Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

nuclear weapons and grammar reverts

@Vanamonde93 I see that all of my edits have been reverted with reference to a Talk discussion.

Please point me to that discussion. I'm pretty new to editing and don't know how to unearth it.

I'm pretty surprised by these reverts since most of my edits were fixes to things like minor grammar issues and removal of a sentence fragment that seemed to be an orphan from editing over the years.

I'm also surprised to see my edits characterized as "without explanation." Would you give an example of how I should have explained these edits?

Regarding the substantive deletion that I made in the apartheid section related to supposed nuclear weapons cooperation between the Reagan administration and South Africa, is there actually an objection to my doing that? My reasons for deleting that sentence are provided in my description of the edit. Uhoj (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Ok I found the discussion about the apartheid subsection. Seems like the part I removed about nuclear weapons was added after that consensus was reached and apart from that conversation. Am I reading that right? Uhoj (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if it came after, that addition is reliably sourced and provides important context of US-South African relations during this time period. I think it ought to stay in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33 Hmmm, I actually removed it because I couldn't verify it. I can't see the entire reference because it's behind a paywall, but what the abstract says is pretty general and importantly makes no mention of nuclear weapons except that the U.S. was trying to prevent their proliferation, which kind of sounds like the the opposite of weapons cooperation:

During the Reagan years, anti-communism and the Cold War formed a major component of US foreign policy and dictated a closer nuclear relationship between the US and South Africa, coupled with US non-proliferation efforts vis-à-vis South Africa.

So, since I couldn't verify nuclear weapons cooperation from this source I turned to South Africa and weapons of mass destruction. That article details earlier non-weapons cooperation, and also discusses South African attempts to use their covert weapons program to force the U.S. into defending them. But I don't see anything in there about the U.S. ever assisting the South African weapons program.

Would you point me to a source that explains the supposed weapons ties? Uhoj (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to edits like these, and you can reinstate them if you wish as far as I am concerned. This removes content relevant to the appointment itself that isn't covered by later content. This weakens the language used, in my view, though I'm open to discussion. And as to your final removal, a paywall is not a valid reason to remove something; if you read the entire text, and that doesn't support the sentence, then it would be a different matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!

Re:

Early in his presidency, Reagan appointed Clarence M. Pendleton Jr., known for his opposition to affirmative action and equal pay for men and women, as chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights to criticism for politicizing the agency.

I couldn't figure out how to connect "to criticism for politicizing the agency" with the rest of the sentence, but I take your point that I should have tried harder. I imagine that it was meant to go something like "In response to this appointment, Reagan faced criticism for politicizing the agency." In searching for something to support this I read Clarence M. Pendleton Jr., and while that mentions how controversial Pendleton was, I don't see anything about "politicizing" specifically. A general Google search for (reagan "politicizing" pendleton) didn't surface anything clear either.

How should I proceed given that what's there currently is just a fragment of a sentence, but that I can't find a reference to expand it into a full sentence?

Re: apartheid intro

How about this for getting some of the strength back while still improving the readability?

Popular opposition to apartheid increased during Reagan's first term in office and the Disinvestment from South Africa movement achieved critical mass after decades of growing momentum. Criticism of apartheid was particularly strong on college campuses and among mainline Protestant denominations.

Re: paywall

Agreed on it being behind a paywall not being a reason to cut it. But, the abstract of the reference does seem to say something rather different than what's being claimed here. In any case, I'll try and dig up the full reference. Uhoj (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I'm still hoping to get your feedback regarding my reply to you from the 29th before I make additional edits. Uhoj (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Uhoj: I hadn't replied because I'd felt it covered by by previous reply; you just have to read the sources used before raising concerns about verifiability. As to the language about Pendleton, the link is fairly clear to me; there was some criticism at the time of appointment, and subsequent assessment of Pendleton's actions while holding the appointment, which are different but connected matters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Thanks for replying. I've changed the part about Pendelton to make it a complete sentence while incorporating your point that there was criticism both during and after the appointment, while also being more specific about the reason for that criticism. Uhoj (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Read: [1]. We can't throw out RS because everyone cannot access it. Secondly, the fact that South Africa's nuclear weapons program was relevant to US-South African relations (and the Cold War) at this time is fairly well documented. See [2] and also: 'ARMAMENT AND DISARMAMENT South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Experience'.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33

