Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to give others a chance to weigh in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reagan in college standing up for two African-American teammates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to handle Reagan's response to the AIDS crisis and apartheid in intro

I added brief mentions of Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis and apartheid to the presidency section of the intro, summarizing the multi-paragraph sections on those topics in the body. Toa Nidhiki05 reverted the additions with edit summary "these are not lede-worthy material".

I see the additions as a straightforward application of MOS:INTRO, which states that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Both the AIDS section and apartheid section are well-established within the article, with the latter affirmed by an RfC, so the only real question I see here is how to phrase the mention within the intro, and I'd argue my edits captured the key elements while keeping the mentions very brief (a single sentence clause and single sentence, respectively).

I'm guessing this issue may be headed to an RfC, so I won't wait too long to open one if those of you who habitually patrol this page express opposition, but if you are willing to compromise and recognize that this is just an application of policy to already-settled issues (even if you disagree with how they were settled), it might be possible to save ourselves the trouble. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, Sdkb, this would be agreeable to all concerned:

The AIDS crisis could be noted by adding a sentence after the sentence ending ... and fought public sector labor. Additionally, it was during his first term that the AIDS crisis began unfolding across the country.
The anti-apartheid issue could be noted by its inclusion in this sentence: Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including ending the Cold War, the bombing of Libya, the growing anti-apartheid movement, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran–Contra affair. Drdpw (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

For the AIDS crisis, I don't think that text would be sufficient. It's too passive and makes no mention of anything Reagan did or didn't do himself (we're not at Presidency of Ronald Reagan here, we're at his bio page).

For apartheid, I considered adding it as a clause as you propose, but I decided that wasn't quite enough weight given the significance of the issue and coverage in the body (I think one sentence is warranted; compare, for instance, that we spend more than that on the collapse of the Berlin Wall/reunification of Germany, which didn't even occur until after his term). I also have a similar concern as I do with AIDS — just listing it communicates only "this issue happened", and gives no indication of how Reagan felt about it or dealt with it. Since it's possible to provide that information while remaining concise, I think we ought to. Sdkb (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons these aren't in the lede. Aside from them honestly not being as notable as the other stuff in there, nor being core policy points, in the lede neither has any sense of nuance that's in the body; saying he "opposed apartheid sanctions", for example, is not an accurate and comprehensive summation of his apartheid policy, which was constructive engagement. Reagan also imposed sanctions on South Africa, including an arms embargo. The Reagan administration's goal absolutely was to move South Africa away from apartheid, they just had a different method that Congress ultimately rejected. Including only one part of that in the lead is, well, misleading. Similarly, AIDS is also a matter of perception. AIDS spending actually increased and Reagan said in speeches it was a top priority. So "ignoring AIDS" was not a policy piece of the administration, either. Expansive coverage of these in the lead would increase it when it is already quite lengthy, so I really don't see these as needed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding apartheid, being concise in the lead is necessarily going to involve leaving out some amount of detail, but the essence of Reagan's approach was that he preferred much milder measures than Congress and many members of the public, and I think my addition captured that in a neutral way. Regarding AIDS, I deliberately included that in the sentence on his first term, where Reagan made no public speeches about AIDS. He did start to give it a little attention in his second term, and there's some debate to be had about whether it was enough (which is too messy to get into in the intro, but many experts maintain it was still woeful neglect), but there's no question that he nearly entirely ignored it in his first term. Sdkb (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I support some mention of these two topics in the lede here. These were both major themes during the 80s and I think their relative significance has grown. If there is adequate coverage in RSs for mentioning in the article then this is fine. I have some comments on both the phrasings proposed by Sdkb.

Sdkb's phrasing on AIDS is not what the article says; the article body attributes this sentiment to an activist organization. Attributed references should not be stated as plain facts in the lede. Two sides are presented in the body of the article and we can't pick one here to represent, nor should both be mentioned. So change it to a neutral statement:

and largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis

should be:

and was confronted with the AIDS crisis

Sdkb is closer to what the article says regarding apartheid but still does not carry the same balance. I think it should be reduced to a clause in the foreign affairs sentence as it is definitely not more significant than the other things listed.

