Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

d

Regarding the assasination attempt. Original text: On March 30, 1981, Reagan, James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy were struck by gunfire from John Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton. Although "right on the margin of death" upon arrival at George Washington University Hospital, Reagan underwent surgery and recovered quickly.[226] Later, Reagan came to believe that God had spared his life "for a chosen mission".[227]

Changed text: On March 30, 1981, Reagan, James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy were struck by gunfire from John Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton. Although "right on the margin of death". Despite not being hit directly, Reagan suffered a broken rib, a punctured lung and suffered from an internal bleeding as a result of the bullet ricocheting off of the presidential limousine. Upon arrival at George Washington University Hospital, Reagan underwent surgery and recovered quickly.[226] Later, Reagan came to believe that God had spared his life "for a chosen mission".[227]

I thought i'd just add a small detail about what he suffered from after the assasination attempt, so that users do not need to go looking for it in the other wikipedia page. --> In case of my horrible structural or grammatical use i would suggest you change a few words to make it read smoother. 45.36.230.116 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting some deja vu here. Hasn't this already been addressed?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The current wording, published after your initial request above is a succinct and clear summary of the event: On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton. Also struck were: James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy. Although "right on the margin of death" upon arrival at George Washington University Hospital, Reagan underwent surgery and recovered quickly from a broken rib, a punctured lung, and internal bleeding. If anyone wishes more details on the event they can click on the nearby link to the attempted assassination article. Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Petition to switch out audio file with same file but without those last ten seconds of ruffled papers

The current Audio File currently has the last ten seconds consisting of ruffled papers and no voice audio. This was an error on my part when I set up the original Audio File. I have therefore re-edited the audio file to have be the exact same but without those last seconds. the file is as follows:

File:Ronald Reagan on Civil Rights.ogg LosPajaros (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Wow (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Protection level

Has the level of sock puppetry decreased to a level at which the protection level for this article can be lowered to its previous state? If the answer is no, what further steps shall we take? Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaydenwithay, I don't know about the levels of socking, but the protection is already set to expire in May, and I don't see much a reason to fast-track it. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 05:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV / WP:FA revamp summary

Can we get a summary of what has (or has not) been improved since January 2023 and how to move forward on this matter? Jaydenwithay (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow could summarize it better than me...but he went through and verified all the references (I helped him some with that) and we also (I think) improved the language. It was quite a overhaul. You may want to look for yourself at the changes since that time. The legacy section could still stand some tweaking....am working on that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's still lots of sources that can be turned into page numbers beginning with the apartheid section. I've taken a break from editing this page. The legacy section could be rewritten in chronological order like Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation and Ulysses S. Grant#Historical reputation (but very briefly of course). I think every section except for Taxation and Historical reputation has improved in that there's less trivia and repetition, and more concision. This just a quick comment, I might leave a longer response later. --Wow (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

change in consensus on AIDS in lede

There should be either an independent clause or one (1) sentence in the article's lede about the lackluster response to the AIDS epidemic. HIV/AIDS is arguably the most influential and pervading disease of the 20th and 21st centuries, and Reagan's (lack of an) approach is still consequential today, with more than 700,000 people as of today dead of the virus. The absence of a single sentence on this in the lede appears like an intentional attempt to memoryhole these consequences. Jaydenwithay (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

See the "Current Consensus" on this page. We had a RFC on this about 3 years ago....and there was no consensus to include this in the lede.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I am well aware there was a RFC on this topic three years ago. I believe they made a poor decision then, which is why I would like to open another RFC. Jaydenwithay (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, we go with consensus (not individual POV). And 3 years seems a little soon to be re-visiting this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your individual POV, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for others'. Jaydenwithay (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, WP:CCC Jaydenwithay (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This back-and-forth discussion is a waste and will be fruitless. If, after reading the 2020 discussion and Rfc, you wish to propose a NPOV sentence for the lede about the Reagan administration's response response to the AIDS epidemic, then start a new Rfc. Drdpw (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
After 3 years, there'd be nothing wrong with proposing a new RfC. Preferably with some new sources or framed somewhat differently to take account of intervening narratives. Also, see WP:RFCBEFORE. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that there is much point in having a RFC every 3 years. (Sort of like continuous voting.) In any case, I am aware of nothing new on the Reagan-AIDs issue in that span of time. Certainly articles on this subject get published ever so often....but it is recycling the same points. Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Reagan's legacy has come under fresh scrutiny over time. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
In the last 3 years....and with new info related to the AIDs issue? I'd be interested to see what that is. So far, all I've heard is: a editor didn't like the outcome of the last RFC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The way I see it, the problem with the RfC from several years ago was that the proposed sentence was not worded in the best way as far as WP:NPOV goes, so I would change that aspect. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Age

I feel like it's worth mentioning that Reagan was the oldest president to serve until only recently. At 69, he was the oldest elected president for 36 years until the election of Donald Trump (age 70) in 2016. He was also the oldest sitting president for 40 years, leaving office at age 77, until the inauguration of Joe Biden (age 78) in 2021. Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think these little factoids deserve an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). Just thought someone could edit it since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Historical reputation and Featured Article requirements