Thanks for the PDF link! I took a look through it and what I found is:

There were a range of efforts in the mid-to- late 1970s to deny South Africa sensitive nuclear goods. Most significantly, the United States cut off nuclear assistance for the Safari-1 research reactor in 1976 and enrichment services for the Koeberg nuclear power reactors in 1978

with a footnote saying:

During the Reagan administration, certain limited nuclear assistance occurred.

I couldn't find further elaboration in this PDF to expand that into nuclear weapons assistance. Looking around the PDF more generally I don't see anything that supports "closer ties...pertaining to nuclear weapons."

Re: 'ARMAMENT AND DISARMAMENT South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Experience'

Is there something specific in there about Reagan's administration and "closer ties...pertaining to nuclear weapons"?

I'm sure that South Africa's nuclear weapons program was relevant to US-South African relations (and the Cold War). But I'm still not finding support for "closer ties...pertaining to nuclear weapons." Unless "closer ties" means the U.S. generally trying to disuade the weapons program via diplomacy.

Do you have access to [3] and if so, would you be up for quoting the part that supports "closer ties...pertaining to nuclear weapons"? Uhoj (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The line is paraphrased from the abstract (i.e. of 'Sunset over Atomic Apartheid...'). We say: "The anti-communist focus of Reagan's administration lent itself to closer ties with the apartheid regime of South Africa, particularly with regards to matters pertaining to nuclear weapons." The source says: "During the Reagan years, anti-communism and the Cold War formed a major component of US foreign policy and dictated a closer nuclear relationship between the US and South Africa, coupled with US non-proliferation efforts vis-à-vis South Africa." I'm not sure there is much of a difference between those two statements. (Although the latter could be considered a bit more detailed.) If it is deemed that there is.....perhaps a direct quote would be best.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there's disagreement about the meaning of that abstract, and since it sounds like that's the best reference that any of us has access to at the moment, I guess I'll go to the library in a few days / weeks and try to retrieve the full reference. Uhoj (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I see no issue with quoting from the abstract. It is done all the time on here.....and a lot of the time the abstract summarizes things pretty well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me to get this right. Haven't had a chance to go to the library yet, but it's on my to-do list. No objection if you want to quote the abstract temporarily until we come up with something better. Uhoj (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I got ahold of Sunset over Atomic Apartheid and here's what it actually says about Reagan:

• Civilian nuclear reactors were built in South Africa during the 1960's by French and American companies.
• In 1978 Jimmy Carter barred U.S. companies from selling fuel to South Africa for their reactors. This was an attempt by Carter to push South Africa to join the NPT and to allow international inspections of South Africa's nuclear facilities. However, South Africa did neither.
• South Africa built their first nuclear weapon in 1979, prior to Reagan taking office.
• The CIA assessed that South Africa already had nuclear weapons in 1979.
• Like Carter's administration, Reagan's pushed South Africa to sign the NPT. As a reward to South Africa, Reagan was offering to remove the prohibition on nuclear fuel sales enacted by Carter. However, South Africa sidestepped this offer by getting the fuel through another route that the U.S. Government could not block.
• 3 sales of dual-use equipment by American companies to South Africa were approved: vibration test equipment, a supercomputer, and 95 grams of Helium-3
• No evidence is presented that these dual-use items were used by the South African weapons program.
• George H.W. Bush continued the policies of the Reagan administration.

So, Carter tried to prevent South Africa from building nuclear weapons by sanctioning them, but failed. Reagan knew that South Africa probably already had weapons and tried to keep the South African weapons program under control by slightly loosening the failed restrictions of Carter. Bush did the same as Reagan.

In summary, Reagan's policies were continuous with those of both his predecessor and his successor and did not involve any closer ties pertaining to nuclear weapons. Rather, his administration tried to negotiate controls on South Africa's weapons.