Reagan resisted calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress

should be:

and favoring constructive engagement with South Africa regarding apartheid

or better:

and apartheid in South Africa

The lede should be brief and neutral. It may already be too long and expanding it with lopsided POV in one case and excessive detail in another is not an improvement. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I like this idea in using the more generic “was confronted with”. I’d prefer the mention of constructive engagement, but mentioning it as an issue he faced sounds fine to me. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

My response to "was confronted with" is the same as the one I had to Drdpw above: it's too passive and gives readers no indication of what Reagan's approach to the issue. Regarding sourcing, the body currently cites an activist organization, but it could have easily (and probably should be changed to) cite reputable academics.

References

1. Francis, Donald P (1 August 2012). "Deadly AIDS policy failure by the highest levels of the US government: A personal look back 30 years later for lessons to respond better to future epidemics". Journal of Public Health Policy. 33 (3): 290–300. doi:10.1057/jphp.2012.14. ISSN 1745-655X. Retrieved 3 February 2020.
2. Arno, PS; Feiden, K (December 1986). "Ignoring the epidemic. How the Reagan administration failed on AIDS". Health PAC bulletin. 17 (2): 7–11. PMID 10280242.

Sdkb (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, two sides are presented in the AIDS section of the article and there is no reason to express only one, or either, in the lede, when most of the other things in the lede are just mentioned without any further explanation. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not see the need to mention either issue in the intro. Far more important issues are mentioned and also, these issues are handled adequately in the article and in the article on his Presidency.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You made your personal views on covering apartheid clear when you initially !voted against having any mention of it anywhere in this article. The consensus ultimately moved in a different direction, and you need to apply WP policy to this article as it is, not as you might wish it were. There is nothing in MOS:INTRO that says we should leave out material from the lead because it is "handled adequately in the article". Sdkb (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand you just dropped any pretentions of good faith. Nice. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am applying WP rules. (Starting with WP:WEIGHT.) The topics you want to add to the intro simply aren't important enough (relative to his overall tenure) to warrant a intro mention.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC

No consensus to include. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?

• A clause in the sentence on Reagan's first term stating that during said term he largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis.
• A sentence (immediately preceding the ones on USSR) stating Reagan resisted calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress.

Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Francis, Donald P (1 August 2012). "Deadly AIDS policy failure by the highest levels of the US government: A personal look back 30 years later for lessons to respond better to future epidemics". Journal of Public Health Policy. 33 (3): 290–300. doi:10.1057/jphp.2012.14. ISSN 1745-655X. Retrieved 3 February 2020.
2. Arno, PS; Feiden, K (December 1986). "Ignoring the epidemic. How the Reagan administration failed on AIDS". Health PAC bulletin. 17 (2): 7–11. PMID 10280242.
3. Ganga, Maria L La (March 11, 2016). "The first lady who looked away: Nancy and the Reagans' troubling Aids legacy". The Guardian. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
4. Lopez, German (November 1, 2015). "The Reagan administration's unbelievable response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic". Vox. Retrieved March 8, 2019.