Does this article still meets the WP:FA requirements if it has a section with a maintenance heading? This should be fixed, but I would like to discuss it here first. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We just did a overhaul of the page, and I think it is much improved. But it has certainly changed since it's last FA review (quite a while ago). As far as that section header goes....I've given some thought as to how to address it. May post it here first. (Give me about a day or so.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
For future reference, the tag was placed with this edit at 02:23, 8 January 2023. I don't see anything in that section that is inaccurate, but I can understand how some who have a negative view of Reagan might think it's promotional. Consider adding material noting that his "economic legacy is mixed". Possibly note that critics say his "legacy (is) tainted by AIDS, Civil Rights and Union Policies". -Location (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Please improve the page soon, I'll await your improvements! Thanks. Personally, I think that a re-assessment of the entire page would be a good idea. There has been done quite a lot of research on his politics in the past decade since the last FA review. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Rather than place the entire burden on others, you could do a thorough reading of the article and recommend some specific changes. Looking forward to reading your suggestions! -Location (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, but I'm not familiar with the relevant sources and don't want to do that currently, sorry. I only think that no article should be a WP:FA while not meeting the relevant criteria. I'll leave my involvement here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Jaydenwithay, you were the one who tagged the "Public image" section (which has been renamed "Historical reputation" and has gone through some changes). Do you have specific recommendations or sources for changing that section so that the tag can be removed? -Location (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mention of the Reagan/Nixon "monkeys" tape would be helpful in this specific section.
- "Many conservative and liberal scholars agree that Reagan has been the most influential president since Roosevelt, leaving his imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics through his effective communication of his conservative agenda and pragmatic compromising." This sentence is subjective and in Wikipedia's voice and should be removed or rewritten in a way that makes it clear that this is a POV of specific scholars.
- There is both cited praise and criticism of Reagan's economic policy, but no historical criticism of the effects of his social policies, like the racially-tinged "welfare queen" rhetoric, War on Drugs that led to spike in incarceration, and of course the AIDS epidemic. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We had a RFC on the monkey deal and it didn't make it (for inclusion in the article). We probably could use a statement in the legacy section on the rise of incarceration from the war on drugs.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The RfC on the tape where Reagan calls African UN delegates monkeys uncomfortable wearing shoes was not definitely resolved, as stated on this talk page. Jaydenwithay (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Reagan has been the most influential president since Roosevelt" I don't see the sentence as problematic, provided that the article manages to summarize Reagan's long-term impact. The article on the Economic history of the United States does a better job of summarizing Reagan's term in office in relation to the state of the economy:
  • "During the 1980 recession, manufacturing shed 1.1 million jobs, while service industries remained intact. Employment in automotive manufacturing in particular suffered, experiencing a 33% reduction by the end of the recession. Collectively these factors contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Federal Reserve once again began to raise interest rates in 1981, which plunged the economy back into recession. Unemployment rose to a peak of 10.8% in December 1982, a post-war high."
  • "In 1981, Ronald Reagan introduced Reaganomics. That is, fiscally expansive economic policies, cutting marginal federal income tax rates by 25%. Inflation dropped dramatically from 13.5% annually in 1980 to just 3% annually in 1983 due to a short recession and the Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker's tighter control of the money supply and interest rates. Real GDP began to grow after contracting in 1980 and 1982. The unemployment rate continued to rise to a peak of 10.8% by late 1982, but dropped well under 6% unemployment at the end of Reagan's presidency in January 1989."
  • "20 million jobs were created under Reagan's presidency – which were made up of 82 percent high-paying and long-term jobs. From 1982 to 1987 the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained over 1900 points from 776 in 1982 to 2722 in 1987 – about a 350% increase. An economic boom took place from 1983 until a recession began in 1990. Between 1983 and 1989 the number of people below the poverty line decreased by 3.8 million."
  • "The boom saw the increasing popularity of electronic appliances like computers, cell phones, music players and video games. Credit cards were a symbol of the boom. The Reagan tax cuts seemed to work and Americans were able to shrug off the crash of 1987 by the beginning of 1988. The growth ended by 1990 after seven years of stock market growth and prosperity for the upper and middle class. The federal debt spawned by his policies tripled (from $930 billion in 1981 to $2.6 trillion in 1988), reaching record levels."
  • "Though debt almost always increased under every president in the latter half of the 20th century, it declined as a percentage of GDP under all presidents after 1950 and prior to Reagan. In addition to the fiscal deficits, the U.S. started to have large trade deficits. Also it was during his second term that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed." Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) - moved because this reply broke up the conversation by voorts (talk/contributions) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the maintenance tag is incorrect: the issue with the section is not peacocking, but undue weight.
The first paragraph starts out by summarizing a historiography that's positive regarding Reagan, already setting the tone instead of making a neutral statement about how his reputation is mixed. Then, the paragraph notes (correctly) that people across the political spectrum recognize Reagan's influence, albeit undercutting the neutrality of that point by ending the sentence by implying that those people unanimously believe Reagan provided an "effective communication of his conservative agenda and pragmatic compromising". The paragraph ends by cites reliable rankings of presidents.
Next, the second paragraph couches a mild linguistic critique of Reagan's national security policy with sources praising the substance of those same policies.
About half of the penultimate paragraph provides an example of criticism of Reaganomics, with a focus on income inequality. The other half articulates a non sequitur dispute with Nixon Republicans.
Finally, the last paragraph provides a one-sided historiography of public perception of Reagan, describing his perception as a strong, charismatic leader.
Overall, the text is approximately 55.5% positive (249 out of 447 words), 12.5% neutral (56 words), and 32% negative (142 words). Note that, while reading, I was conservative in considering text to be positive; put another way, I leaned towards marking text as neutral or negative.
Thus, I think the section needs to give more weight to well-known criticisms of Reagan. For example, in the final paragraph, there could be discussion of ACT UP protests (see, e.g., Let the Record Show [Schulman book]). Moreover, the offending clause in the first paragraph should be deleted. The second paragraph could be balanced out with the national security perspective of the anti-nuclear movement. Additional point/counterpoints could be added in new paragraphs as needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if I follow why the criticism on RR with regards to supply-side is a "non sequitur dispute with Nixon Republicans". Yes, the point is leveled by a former member of Nixon's cabinet...but this is made fairly frequently. (And I have seen it made by people ranging from Krugman to Michael Lind (see Lind's 'Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America' for starters).) I wrote that part and I thought a gear switch from Krugman (in the interest of having multiple RS) would be good.
I don't want to beat a horse that has been well flogged in the section below, so I won't comment on why I think mentioning ACT UP in the historical reputation section is a issue....but mentioning the anti-nuclear movement/nuclear freeze movement in this section? Definitely (with respect) don't buy that. In a retrospective summary of his overall life by a high quality RS....I can't think of any that give that movement much mention. Even some of RR's main critics don't spend much time on them: in Krugman's 'The Conscience of a Liberal', he doesn't mention the freeze once. (They were largely finished by the mid-80's and were mostly concentrated in the New England/Northeast.) So I guess what I am saying is: I think the WEIGHT problem would just get worse with those two issues. I do think it could stand a point with regards to mass incarceration spiking under RR. (That is another long-term criticism the President has had.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
It looks like we agree that there's a weight problem, and I wasn't necessarily wedded to the ideas I proposed at the end, which were just examples of changes that could be made. That said, I think that ACT UP absolutely warrants mention, but that's already being debated below; moreover, I think in this context it's a separate issue from the weight problem in general, perhaps warranting a separate discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"I do think it could stand a point with regards to mass incarceration spiking under RR." See the main article on Incarceration in the United States:
Hi User:Dimadick. Your replies broke up the conversation; in particular, you split the first sentence of my comment away from the rest of it and made it seem like it was part of your comment. Per the talk page guidelines, you should not interpolate your replies with others' comments. I've moved your comments to the proper places in the discussion thread. I did not change the bullets, but note that bullets also generally should not be used in "discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC)" per the talk page guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