I'm thinking of cutting the sentence here and maybe adding something to Constructive engagement > Assessments along the lines of:

Furthermore, just as Carter's Non-Proliferation Act failed to prevent South Africa from building a nuclear bomb, Constructive Engagement attempted, but failed, to prevent expansion of the weapons program. Uhoj (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be right....but saying the main part of a article contradicts the abstract is OR (something we are not supposed to do). That's why a direct quote (from one or the other) may be best. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm not saying that the abstract contradicts the body. I'm saying that we're currently misrepresenting the abstract. The abstract says nothing about Reagan having nuclear weapons ties with South Africa and neither does the body of Sunset Over Atomic Apartheid.

To quote the abstract here would draw attention to it by way of formatting and length. We have already seen that the abstract is confusing and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Drawing attention to an ambiguous sentence is a poor solution.

How about in the second paragraph we say:

The Reagan administration developed constructive engagement with the South African government as a means of encouraging it to gradually move away from apartheid and to give up its nuclear weapons program.

That's well-supported by the abstract and body of Sunset Over Atomic Apartheid and other sources.

Or, if you're aware of sources that clearly say that Reagan assisted the South African weapons program then I'm happy with saying that. I've searched for such sources and came up empty. Uhoj (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds pretty close to what is there already....but maybe you ought to make the proposd change and then lets see how it looks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

References

change the tier status back to "middle to upper tier!" Not above average! Consensus was already made!

For someone to change his ranking back to above average is ridiculous. The standard has been held and his rankings are the same as those of Barack Obama, whose page currently still ranks him as an "upper tier" president.

For proof, his rankings on wikipedia for nearly a decade have said upper tier, and only in the past couple years did I create consensus with others to make it "middle to upper tier." It has been changed, WITHOUT CONESNSUS! As clearly shown in the discussion above.

As agreed to in a discussion dated June 5, 2023: "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.."

Consensus was then reached later with the statement, "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"

Can we respect this consensus to change the edit back to upper tier? Thank you all! 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:F5C9:E2CB:E230:7A7C (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Middle to upper tier

is factually inaccurate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

in the scholar survey summary section, Ronald Reagan was ranked in 21 surveys. His average ranking in those 21 surveys is 13.9. There have been 45 US presidents (remember, Grover Cleveland was president twice). 45/3 is 15. 15 presidents were above average, 15 presidents were average, and 15 presidents were below average. Since Reagan's average ranking is #13.9, this makes him an above average president and not a "middle to upper tier" president. I have seen some compare him to Bill Clinton who is also noted as being a "middle to upper tier" president. Of the 19 surveys conducted featuring Bill Clinton, Clinton's average ranking is #17.3 which would make him an average president. 17th out of 45 can be seen as "middle to upper tier", but 13th out of 45 can't really be seen as simply "middle to upper tier" when it is more accurately just "upper tier". 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, check the talk archives. You're suggesting "tiers" are definitely thirds but if you instead divide it into quarters he is no longer in the top. I'm also not sure why 13.9 in groups of 15 is definitely upper tier while 17.3 could be "middle to upper tier"; the former is closer to the dividing line than the latter. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What a strange response. I recognize your username, I've dealt with you before @CWenger, you are a far left idealogue. Hopefully more sensible and neutral parties join the discussion.

Tier, noun, Oxford dictionary: a level or grade within the hierarchy of an organization or system

Tiers can be in thirds. Arguing over minutiae, poorly at that (by inappropriately introducing quarters to an "above average-average-below average" debate), is quite pedantic and an obvious attempt to obfuscate from the fact that Ronald Reagan has been consistently ranked by scholars and historians as an above average president.