• Support both as proposer. Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Reagan’s inaction at the start of what became the AIDS pandemic largely guaranteed its devastation. It’s valiant to want to safeguard his reputation from the truth but that’s already been let out. At least we can try accuracy. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We’re beating this dead horse again? See above. Nothing new has been proposed here that wasn’t rejected above. Toa Nidhiki05 13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  There was nothing rejected above. There was limited discussion that failed to reach any consensus one way or the other, thus we're having an RfC to bring in additional voices. Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both It's not lead worthy and is adequately addressed in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Short concise mentions of extremely important aspects of the Reagan presidency, in particular the response / non-response to the AIDS crisis which cannot in good faith be considered unimportant enough for the lead. Not only an extraordinary tragedy in terms of human loss, but there have been countless academic treatments which highlight the role of the Reagan administration in the HIV/AIDS crisis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment The problem here is the South Africa bit is not actually remotely representative of his actual policy on South Africa, which was constructive engagement. The fact this was just plopped here by OP with no additional comments or justification is frankly insulting after the lengthy discussions that have already happened here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see how more context would add anything. The administration opted for the weakest possible response to Apartheid, pretending that this response would be more fruitful. From the same President who called Africans "monkeys". The proposed lead of course says none of that, only that the administration fought against attempts to sanction the Apartheid regime in South Africa, which is entirely accurate and is also consistent with the crux of "constructive engagement". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Soft support first Criticism of his handling of the HIV epidemic is a major part of the criticism of his presidency, and should be mentioned in the same vein that Bush's criticism of the Katrina crisis, is in his lede. The direct wording "largely ignored" and "resisted calls" is using wikipedia's voice incorrectly. Inclusion of lede worthy criticism should be written "has been criticised for..." with citations for the criticism that lends it sufficient weight (i.e. a major retrospective from a news source). Symmetricnoise (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Whether a president took action on an issue or not is a verifiable factual assertion, and thus appropriate for Misplaced Pages's voice, which calls a spade a spade. Reagan never gave a speech mentioning AIDS during his first term, so we would probably be on solid ground just stating that he "ignored" the crisis, but we are certainly fine with "largely ignored". Likewise, "resisted calls" is a factual historical assertion about Reagan's policy position. Look at how often that phrase is used in neutral historical biographies of Reagan on a variety of issues. Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Partial oppose I have no objection to a brief and NPOV mention of Reagan's response to apartheid in the lede. As far as HIV/AIDS, I do not believe it is a significant enough issue to include in the lede; also, the proposed language is both vague (what does it mean to "largely ignore" something?) and factually dubious. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both The epidemic and apartheid are two issues very widely covered in RS about Reagan and proposed mentions seem appropriate in length. Rab V (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Both - Neither had much significance on his life as a whole and would be largely undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Question Sdkb, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was noticing that bug; it looks like at 2187 bytes it was just barely over the cutoff. I think the references are what pushed it over; I'll try adjusting that and hopefully Legobot will update automatically. Sdkb (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose First, this is an article about the man, not specifically the presidency. This is a case where we need to follow what other summary sources say and we must understand that there is little more than 1-2 paragraphs to summarize his entire presidency in the lead. That means even the big items like Russia and the ending of the cold war, get only limited mention in the lead. All four of the articles being used to support inclusion are topic specific. Thus an article about AIDS says Reagan didn't act. That may be significant to the topic of the early history of the AIDS epidemic but that doesn't mean it's significant in context of Reagan the person. Given this is an intro about Reagan the person, not the Reagan administration, the portion of the intro which summarizes his 8 years in office is necessarily brief. Even the material that might be DUE in a Reagan administration article lead is at risk of being cut from the lead here in order to make room for things like Reagan's acting career and time in California politics. Hence why we should use biographical sources about Reagan the person to indicate what topics are the most significant to and thus DUE in the lead. The same may be true of apartheid. Currently no sources have been put forth to suggest it's a DUE topic for the lead. Per wp:SUMMARY the portion of the lead discussing the presidency should be a summary of this section Ronald_Reagan#Presidency_(1981–1989) and really that section should be gutted and moved to this article Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan. The lead follows the body and, per SUMMARY, the parent article sections should follow the main topic articles. The RfC is suggesting we do it the other way around. Springee (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have always believed that the lede is a summary and must not be bloated with excessive details. If we must add that bit about AIDS, then what is preventing us from adding other minutiae covering what transpired during his two terms. Furthermore, his administration's response to the AIDS epidemic has been controversial and contentious. This is, at least, reflected in the AIDS section of this article, which states that his administration's lack of response to the epidemic is attributed to activists. We might want to expand this section first with evidence that indicates some form of consensus that he ignored the AIDS problem and caused the explosion of AIDS cases in the US. I have similar view regarding the apartheid issue. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Per the article, 20,000 people died of AIDS before Reagan was willing to speak about it publicly. Any general biography of Reagan you might find at your local library will discuss the issue at length. To call it "minutiae" is frankly absurd. Sdkb (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Since you seem to be indicating that - per the article - Reagan speaking out (or whatever implication it entails) would have made a significant dent on the statistics, calculate the number of deaths after he gave the speech you cited. Before the speech: 20,000. After the speech: 70,000. I have previously mentioned that the statistics and Reagan's purported complicity to the AIDS deaths are attributed to activists in the article. Perhaps you could improve this particular information in the Response to the AIDS epidemic section with more mainstream sources given how you said that it is available in the general biography of Reagan you might find at your local library. Also, there is a context to the use of the term "minutiae". I apologize if it aggravates you but I stand by my position that it is a mere detail in Reagan's life. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Speaking from the perspective of somebody who contributes mostly to South African political and apartheid related articles and has only marginal knowledge of the Reagan presidency (beyond his limited foreign policy overtures like constructive engagement dealing directly with South Africa), this is not noteworthy. Reagan adopted a lukewarm “hands off” policy with regard to South Africa, which is why he generally opposed mandatory sanctions. He also refused to lift the preexisting US arms embargo on South Africa despite the hopes of the apartheid government, and under his administration the US did not veto a UN resolution condemning South African raids into Angola - again, despite expectations to the contrary. South African-US relations were also heavily strained by Operation Argon in 1984. A lukewarm and inconsequential relationship with apartheid South Africa, much like the one the US pursued with many African states at the time, is not noteworthy in the grand scheme of the Reagan presidency. I will offer that in most memoirs I’ve read of apartheid era politicians and military chiefs, Reagan is barely mentioned at all (another telling clue), and rather than expressing gratitude for his futile opposition to sanctions, the authors chose to criticise him for not doing enough to aid them. In South African historiography Reagan era diplomat Chester Crocker is featured much more prominently; and in the lead of his article his activities vis-a-vis South Africa ought to be mentioned, but again, Reagan is always relegated to the periphery. --Katangais (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both The purpose of the lead is to summarise the most important points in the article; given how much has been written about the Reagan Presidency, that's a really, really high bar to surmount. This proposal would give the two events more weight in the lead than everything except for Reaganonics and relations with the Soviet Union and I haven't seen much to justify that other than assertions of personal opinion. The supporting citations mentioned are a pair of news articles, a "personal look back" and a medical journal article from 1986. That's a pretty good indication this isn't DUE. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both Unless these two points are represented more heavily in the article, I don’t think they should be in the lede. There’s only so much you can mention there before it becomes cluttered. ~ HAL333 05:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both There are two sides to these issues shown in the article itself and only one is presented here for the lede. Also the second proposal adds an absurd amount of text for what is a less significant issue. Sdkb ignored good faith attempts to negotiate an NPOV phrasing above and pushed ahead with this so at this point I have little interest in trying to work with them. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  @DIYeditor:, I did engage with your proposed alternative above, but you failed to address the serious concerns about it. It should be noted for the record that you stated above I support some mention of these two topics in the lede here, and while you are free to change your opinion on whether the topics merit inclusion, retaliation for others' reluctance to adopt your preferred language is not a valid reason for doing so. Sdkb (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support both I am not familiar with the weight of the sources, but I am an American and know the cultural image of Reagan in my demographic. I am a gay male and in my social circle, talk of Reagan is talk of his response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. In other social circles I do wiki outreach to support the African diaspora in North America. In that context talk of Reagan's South Africa apartheid response comes up regularly every few months even among young people today. From my perspective, which I think is prominent and mainstream, Reagan's HIV and apartheid responses are defining in the legacy of his decisions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment You have a interesting circle of friends. For myself, I cannot think of the last time Reagan's handling of apartheid has ever come up in any conversation I've had (either at the time, or in the years since).