AIDS section

I added a bit to the AIDS section. I thought it was a bit strange (and, frankly, a POV issue) that the Hudson death was presented as a true turning point, as if after that Reagan went after the issue, when Cannon (and many, many other sources) says otherwise. @Rja13ww33, I left the Cannon page number blank because I don't have the same edition you do. Would you mind filling that in, when you get a chance? In my version it's in Chapter 22: Visions and Legacies, and I got the dates from the text accompanying footnote 60 (in addition to FN 60).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about Reference #300? I can do that. But I'd like to note: Other RS's also refer to Rock Hudson's announcement/death as (at a minimum) raising the President's awareness on the issue. We call it "changed Reagan's view"....not necessarily that he "went after" the issue. Although there certainly was more action after that than before. In James T. Patterson's 'Restless Giant...' he puts it this way:"The President , uncomprehending, was slow to to confront the issue, mentioning it only only once publicly before the movie actor Rock Hudson, a friend of the Reagans, died of AIDS in October 1985. At that point Reagan sought out the White House physician, who gave him a full explanation of the syndrome." (p.179)
It's also worth noting (and I have thought about adding this to the article for sometime) that the fact is: a lot of politicians were not discussing this. Look at the debate transcripts from 1984. You won't see Walter Mondale or Geraldine Ferraro mention this subject once. In fact, as Randy Shilts noted in 'And the band played on' (p. 495) no reporter even asked either candidate about this issue. (And I am someone who was there and even I didn't note that one.) Furthermore, Shilts also notes several left-wing politicians (i.e. Cuomo, Dukakis, etc) nixing AIDS budgets and so on.
So if this section is going to continue to grow....that part needs to be put in. This didn't happen in a vacuum. But this article has been criticized for length before (which is one of the reasons I haven't added anything to this point).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
But don't you agree that the notion that Hudson was a turning point is undercut by the fact that Reagan (who, some accounts say, was awoken to AIDS not when Hudson died but when he learned of Hudson's illness) didn't, as Cannon notes, mention AIDS until 5 months after Hudson died ... and when he did mention he his administration proposed a budget cutting funding for AIDS research? To be clear: I do think Reagan eventually turned the corner on AIDS, probably a year later with his 1987 speech (which probably should be mentioned and which I'm happy to add, although I agree with your concerns about undue weight—I think I can do it in a sentence, and other than that I'm happy to put a cap on increasing the section any more)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Well a "cut" in Washington speech can be a tricky thing. (I.e. the "cut" still means more being spent...just at a slower rate of growth.) Interestingly enough, by the 1990's, some were starting to question the level of AIDS funding [1], and later too [2]. So I guess what I am saying is: I don't know how much stock I put in RR turning any corner based on the level of spending given that fact and his views on government.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
> a lot of politicians were not discussing this. Look at the debate transcripts from 1984. You won't see Walter Mondale or Geraldine Ferraro mention this subject once. In fact, as Randy Shilts noted in 'And the band played on' (p. 495) no reporter even asked either candidate about this issue. (And I am someone who was there and even I didn't note that one.) Furthermore, Shilts also notes several left-wing politicians (i.e. Cuomo, Dukakis, etc) nixing AIDS budgets and so on.
This article is not about them. Jaydenwithay (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
As I understand, @Rja13ww33: is comfortable with the section as is, right? I think the argument was that if we were to expand the section further, he would want to add that there was a general culture of silence among politicians, which, at least based on the examples provided, may or may not be relevant context, but I don't think we need to have that discussion, since we're not expanding it further.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. This editor is (as always) ignoring the context of the situation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
If you say so. Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
anyways: yes, the current length of the section is adequate and focused on the subject of the article. Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SPECIFICO:. So, first, I wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted most of your revert. The critique you make in that section applied only to the press secretary story, yet you decided to remove the discussion of Reagan's personal silence and his 1987 speech—far too broad of a reversion of content.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Me personally, I think it makes for some clunky reading. Would you have anything against me taking a shot at it myself?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Disciple, thanks for mentioning this. You're right. That was my error. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course! I usually try to give a heads up to any good-faith editor of any reversion of their work I do, but here I wanted to make sure there wasn't something you left out of your edit summary (like "and also everything else was proven false by a book that came out the next year" ;) ).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok my last edit on the AIDS section got reverted, saying it needs discussion here first. First off, as it was organized (before) I thought made for some clunky reading. Secondly, the text removal was this: "between September 18, 1985 and February 4, 1986, Reagan did not mention AIDS in public, and, on February 5, 1986, the same day that he called the search for an AIDS cure "one of our top priorities", Reagan proposed a budget that would have cut funds for AIDS research.{{sfn|Cannon}}".
Not sure if the fact the President didn't mention the subject between September '85 & Feb. '86 is really needed. (The article already establishes it wasn't mentioned by him much.) If that fact has to go back in....to be sure we could make it smoother by saying something like "In a September 1985 press conference, after Hudson announced his AIDS diagnosis, Reagan made his first public statements on the disease, calling the government AIDS research program a "top priority", but also cited budgetary constraints.[302] In June 1987, Reagan gave his first speech entirely devoted to the AIDS epidemic (after mentioning it only twice publicly prior to this time), calling for increased testing (including routine testing for marriage applicants) and mandatory testing of select groups (including federal prisoners).[303] The part in bold being the change.
Secondly, with regards to the "cut" there is no page number for the Cannon cite [Ref #297]....but Cannon makes clear (as I have alluded to before) that a lot of these "cuts" were a lot of back and forth between Congress and the administration on how much to spend. (See Cannon's 'President Reagan: The Role Of A Lifetime', p.731-732 for example.) Ergo, it made more sense to me to just give the overall picture (which was my original intent when I dropped in the last two sentences of that section, which give overall spending and what the RR admin proposed).
So @Jerome Frank Disciple: (or whomever) if you agree/disagree with my writing/logic or if you have a alternative POV....let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The chance is a more significant one than you seem to think; the previous version contrasted the budget cut with the statement about "top priorities", a contrast made by Cannon but considerably watered down in your version. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I can understand that....but doesn't it make more sense to just give the overall spent vs. what the White House proposed? (Rather than the tit for tat for a particular year.) And Cannon makes clear that this "cut" falls into that category.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a semantic difference between Reagan made his first public statements on the disease, calling the government AIDS research program a "top priority", but also cited budgetary constraints and on February 5, 1986, the same day that he called the search for an AIDS cure "one of our top priorities", Reagan proposed a budget that would have cut funds for AIDS research. The former makes it seem as if he verbally mentioned the cuts in his statement, while the latter clarifies that the cuts were included in a budget released on the same day. See this article. Also, there should be a clause mentioning the human impact of this delay, as thousands were dead before his first utterances on the subject. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I've already gone into the issue with the "cuts".....but I have to ask: What do you mean "there should be a clause mentioning the human impact of this delay, as thousands were dead before his first utterances on the subject"? What does the last sentence of the first paragraph (of that section) say?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Break/compromise version

@Rja13ww33:, @Vanamonde93:, @Jaydenwithay:

So, just so everyone can see the source material, here's the relevant passage from the Cannon book here—I'm only using ellipses to cut out sentences detailing Hudson's decline.