So yeah, to anyone else that reads this; Ronald Reagan in 21 available well sourced surveys of political historians and scholars is ranked on average at #13.9 out of 45. Regardless of your feelings on him or his legacy, being ranked as the 13th or 14th best US president is factual considered "above average" and should be written to reflect the view of said scholars and historians. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking @CWenger's points a step further. Lets follow your quarters contention. 45/4 is 11.25. You are correct Ronald Reagan would not be in the top quarter at #13.9/45, but neither would Andrew Jackson who out of 25 surveys has an average ranking of #12.3, yet on Andrew Jackson's wikipedia page, he is listed as having been an "above average" president according to historians and scholars. Ronald Reagan at #13.9/45 is closer to Andrew Jackson (#12.3/45) than Bill Clinton (#17.3/45) is to Ronald Reagan. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to other presidents' Wikipedia pages; I only follow Reagan's as he is one of my favorite presidents in spite of me being a "far left idealogue". Calling him "above average" is accurate although I think it waters it down (after all, half of presidents are "above average") and "middle to upper tier" actually sounds more impressive. My personal preference would be to rank them into quartiles or quintiles; in either case Reagan would be second or "upper-middle". –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

There, now you can speak to another president's wikipedia page. I see the sarcasm, but one can revere a president who doesn't align with their political views. For instance, I personally view Bill Clinton as a top 10 US president for his non-interventionism, toughness on crime, economic policies, and general decorum yet I am a conservative republican and not a third way centrist.

Back to the meat of the matter... "middle to upper tier" is, of course, less impressive than "above average". Middle to upper tier downplays Reagan's legacy greatly. In the 21 surveys featuring Reagan on the wiki page regarding president legacy, his average ranking is 13.9 out of 45 - that is definitionally above average. This is all without even mentioning that there is a notable inherent leftist bias among political historians and scholars (a trend that is rightly noted on the wikipedia page regarding presidents' rankings). Weighted rankings (with even conservative identifying and liberal identifying historians) virtually *always* rank Ronald Reagan in the top 10 all time for US presidents. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Upper-middle is different than "middle to upper tier". Upper-middle means above average to average; middle to upper tier means average to above average. Starting the narrative off with middle/average is a wild disservice to Reagan's legacy and it is simply not factual. Scholars and political historians who tend to lean left to far left regard Ronald Reagan as the 13.9th best president out of 45. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we change "middle to upper tier" to "upper-middle tier" and call it a day then? –CWenger (^ • @) 11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I can live with that 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

actually no, on second thought "upper-middle tier" is an unnecessary concession.

Lets do a comparison, shall we?

Lyndon B. Johnson is ranked in 23 surveys on the scholar wiki page linked above. His average ranking is #12.47. As mentioned earlier, Reagan's average ranking is #13.9. LBJ is listed as "upper tier" on his wikipedia page. A point and a half difference (this without me even going in on the hard-Left bias among scholars and political historians bcuz we all know how far that gets someone on wikipedia) should not allow for one president to be listed as "upper tier" and another listed as "upper-middle tier" simply because one president had a D after his name and the other had an R.

Ronald Reagan was an above average president. This according to scholars, political historians, and most importantly the people of the United States who consistently rate him among the best presidents in US history. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave it with this... I know this is wikipedia. I know that scientific studies have been done verifying wiki's Left wing partisan bias, both in there being a disproportionate number of left-leaning editors and some technical stuff on the back-end that is designed to discourage centrist and right-leaning people from editing political content on here but the truth should matter and the truth should be visible to future generations. Ronald Reagan was not a "middle to upper tier" president. That is a very obvious attempt at diminishing his legacy. Many independent, centrist, and right-leaning scholars have rated Reagan as a top 5 to top 10 US president. Even the left-leaning scholars rate him as above average. In the 21 surveys were Reagan was included, he was below the median number of presidents 4 times. So 80.9% of the time he is ranked as above average yet somehow his wikipedia page does not properly address his legacy in the same way LBJ's legacy is written. LBJ written as "above average", yet Ronald Reagn written as "middle to upper tier". *This* is a prime example to showcase wiki's left wing bias. Even if @CWenger or someone else with the power does the right thing, it'll be undone later.. maybe a week later, maybe a month later, but it'll be undone. This is why centrists, independents, and right-leaning folks simply give up on wilipedia altogether. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• wikipedia altogether, lol my bad

