to Bunch [or whomever]. But I'd make a concrete proposal here first.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think I've heard from you enough now, and I'm looking for other opinions from editors who aren't you. You've repeatedly attempted to derail, distract, and personalize this discussion, so I know where you stand. From here forward, I'll be seeking other opinions and I won't be responding to you because you've been arguing in bad faith the entire time. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith? From somebody whose own sources undermine his own claims? Ok.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"raises many of the missing points that don't appear in this article" Good. Then try summarizing his views in the article. Remember to make changes in the body, not only in the lead. This article needs lots of work to tone down the laudatory language. Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

I just added the lead rewrite tag due to the failure of the lead section to summarize the main, core points of the article. Notable mentions should include the assassination attempt, the air traffic controllers' strike, response to the AIDS epidemic and apartheid, among others, and most importantly, critical appraisal of his policies and roles, which are completely lacking from the lead, as it only accentuates positive information and neglects to include anything negative about him. This is not how our best sources characterize Reagan, and I've argued that this lead engages in Reagan myth-making by ignoring the NPOV which should briefly summarize the most notable positions about his impact and legacy. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Issues

• became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism.
  • Bunch 2009 and others argue that many of the modern qualities characterized by Reagan, particularly his penchant for compromise, are not found in today's modern conservatism espoused by the Republican Party. I should also note that there is zero mention of Reagan's known ability to compromise with the other side in this article. This is part of the problem: this article "whitewashes Reagan's better qualities that no longer fit the modern day conception of the right wing", according to Bunch 2009. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• At 69 years, 349 days of age at the time of his first inauguration, Reagan was the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, a distinction he held until 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated at age 70 years, 220 days.
  • This is wasted, trivial text that takes up necessary real estate in the lead. Yes, it works as a parenthetical footnote, but aside from noting that Reagan was the oldest at the time, the rest is trivia. We need to devote the lead to summarizing the main points of the body, not to repeating trivial data about years and days. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Over his two terms, the economy saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4% and an average real GDP annual growth of 3.6%. Reagan enacted cuts in domestic discretionary spending, cut taxes, and increased military spending, which contributed to increased federal debt overall.
  • Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years to several trillion. Again, this is a glaring NPOV problem that Bunch 2009 describes as "attempts to eliminate, whitewash or play down any references to negative things that took place during Reagan's presidency from 1981 to 1989." Notice that the lead documents the numbers when it refers to positive things, but avoids using numbers when it refers to negative things about Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seeing this discussion and the template on the page, I have noted another issue. The lead doesn't mention that Reagan contested for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 (at least tried in 1968) or 1976. It just writes "In November 1979, Reagan announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 1980 presidential election.", which makes it appear as Reagan won the nomination in his first attempt, which wasn't the case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Viriditas, I agree that the article, as written, does a very poor job of comprehensively reflecting available scholarship on Reagan. That said, I'm not optimistic about the prospects for improvement, for reasons I think are probably obvious to you from your experience above. By way of background, a year or so ago I brought up the subject of Reagan and race—after all, entire books have been written on the subject, but it's taboo here. You can see what ensued; basically I was told by the editors who frequent this talkpage that there's nothing racist about mocking Black people as "monkeys". So yeah, that's where we are. I decided I needed a shower after participating at this talkpage and that I wasn't dealing with these people anymore, but good luck to you. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted above: We've had a RFC on the AIDS epidemic and apartheid being in the LEAD. It didn't make it: [10]Rja13ww33 (talk)

That's not how RFCs work. One, a local discussion doesn't supersede our site-wide policies, and two, a single RFC isn't binding on future edits or discussions, as consensus does and often will change. As I've previously said, I'm not interested in discussing anything with you because you've indicated in previous discussions that you are engaging in bad faith, so please allow space for other voices. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if you want to talk to me or not. This has to be noted for the record. This RFC was just 1.5 years ago. This is (the usual) Viriditas making up the rules as he sees fit. The RFC can't be thrown out because you don't like the outcome.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RFCs on local talk pages don't have any kind of binding policy-like impact on future edits or future consensus. You are welcome to discuss the process elsewhere and learn how it works, but again, you are distracting from the topic at hand and arguing in bad faith to avoid the subject under discussion. Please make room for other constructive voices now. Your voice has been heard. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but nothing has changed on these subjects since April of last year....other than Viriditas showed up and didn't like it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Re: became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism.: Seems like you want a re-write according to Will Bunch. And you still aren't proposing what should be said in it's place. If Reagan isn't one of the founders of the modern conservative movement.....who is?Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Re: Over his two terms, the economy saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4%... : I take no issue with noting the fact the National Debt nearly tripled on his watch in the LEAD. I would propose augmenting what is currently said by saying:"....which contributed to increased federal debt overall. The National Debt nearly tripled during Reagan's Presidency." (Or something like that.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years to several trillion. " History of the United States public debt has relative data and sources:

• • During Jimmy Carter's term, the national debt increased by 288 billion dollars.
  • During Reagan's first term, the national debt increased by 823 billion dollars.
  • During Reagan's second term, the national debt increased by 1,050 billion dollars.