More: Even after Reagan gave his 1987 speech (currently referenced in the article), Cannon says, Reagan "remained reluctant to use his presidential bully pulpit to send a clear public message about the AIDS epidemic."

For all the reasons stated, I think the "Hudson was a turning point" claim has to be explicitly counterbalanced, as I said above. To say Hudson's 1985 death was a turning point and then immediately jump to summarizing the critical evaluation of Reagan's AIDS approach brings up two issues:

  1. It makes it seem as though the critics were only targeting Reagan's pre-1985 actions, which is not correct.
  2. It gives the false impression that Reagan was somehow completely persuaded by Hudson's death, when his actions show, pretty clearly, that he was not.

I took a shot at a compromise version. Hopefully we can be relatively stable on this?

  • I sort of see User: Rja13ww33's point that the budget argument is nuanced (although I'm not sure I agree ... "oh now we're taking this more seriously and vowing to address this pandemic, but we're still requesting less money than Congress actually appropriated to us last year ... but we're asking for more than we asked for last year!" ... is ... weak). So I cut that.
  • I think that it's worth emphasizing Reagan's continued silence after Hudson's death. The other version was a bit misleading, because it said Hudson's death was a turning point, but then pointed to a speech that postdated Hudson's diagnosis but predated his death. And, again, the continued silence does stand in contrast to the supposed turning point. If we want to deemphasize that connection, I'd suggest also deleting the line that said "Reagan changed his view". We could just say: After Reagan's friend Rock Hudson died in October 1985, Reagan approached Hutton for more information on the disease.
  • Also, I merged some info about the 1987 speech—we had it in two places. (My fault—I added the Times article later; I must have been thrown by the chronology.)

The net result is that the section is shorter but paints a bit more of a full picture.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple I agree! Jaydenwithay (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
That being said additional information specifically concerning Reagan's action (or lack thereof) on the issue should be added to fill in the gap. Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It looks ok. I was just (before) trying to get the chronology down for (smooth) reading purposes. I still think we need a way of putting across that RR was (what word shall i use?) effected [??] by Hudson's contraction of the disease. Cannon himself says RR's views on this topic were "changed" (his word) by this. I have no issue with noting the fact the President was not talking very much about the disease even after this point....but noting this fact about Hudson is something numerous RSs on his life do....and so should we. Maybe saying it "raised his awareness" on the disease?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33 the verb is "affect" or in this case "affected". Jaydenwithay (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, added "affected" per your first suggestion?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

Sorry to bother you all but I just wanted to fix a few grammatical errors in "early life" and "entertainment career" section of the Ronald Reagan article. I can understand if you say no and reject my request. Thanks. SilkDirksoak2ek3 20:17, 11 May 2023 (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. General Ization Talk 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Post-Rfc wording discussion, AIDS in lede

There was Rfc consensus for at least a brief clause in lede but not for a full sentence: "…the participants largely agree that some mention in the lead is warranted. There does not appear to be consensus for the wording as proposed by the OP, but there are several proposals with various degrees of support - I leave it to the participants to agree on the best version". A copy-paste edit right after the Rfc closed added a full sentence, and was simply attached to the end of a paragraph, thus looking like copy-paste add-on. In my subsequent, post-revert, edit, I took mention of the AIDS epidemic and included it within a sentence mentioning other key first term challenges – the assassination attempt, labor union fights, and the war on drugs. Before making the edit I looked at the wording discussion and considered where (and how) mention of the epidemic and the Reagan response fit best in light of the larger Rfc discussion. The discussion about what to add about the AIDS epidemic needs to continue. Drdpw (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The exact phrasing of "Reagan was slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic, which began early in his presidency." was explicitly agreed to by seven people (six in the section dedicated to it and one back in the voting section, where they said "Specifico's suggestion below "Reagan was slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic, which began early in his presidency." Is concise but adds necessary context"). Zero people opposed it during the RFC, and no counterproposal had any support either. Your stonewalling of adding this well-supported and well-agreed-to phrasing is beyond me. Now, if we want to dicker about setting that phrasing off with periods or commas, whatever, but the key aspects "slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic" and "began early in his presidency" should absolutely appear because that was the only phrasing that had widespread support. Why you want to re-litigate this is beyond me, but lets go. At least grant that seven people have already agreed to this when you count the supports for this waste-of-time new RFC you want to start. --Jayron32 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I must have made the comment below at the same time you were writing this—it was actually me who (accidentally) deleted the equivalent of "which began early in his presidency"; I apologize for that. The sentence Drdpw originally drafted was Additionally, he survived an assassination attempt, fought public sector labor unions, expanded the war on drugs, and was faced with the emergence of the AIDS epidemic, to which he was slow to respond. I though the passive-voice intro "was faced with" was a bit unnecessary, so what I meant to do was replace it with "was slow to respond to ..." and then add "which emerged early in his tenure" at the end. I must have gotten distracted switching back and forth between tabs, because I now see that I forgot to add "which emerged early in his tenure". But I was happy to see that you did add an equivalent! I apologize for the disruption.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
In defense of the first edit—I think the first edit had just added the phrasing as suggested in this subsection of the RFC, and, while not every editor had responded, no editors had there objected to that phrasing. That said, I also understand why you reverted it—because a considerable number of editors had supported a clause rather than an entire sentence.
I was mostly fine with your well-drafted version—I thought the passive voice wasn't needed, so I made a slight alteration, though, looking back, I realize I accidentally deleted a portion of the text that I had meant to rearrange. Fortunately, @Jayron32: fixed that! So, the current text says:

Additionally, he survived an assassination attempt, fought public sector labor unions, expanded the war on drugs, and was slow to respond to the emergence of the AIDS epidemic, which began early in his presidency.

I have no objections at all to that version.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
That appears to reflect both the wording proposed in the discussion held while the Rfc was ongoing as well as the rough consensus for at least a brief clause in lede but not for a full sentence noted by the Rfc closer. Drdpw (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Why are we doing this then? What's the point of the further discussion if you already agree to what is written? --Jayron32 16:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with stating concurrence during a discussion, especially when the comment shows that consensus has been achieved – what a great way to wrap up a discussion. Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why isn’t the page locked?