2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Reagan and LBJ should have the same wording. Honestly it would be great if we could use something like Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose where we just fill in the data and the verbiage is standardized, but that is probably a little beyond me. I will wait and see if anybody else chimes in. If not, is "above average" the best alternative? –CWenger (^ • @) 23:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

do you have the ability to update the wording to "above average"? The page is locked. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We've had some complaints that this is OR. (And it may be, but we are (as far as I know) allowed to calculate averages and so on. But anyway....) But if we did run with this....when I average the rankings in the "Scholar survey summary" table, I am getting (like the first poster in this thread) a average of 13.9. That puts him in the upper tier. I had no issue with the "middle to upper tier" that we had before (because there was consensus and it reflected the spectrum of the data). "Above average" doesn't quite do that (IMHO). Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be OR. We are using data from a Wikipedia page but that's really just a shortcut to the true sources. And I see no issue with doing some fairly basic calculations on that data. (Side note: once I saw an editor argue that calculating an age from a birthdate, or vice versa, was OR...) I do agree that "above average" undersells his ranking. My preference would still be "upper-middle tier". –CWenger (^ • @) 17:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The OR issue isn't with the rankings themselves, but with an arbitrary tiering system; "upper to middle" is vague enough that it encompasses any reasonable understanding of Reagan's average ranking in the surveys mentioned, and "above average" in the same rankings cannot really be disputed, but what does "upper-middle" even mean? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest "upper-middle quartile" or "quintile" but that may be too mathematical for the average reader. On the other hand "above average" and "upper to middle" are quite vague. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't mean to be too much of a stickler but "half of presidents are above average" is not accurate. You are confusing 'average' with 'median'. Nothin' to be embarrassed by, it's a common mistake. The median president as it were would be the 23rd ranked president, but the average is wider and more loose so there would be more than one president to be considered "average". 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Half of presidents are above average" is true you're talking about numerical rankings as we are; the mean is the same as the median. –CWenger (^ • @) 11:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, touche. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, this having been discussed here before (something I was well aware of) is immaterial. Wikipedia has a known, observed, documented left wing bias (this according to multiple scientific studies and Wikipedia's own co-founder Larry Sanger) so it is no surprise that someone often referred to as "the most prominent conservative figure of the last 100 years" (Ronald Reagan) would have his accomplishments and legacy standing diminished here on wikipedia *BUT* all of that is again, immaterial. Facts are facts. The word 'average' is well defined, whereas the word 'tier' is less mathematic and thus has more subjective wiggle room. Objectively, Ronald Reagan has been rated by political historians and scholars as an "above average" president and his wikipedia bio should reflect this objective fact. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

please edit the article to change consensus back to "middle to upper tier" I led the discussion a year ago to make it this way and consensus was reached! Ri5009 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not going to dive into the minutiae here, but just noting that Wikipedia's list of rankings is not a reliable source that we should base anything on, and synthesizing the sources listed there to reach our own conclusions is also not appropriate; we need to be relying on secondary source summaries. There's a lot of personalization above that is quite inappropriate, and a lot of original research that, while fine on a talk page, is no basis for anything in an article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  The thing about it is though (at the risk of bringing in OTHER), those kinds of historical rep summaries are in just about every President's bio. (In the intro.....arrived at through similar methodologies in many of the cases I've looked at.) But you do have a point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 does not have a point, actualy. Wikipedia is not the source. The sources are Apsa, C-span, Sienna. I did no original research as user falsely claimed. You not diving into the minutiae is likely indicative of why you made erroneous accusations. More importantly, you did not refute the salient point at all, which is that according to credible sources (apsa, c-span, sienna, etc.) Ronald Reagan was not a "middle to upper tier" president, he was simply an "upper tier" or "above average" president. I extensively covered the findings from 21 surveys by credible sources that prove just that. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • actually, whoops 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

please edit the article to change consensus back to "middle to upper tier" I led the discussion a year ago to make it this way and consensus was reached! Revert the edit immediately Ri5009 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)