• • "The public debt relative to GDP reached a post-World War II low of 24.6% in 1974. In that year, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 reformed the budget process to allow Congress to challenge the president's budget more easily, and, as a consequence, deficits became increasingly difficult to control. National debt held by the public increased from its postwar low of 24.6% of GDP in 1974 to 26.2% in 1980."
  • "Debt held by the public relative to GDP rose rapidly again in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic policies lowered tax rates (Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, although bills passed in 1982 and 1984 later partially reversed those tax cuts.) and increased military spending, while congressional Democrats blocked cuts to social programs. As a result, debt as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 40.9% in 1988, and it continued to rise during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, reaching 48.3% of GDP in 1992."
  • " David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett attributed the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast"." Dimadick (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • This biased Viriditas (talk) editor is obsessed with Reagan to an unhealthy level. Can someone close this discussion so he cannot have the ability to edit the Reagan article. I am an bystander just wanting to add my opinion. ThanksRja13ww33 (talk) for your inputs! 2600:1700:D090:3250:DC1F:8440:DB7E:BA5D (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Second-most lopsided win?

DrKay, I agree that the article is rather long, but your removal leaves content in the lead that is now not supported by the body. As it happens, the content in the lead has the same verification issue, so that's the reason for your removal, then the lead needs trimming too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Decline in the lead

The lead currently contains Reagan began his presidency during the decline of the Soviet Union, which ultimately collapsed nearly three years after he left office. Though it doesn’t really fit in place/somewhat awkward sounding I have no objections, the material is obviously relevant. It is news to me that observers agree Reagan took office after the decline of the Soviet Union was under way-it may very have been, that certainly is believable but I honestly don’t know and would be interested to see where this claim came from. The sentence is not cited and after searching through the body of the article multiple times I have been unable to find any mention of Soviet decline beginning before Reagan came into office. If anything the article gives the impression that the opposite is the case. Can anyone direct me as to where this is referenced and sourced in the body? OgamD218 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@OgamD218: I see that you have removed the sentence. It was indeed a poorly placed statement, awkwardly appended to the sentences before it. As there is no mention of the decline of the Soviet Union decline beginning before Reagan came into office in the article, and as the article gives the impression that the opposite was the case, I concur with its removal. Regarding the statement, I would note that the Dissolution of the Soviet Union article makes no mention of the decline of the USSR beginning before Reagan became POTUS. Drdpw (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I take no issue from it's removal (as it isn't sourced in the article as you said). (Most likely it was a calculated attempt to separate Reagan from the dissolution of the USSR.) But it is generally agreed that the USSR was having economic issues (at minimum) by the 1970's. To cite one RS: Strobe Talbott wrote a series of articles for Time (IIRC) right around the early 80's, documenting some of their internal issues. But collapse (virtually) no one saw (including Talbott). In fact (as someone old enough to remember the debate on RR's military build-up), I don't recall any prominent Democrat saying the expansion of the armed forces in the 1980's was unnecessary as the USSR was about to collapse. All the criticism came from angles such as $500 hammers, equipment (M-1s, F-14s, etc) that doesn't work (ask Saddam if they worked), deficit spending, and so on. Since then a debate has gone on about RR's role (if any) in its demise. (With the Reaganites saying he single-handedly brought them down, and others saying he had nothing to do with it.) I'm really neither here nor there on that.....but just wanted to give you some background on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know when the Soviet Union started declining. We do have an article on the Era of Stagnation, when the country's economy stagnated in the 1970s and 1980s. :

• "The majority of scholars set the starting year for economic stagnation at 1975, although some claim that it began as early as the 1960s. Industrial growth rates declined during the 1970s as heavy industry and the arms industry were prioritized while Soviet consumer goods were neglected. The value of all consumer goods manufactured in 1972 in retail prices was about 118 billion rubles. " Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, but I remember the first signs of the USSR coming apart, was when George H. W. Bush was US president. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: @Drdpw: @GoodDay: I was able to find sources broadly in agreement that the USSR was not so much in outright decline but experienced a period of protracted economic stagflation from 1975-85. While I can see a connection, economic stagnation is not the same thing as a depression/recession nor is it facially correlative to an entity such as the USSR, a dictatorship and superpower, being in "decline" considering in 1981 the Soviet Union was stable, their satellites were still rigidly in line, they'd finally reached nuclear parity with the US. In addition, conventional military spending, determined by the need to match the US+Allies and an area that had long held back the Soviet economy, was finally under control after the Politburo/KGB concluded further increases were no longer needed. This situation can be illustrated in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which was initially successful). Soviet power was arguably increasing at the time Reagan came into office, expanding in Asia and even Latin America. Simultaneously, the rivals of the USSR were arguably the ones falling back or in decline (I will refrain from getting into all of the relevant Geo-Political issues of the mid to late 1970s, many of which are covered in the article). Indeed, the West, including the US, experienced on and off stagflation throughout the 1970s, intensifying in 1978-9 and ultimately resulting in a recession from 1980-1982. It must be noted that the Soviet Union's decade of stagflation was interrupted by a period of prosperity from 1979 until 1981, Reagan's first year in office. OgamD218 (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Indeed, the West, including the US, experienced on and off stagflation throughout the 1970s, intensifying in 1978-9 and ultimately resulting in a recession from 1980-1982." The stagflation of the 1970s is covered in the article on the 1973–1975 recession. The United States had a rapid increase in unemployment, "The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 2.3 million jobs were lost during the recession; at the time, this was a post-war record." Then some years of relative growth in the economy, followed by the early 1980s recession in the United States (1980-1982). Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Paragraphs

Why is the section covering the budget deficit in the same paragraph with Black Monday (1987)? The deficit was unrelated to the stock market crash, which was instead attributed to the effects of a trade deficit. "unexpectedly high trade deficit figures announced by the United States Department of Commerce on October 14 had a negative impact on the value of the US dollar while pushing interest rates upward and stock prices downward." Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem was solved by pressing the "enter" key with the cursor in the correct location. Such minor formatting issues needn't generate a dedicated discussion section on an already bloated talk page. --Jayron32 17:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)