Why is this page unlocked? It seems too high-profile to not be. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's been any issue with vandalism or edit warring? I'd probably support some level of protection if there were.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, but it just seems a bit strange to unlock a page with previous extended protection. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
^ agree with JFD - the page seems fine for now, but if it ever isn't, some page protection seems a no-brainer.
@The Hammering Hammer how do you know this page was previously extended protected? Is there some way to see that kind of history for an article? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
So, from the article space, you can click on page information and then click on "view the protection log". Or, [3] :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Over 11 years went by without this article needing protection, until February 2023. The default position is that articles should be unprotected, except when active disruption is ongoing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
What a difference an hour or two makes. Drdpw (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Shall the third paragraph of the lede mention his response to the AIDS epidemic?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include some mention about Reagan's response in the AIDS epidemic in the lede. Further discussion may be needed for the exact wording. The finding of the previous RfC is overturned and the current consensus editnotice will be amended in a few days' time to reflect this closure, allowing for any potential challenges.

An RfC was held in 2020 that determined that there was no consensus to include a clause into the lead stating that he "largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis". According to WP:ONUS, including disputed content requires that consensus be obtained for it first - doubly so as the subject is controversial and the long-standing version excludes the AIDS discussion from the lead. Consensus can change, though, and this discussion demonstrates that consensus to include was achieved, unlike what happened three years ago.

Proponents of inclusion vastly outnumbered those who did not want the sentence to appear in the lead. The thrust of their arguments was that there is a whole section about Reagan's response (or lack thereof) to AIDS, so it must be summarised in the lead - there was simply no agreement as to whether include a whole sentence or just a clause. Some of the participants, including the OP, admitted that the 2020 RfC proposed a sentence which could be perceived as non-neutral, but promised to remedy this with some new wording. Opponents argued that the RfC arguments from 2020 still stand and that the presidential biographies make little mention of his administration's response to AIDS.

As mentioned earlier, the opponents were few and failed to convince the vast majority to let this part of his legacy out. The argument about tying the relative importance of certain aspects of his presidency to the extent his biographers covered these issues was drowned in discussions about the faults/virtues of existing biographies and basically whether the interest in his AIDS response was sparked by a recent COVID pandemic and is thus recentism. In any case, these reasonings did not obscure the great picture, which was that the participants largely agree that some mention in the lead is warranted. There does not appear to be consensus for the wording as proposed by the OP, but there are several proposals with various degrees of support - I leave it to the participants to agree on the best version. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Shall the third paragraph of the lede mention "a delayed response to the AIDS epidemic"?

HIV/AIDS is arguably the most influential and pervading disease of the second half of the 20th and the 21st centuries, and Reagan's reaction is still consequential today, with more than 700,000 Americans as of today dead of the virus. I think that the RfC on this topic from several years ago was properly sourced and valid, but their sentence was not optimal as far as WP:NPOV goes.

My proposed sentence at the moment would be "Reagan also headed a delayed governmental response to the AIDS epidemic during his tenure." This would be located the end of the third paragraph of the lede, since that paragraph as written right now is split between first and second terms. This sentences does not says that he personally "ignored" the crisis, which is an admittedly subjective view, but does specify that the response was not very proactive, which is a statement largely agreed upon by many historians and scholars and in the news media both contemporaneously and retrospectively.

Jaydenwithay (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  • No. Do not mention in lede. - To be clear, Reagen's HIV/AIDs response was notable and important. And saying he headed a "delayed response" is probably mostly true and in-line w/ RS. All that said, in the context of his entire presidency, his response to the emergence of HIV was a relatively minor issue. Mentioning this in the lead would constitute WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Support clause, see my comment below ("headed a delayed response"); there's a lot of things we could mention in the lead, and while this is definitely important, we need to be mindful of length DFlhb (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion —First off, I'm not sure we should be re-visiting this after only 3 years. (The last time a RFC was done on this.) But to the point here....as much as some people feel that AIDs is an important part of his Presidency, the fact of the matter is: it wasn't. And most overall bios of the President reflect that. Considering 3 of the most notable (used in this article): In Lou Cannon's 'President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime', the AIDS issue appears on about 7 pages (out of about 800, counting the main text; that's 0.88%). In H. W. Brands book 'Reagan: The Life', this topic is also covered on about 7 pages (out of over 800). In Bob Spitz's 'Reagan: An American Journey'....same deal. I could go on but I trust my point is made. We probably spend too much time on this issue in the article as it is (by my count it is about 2.6% of the article). With such a small part of the article (and smaller part of the overall RS bios of the President)....this is a issue as far as WEIGHT & DUE as far as being in the lede.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
    ... I'm not actually sure treatment in biographies is the best metric. First, biographies are often a function of the subjects the authors find interesting. The Cannon book, in particular, is a questionable metric, given that it only came out in 1991—years before the peak of the AIDS epidemic and, arguably, the full scope of the Reagan White House's decision making became clear. And Spitz's book was criticized precisely for its treatment of the AIDS issue: As Susan Page's review said in the radical pinko-commie rag, USA Today, "Reagan didn’t 'adroitly sidestep' the issue of AIDS; he deliberately ignored a deadly health crisis that erupted on his watch".
    Rather than ask, "How much do his biographers like to talk about this?" ... I think the question is do a substantial amount of reliable sources discuss the Reagan White House's AIDS policies and the consequences of those policies ... and, in light of the extremity of those consequences and the coverage, does the treatment of AIDS warrant treatment in the lede? --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The sources I've mentioned are RS. There are a "substantial amount of reliable sources" that cover Reagan on all sorts of topics that could (and do) fill an article. The question here is: on an overall biography....what is the best metric of how much weight this should be given? I have found virtually no overall, well-regarded bio (by a well regarded historian) who spends a great deal of time on this particular subject. If you've got one....fire away.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion moved below--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per Ivanvector and SMcCandlish. Also, biographies are not the only reliable sources to be considered; there is considerable scholarly material about the Reagan administration's response to the the AIDS crisis, that we are currently giving due weight to in the body; therefore it requires summarizing in the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Overall biographies give us a idea as to what WEIGHT to give the AIDs issue in this article. But the overall histories of this era don't give it much more weight either. In James T. Patterson's 'Restless Giant...' (also cited in this article; and we are talking a very well regarded historian here) the AIDs issue takes up 3 pages out of the 65 from the two main chapters that focus on the 1980's. So as much as anyone may feel that this should be a big part of the article based on their personal POV...its just not the case.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Biographies are not encyclopedia articles, and are not the last word on due weight in any sense. Also: there is no basis in policy to include a section in the article, but not to summarize that in the lead. Given your contributions here it's not unlikely you support removing that section, but as long as it remains supported by consensus, a sentence in the lead is necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There are several sections in the article not mentioned in the LEAD. As per policy, the LEAD is a "summary of its most important contents...[that] summarize the most important points". There is nothing that says every section needs mention in the LEAD. And if overall histories and bios by (very) RS doesn't give a good idea as to what WEIGHT to give....I'm not sure what does. I'm aware of no RS that summarizes the RS coverage of RR by topic (in terms of percent per).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree and this is a ludicrous thing to mention in the lead. It's a bit of historical revisionism by Reagan critics overstating this part of his precedency. It's certainly overblown to mentioned it in the lead. This is a good example of flooding the zone with so much recent coverage "we have to mention it in the lead." I doubt serious biographers are ever going to make to a main point of a Regan biography, because it's not. Nemov (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
You have said nothing of substance here. Jaydenwithay (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I guess "empathy matters" except when someone has a different opinion than you on a Wikipedia biography. Nemov (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Woah woah I must've missed where this went so sour. We're all friends here. I see your point about recentism, Nemov. It's, I think, particularly possible that Reagan's response to the AIDS epidemic came under renewed criticism in light of the Trump administration's biographers, tepid response to COVID (to put it mildly). But, for the reasons that I'm sure I don't need to restate (I've probably taken up enough of the talk page here), I still think that the question shouldn't be WWRBD—"what will a Reagan biographer do?" And, in light of the significance of the AIDS epidemic, both what it was under Reagan and what it became later, in part due to the hesitant response, I don't think inclusion in the lead is unjustified.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It's simply not a major part of his presidency, let alone a key part of his biography. It's undue in the lead and this discussion is the product of recentism. Obviously, anyone can disagree with that opinion, but to claim it lacks substance is silly. As someone mentioned below, this would be an acceptable thing to mention in an article about the presidency that goes into much finer detail. Mentioning in the lead of the biography just seems like drive-by content pushing. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose This seems more appropriate as part of an article about his presidency rather than the person himself. That said, inclusion as part of a sentence clause per Iamreallygoodatcheckers's suggestion is reasonable Springee (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional support for inclusion: I too have a WEIGHT objection to the proposed stand-alone sentence. At the same time, the AIDS Crisis is, without a doubt, of equal WEIGHT to public sector labor union struggles and the war on drugs. Therefore, adding mention of it as a sentence clause seems appropriate; something like (I also moved mention of the Granada invasion to a different sentence to avoid a run-on):
    He escalated an arms race and transitioned Cold War policy away from détente with the Soviet Union, and ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983. He also survived an assassination attempt, fought public sector labor unions, expanded the war on drugs, and was confronted with the AIDS crisis. Drdpw (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Drdpw one thing about your phrasing: "was confronted" is in passive voice (grammatically unpleasant) and doesn't say anything about what he did. Jaydenwithay (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    He "led a slow and tepid response". Drdpw (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    "headed a delayed response", more formal DFlhb (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • When shall this RfC close? Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    • RfCs with an obvious consensus don't need to be formally closed. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I've seen RFC's go on for months. This one hasn't even been open but for a few days.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
      So, the "default" RFC timeline is 30 days, but some go shorter and some go longer, usually depending on how contentious they are and how much attention they're getting. Per WP:RFCCLOSE: "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be." As I think we're approaching WP:SNOW territory, which would warrant early closure. We have two oppose votes—one of them a weak oppose that says they'd find "inclusion as part of a sentence clause" reasonable. You're the only full oppose vote. That said, I personally think the RFC should stay open at least a couple more days, given how high profile this page is, but I wouldn't object to an early close.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
      Feels like WP:SNOW to me. Clearly consensus for inclusion. The closer will have to decide whether that means a full sentence or a "clause" though. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
      Well if we're in snow territory there doesn't even need to be a closer. (Formal closure isn't required if the consensus is clear.) But I do think we'll have to separately work out the full sentence / component of a sentence issue. I think there's a consensus who support the proposed sentence as written, but there are (updated to reflect changed votes) At least five editors have said they'd prefer just a clause, and I think the original proposer has consented to that, so that's probably what we should go with (and, if necessary, we can have another discussion about whether to make it a separate sentence, but I don't think that would be necessary).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
      As the lede is currently written, adding a clause would be best as it pertains to WP:WEIGHT . I wrote a full sentence because the paragraph is written with a clear delineation between his first and second terms, and the AIDS crisis is throughout the eight years, so unless that paragraph is completely restructured, a clause wouldn't fit right. Jaydenwithay (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
      The fact that this RFC lost the last time, it hasn't even been open for a week, and the fact most of time it has been open was a weekend (when some people don't post)....makes me think it should be open longer.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    Let it run about a month or so. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Reagan's inaction during the AIDS crisis is probably one of the most significant aspects of his presidency and legacy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support clause per Drdpw, but change "was confronted with" to "headed a delayed response to". --Wow (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The AIDS epidemic was a small part of his presidential tenure. It's not a major part of Ronald Reagan's biography. It's fair that this is mentioned in the tenure section (4 paragraphs seems like overkill to be honest). It deserves a mention in an article about the presidential years, but putting this in the lead of a Reagan biography is undue. The arguments opposed to this 3 years ago still apply. It wasn't included in the lead then and it shouldn't be included now. As far as coverage concerns, much of the coverage has been created in the last few years by critics attempting to inflate the importance of this during the Reagan administration. Nemov (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
At this point, it's looking like a clear WP:AVALANCHE for inclusion in the lede as a clause at the very least - 10 SUPPORT as a full sentence, 6 SUPPORT as a clause, and only 2 fully OPPOSE with no new argument against inclusion other than maintaining the status quo from several years ago. Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
There's no reason to think unqualified "support" votes are supporting the exact full sentence proposed in the OP; the RfC is about whether we should mention it in the lead. That's an example of why it's usually considered improper for discussion participants to try to assess consensus; we let closers do that. DFlhb (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the semantic clarification. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly; Wikipedia works by building consensus. It will be up to an uninvolved editor to access whether or not there is a consensus to add the sentence proposed in the OP has been reached and how to interpret the input of those opposed to the sentence (or to any full sentence) but open to adding a sentence-clause on the topic. Drdpw (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This RfC should have tagged biography/history when it was created. I added that today. This RfC should run 30 days. I don't understand the rush to close it. Nemov (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No/Bad RfC RfC question grossly fails WP:RFCBRIEF as it is very much not neutral. On that basis, this RfC should not be used to find consensus for anything. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think the proposer perhaps failed to include his signature after the question (which is neutral), but I hardly think that's a basis for discarding the entire RFC, unless you actually think that if we run it again, a substantial amount of the editors here will change their opinion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you don't think the question is neutral, but do you have any useful feedback? Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a mention in lead per proposer and substantial coverage in body; prefer more concise phrasing proposed below by Specifico. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support brief mention per SMcCandlish & Ivanvector. Specifico's suggestion below "Reagan was slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic, which began early in his presidency." Is concise but adds necessary context (which began … ). Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support inclusion. I question how anyone can view this as not a major part of his presidency, given how much has been written on this subject.[1] All of the proposed text references events from the 1980s, so I do not understand the charges of recentism are misguided.  — Freoh 17:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC); edited 00:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

I'm not questioning their reliability. I'm questioning the methodology you propose, in which biographies are given exclusive say over due weight. Agree to disagree, but I think the question is precisely what I asked.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well the point here is unless I do some OR (since I have no means of saying what (in totality) RS says on this particular subject), I am sort of stuck (IMHO) with using the weight high-quality, RS sources give it in overall bios & histories. But as you say agreed to disagree.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
1. A biographer's omission of or scant coverage of the issue does not inherently mean that they did not find it impactful enough.
2. The fact that those select biographers chose to mention the AIDS crisis at an absolute minimum in no way means this Wikipedia page should do the same.
Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
So we are down to mind-reading now? High quality RS didn't spend enough time on the subject to suit you....so you somehow know how impactful they found it? Your "logic" is always fascinating.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're getting rude and testy with me. I think it's very clear that I actually said the opposite of what you're claiming I did - the proportion of coverage does not inherently correlate to however much the biographer found the matter impactful or relevant. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not my intent to be "rude and testy"....just to figure out what you are saying. To say (as you did) "A biographer's omission of or scant coverage of the issue does not inherently mean that they did not find it impactful enough." is like saying you are choosing to give a topic more weight than the biographer/historian did. That's OR. Unless there is a RS summarizing RS coverage (% by topic)....I can think of no other means (other than what I have described) to figure weight.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll be clearer - there is no way of knowing that a biographer chose to cover this issue at a minimum specifically because they did not find it impactful or important enough, unless they say so in the text. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like OR to me. I can only go with what a RS said.....not infer things from what was unsaid.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
So, first, by your standard, you're doing OR to prove your point! Did you have a secondary source that said how many pages the books you cited devoted to AIDS? No? You counted yourself? Well, that's OR!
But that's not wrong. OR actually goes into background decisions all the time—that's by necessity. We don't, for example, demand that mainstream address a theory and call it fringe before WP:FRINGE applies.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Not it isn't OR to count the pages myself. From the wiki page discussing OR: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." [4]. Looking at a source and seeing how much of it is devoted to a topic isn't OR.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that they're correct? You're not just doing 1+1 ... You're examining a selection of biographies (who's to say that the selection is representative?—there are many, many, Reagan bios), determining which pages do cover the topic, reviewing all the other pages to determine the topic is not covered, and then calculating percentages.
Regardless of that issue. I do think we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't think that Wikipedia's due weight policies are entirely determined by a subject's treatment in biographies. I've never seen someone suggest that before ("Due weight on a subject's page is exclusively determined by biographies covering the subject"???), and, in my opinion, it'd be a terrible, short-sighted rule—effectively saying that the content of an article on a person must be determined according to the interests of whatever biographers happened to have decided to write a book on the person.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that they're correct? You tell me. Most of these are available (for free) on line at places like archive.org. Rather than suggest there is a issue with it....why not do your homework? And if there are high quality, RS (overall) Reagan bios that spend large portions of their text on the AIDS issue....I have yet to hear what they are. We are going in circles here. So far, I have heard no better metric for weight than what I have mentioned. All I have heard is OR suggestions (while simultaneously saying it's OR for me to count pages, as incredible as that is).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, nothing in our policy says content (or, specifically, due weight) is determined exclusively by biographies. You're proposing a new rule. As is pretty obvious, the vast majority of editors on this page are rejecting that rule.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
We make judgments like that with regards to WEIGHT all the time. (I still haven't heard a better metric.) And this RFC is young....it didn't make it last time and hopefully won't fly this time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33:—I hope you don't mind—I thought this discussion was taking up too much room in the above !vote survey, so I figured it'd be better to move it here.

I just wanted to note that I did check out a version of Cannon's book! I actually found AIDS mentioned on a few more pages than you did, but nothing that makes a huge difference percentage wise. But, fortunately for me, this is where the folly of using biographies to determine due weight becomes clear. The version of Cannon's book that I have is digital, so the pages do change depending on the size. I full-screened it, which made the whole thing 705 pages (before the Notes began). I then looked at the Index and manually counted how many pages mentioned Nancy Reagan. The answer: 86. In other words, by your proposed due weight rule (and method of calculation) ... we should be devoting 12% of this article to Nancy. Hopefully you agree that's ridiculous.

Regardless, I accept if you think your "biographies control" rules should be implemented. For the reasons I've stated above—including the exclusion of the vast majority of writings about the subject and the end result of exalting whatever the interests of a subject's biographers happen to be—I don't agree with it, but I do think it has at least an "air" of neutrality, at least from an implementation perspective.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

12% devoted to Nancy? Not so sure that is a bad idea. One of the things I've always felt this article lacked was more discussion about their relationship, how she helped shaped him politically, and so on. Plenty of material there. But this article just got trimmed down (for being too long)...so I've stayed away from that. But in any case, I've stated why I think my idea (on how to quantify WEIGHT) is a good one above....so no need to keep beating that horse.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wording of the lead content

I think we need to workshop the wording for this. I think the proposed wording feels like a shoehorn into the existing list of Reagan's actions, but the result is a sentence that's too long and also indirect and passive voice. The lead would better reflect the article content with something like

Reagan was slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic, which began early in his presidency.

Comments? SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I like that phrasing better. It covers the material, and is much easier to parse. --Jayron32 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
One (heavyweight) historian put it: "slow to confront the issue". So what you have is probably pretty close.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I like this! Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Works for me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I like it. It's concise, and which began early in his presidency is valuable context — DFlhb (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brier, Jennifer (2015). "Reagan and AIDS". In Johns, Andrew L. (ed.). A Companion to Ronald Reagan. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118607770.ch13. ISBN 9781118607770.
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.

Residuals

"In his second stint, Reagan managed to secure the payments for actors whose theatrical films were released from 1948 to 1959 were televised." should read something like "and subsequently televised"; don't have a login. 2003:E8:E719:8E8E:749A:7494:F2A2:12F5 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"middle to upper tier"

Without consensus, somebody changed Reagan's bio and made it less favorable in this specific area. Near the last sentence, they slightly changed it to say he is in the "middle to upper tier of presidents." For the past 10 years, the lede has said he is ranked among the "upper tier of presidents." Can somebody please revert back to the original edit that places him in the upper tier? 2600:1700:D090:3250:221:E9FF:FEE6:803A (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

""the lede has said he is ranked among the "upper tier of presidents." " That phrase was severely outdated. See Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. At one point, Reagan kept being ranked in a top 10 position. Some of the recent rankings instead place him in the 13th or the 18th position, as his reputation has declined. In the 2022 poll, Reagan was outranked by more popular presidents, such as Lyndon B. Johnson (8th), Barack Obama (11th), and Bill Clinton (14th). Amazingly enough, at that survey, Reagan (18th) outranked the then-popular Joe Biden (19th) and George H. W. Bush (20th). Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with saying "middle to upper tier of presidents"....but when I look at the Historical rankings page....I'm not seeing the same thing you are. In the 2017 C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey, RR is 9th. In the Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2018, RR comes in 13th (higher than any President since Kennedy). In the 2021 C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey, same thing: Reagan comes in at 10th. Higher than any President since LBJ except for Obama. In the public opinion polls, in 4 from 2014 to 2018 (by Quinnipiac University & Morning Consult poll), Reagan is at the top in all 4 as "Best president since World War II". In the 2021 Gallup poll, among the Presidents from Kennedy to Trump, Reagan's weighted average comes in only behind Kennedy and Obama (and just barely in the case of Obama). So I don't know that there is any basis to say "his reputation has declined".Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Saying "middle to upper tier of presidents" seems neutral and accurate to me. Drdpw (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think I'd second that (middle to upper tier). I agree that "upper tier" alone doesn't capture the 18th position that the Sienna College 2022 and 2010 polls put him at. But @Rja13ww33 has assembled some great points showing that upper tier is still, of course, warranted. Since Rja also says middle to upper tier is acceptable, I think that's an easy solution.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
As I said in the previous discussion, I calculated Reagan to be on average in the top 28% of the scholar surveys. How would you propose characterizing that? –CWenger (^ • @) 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I don't have a problem with calling that "middle to upper tier". Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Then let's make Obama's page say middle tier also. He is literally in the same place on all the polls next to Reagan. Either right below or right above. Cannot hold a double standard! 2600:1700:D090:3250:D4C3:3AE9:8F20:6660 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There was discussion and consensus about this, see Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 26#Misrepresentation of presidential evaluation link. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
That was a brief discussion between two editors. Drdpw (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
If nobody else chimes in I consider that consensus. Also the issue was originally raised by a third editor who disputed the "upper tier" characterization, so I suspect they would be satisfied with the new wording. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Then let's make Obama's page also say middle to upper tier. His polls are also in the middle range, yet his page says "upper tier". We cannot hold a double standard on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D090:3250:D4C3:3AE9:8F20:6660 (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done Wow (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you sir! 2600:1700:D090:3250:D568:8E62:71F6:2EBB (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"middle to upper tier"?

lol what?

He is almost always ranked in the top 15... out of 45 presidents (Cleveland). Top 33 percentile doesn't equal "middle". 107.10.129.126 (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Top 33rd percentile (top 28th according to my analysis) doesn't equal "upper" tier either; I would reserve that for top 25th percentile. Do you propose a better way of characterizing it? Also note this has been discussed a few times; check this page and its archives. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Since there have only been about 45 presidents, going by 1/3rds seems more rational than going by 1/4ths... 79.191.154.134 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Even going by thirds, he would be on the boundary between the upper and middle tier, exactly how we currently describe it. And you say he is "almost always ranked in the top 15" but if you look at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, of the 20 rankings he is included in, there's a 16, 22, 20, 26, 25, 16, 18, and 18 (and most of these include fewer than 45 presidents). –CWenger (^ • @) 03:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

Remove the “People with Alzheimer's disease” category for this article, as the category is for “living people who currently have Alzheimer's disease”, and Reagan died back in 2004. TheCorrectPanda (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC) TheCorrectPanda (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The category is not for living people. That would render it useless. Its scope specifically includes: "those with the disease who died from other causes of death." Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Conservative icon

Someone without consensus removed from the lede that Reagan was “an icon among conservatives.” This was done so without any consensus, and there is not much controversy regarding the statement. Can someone please reinstate that sentence back into the lede? 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:FDB3:46E3:C2BC:CE2F (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the edit that removed the words. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Here the language was changed from "a conservative icon" to "a prominent conservative figure in the United States". This seems reasonable to me per WP:PUFFERY. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
There is RS in the article that calls him a icon. But looking at other Presidential bios....that word isn't even used with Presidents like FDR & Lincoln. So maybe we shouldn't overdo it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The word sounds more like a literary/pop-culture term than an encyclopedic descriptive term. Drdpw (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't checked sourcing, but I would say that he is in fact a pop culture icon. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit (small) needed: under Reagan's college pic

Edit (small) needed: under Reagan's picture in his football uniform at Eureka College, Eureka, IL, Eureka is linked as Eureka, California, not Illinois. 104.240.120.54 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

please remember to mention how reagan suffered from numerous developmental and intellectual disabilities. like young sheldon. 165.140.185.53 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Supreme Court appointments and mentioning the nominations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg

Should their be mention of the two initial nominees- both Bork and Ginsburg- to fill the seat vacated by Lewis Powell underneath the heading 'Supreme Court Appointments'? The vacancy was one of the more contentious of the time and the nomination and rejection of Bork still holds a lot of weight in some circles today. Given that, there should probably be some mention of their nominations and their respective lack of confirmations before Justice Kennedy was ultimately confirmed. LosPajaros (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

final sentence

How do people feel about removing the final sentence? Carlos Lozada noted Trump's praising of Reagan in a book he published during his 2016 campaign. It's the last thing said about Reagan's legacy and political influence and seems oddly specific and a little recentist. It's basically an example of the preceding sentence, but pulls in this journalist who isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Thinking ending on Since 1988, Republican presidential candidates have invoked Reagan's policies and beliefs. would be stronger. Uhoj (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan/Archive_27&oldid=1230737415"