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Agreed on the above. I cannot speak for how Reagan is remembered in the gay community in the US (it’s possible that in those circles criticism about his handling of HIV crisis is what he’s primarily remembered for) but among those South Africans and foreign scholars of South African history I’ve collaborated with, Reagan is not at all considered noteworthy in the timeline of the apartheid era. His aide on African affairs, Chester Crocker, gets far more attention due to his role in negotiating Namibian independence and an end to the hostilities between the apartheid government and Cuba/Angola. I’m actually a little skeptical of the claim that one of the primary reasons Americans remember Reagan is for his alleged support of apartheid, but if that’s the case, it’s certainly a phenomenon limited to that side of the pond. --Katangais (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both Neither comes remotely close in importance to Reagan's handling of the cold war, which ultimately resulted in the end of Communist regimes controlling the lives of half a billion people, give or take. Hence both fail MOS:LEAD.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support both Both of those issues were a part of his presidency and ignoring his policy towards them is a biased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.150.70.148 (talk) 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both These are verifiable facts that happened during Reagan's Presidency. He was a very influential President, and his Administration's notable actions for both good or ill should be given prominence despite conservatives wishing to memory hole the aspects of the Reagan Administration that look less than admirable to today's public. Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But this is an article about Reagan the person, not the Reagan administration. That is a different article. Springee (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support both as crucial missteps of his presidency. ɱ (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both There's just a lot of information in the lede already, none of which I can justify trimming, and the proposed information to add isn't of comparable importance to what is already in the lede. Ergo Sum 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both - not appropriate per WP:LEAD as it's just small parts of the article (e.g. a fraction of 9.3.3), had small coverage giving this POV at that time, and just not a BLP enduring impact in his life. Note the AIDs subsection has sourcing issues and mostly is channeling activist group statements of circa 2016 rather than the 1980s sources or authoritative RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both Not convinced that either are that important to be mentioned in the lead. I'm in fact surprised that both sections in the article are larger than the one on his assassination attempt. Seems like WP:UNDUE to me, particularly on South Africa. Hzh (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include both I am surprised why it had been ignored to this day. These issues were very significant in those days. NavjotSR (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Whether that is true or not does not justify the loaded wording proposed here which does not reflect the balanced POVs of the article in the clause or sentence, or DUE weight in the length of the sentence. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both'. Neither were significant during his term in office.--Eostrix (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Partial support With two or three paragraphs in the article each, a mention in the lead seems reasonable for both topics (see MOS:LEADREL), like other sections of comparable length (Reagan was raised in a low-income family in small towns of northern Illinois. = two paragraphs, In 1980, Reagan won the Republican presidential nomination and defeated the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter. = three paragraphs, the bombing of Libya, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran–Contra affair. = not quite two paragraphs per point but they all at least get mentioned).

The proposed AIDS clause could be inserted as is (I'm surprised it's not mentioned already) but given the length of the intro, the apartheid line should be condensed. Could have something like He received criticism for his lack of response to the burgeoning AIDS crisis and for resisting calls for sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 09:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Sdkb:, please don't extent the RfC without just cause. The discussion has died out. What justification do you have for extending it? Springee (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • More input could be useful in making consensus clearer (the most recent !vote was only yesterday, so it clearly hasn't fully died out), and extending won't do any harm. If you really want this closed, feel free to list it at WP:ANRFC. {{u|Sdkb}}  04:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a clear no consensus with a slight majority favoring exclusion. You however have argued vigorously for inclusion. Sorry, ANRFC is where we can go for getting a closing. We don't need to leave the RfC open indefinitely in hope that things will change.

Propose closing of RfC The RfC has gone for a month. There is no reason to extend it just because an editor isn't happy with the outcome. There is no evidence that the additional trickle of !votes will add extra clarity. Springee (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine listing it at WP:ANRFC for closing; my suggestion of that above wasn't facetious. Please WP:AGF and don't accuse me of wanting to extend it since you think it won't close the way I !voted. I could just as easily have accused you of wanting to close it as soon as possible since the !votes in the past two weeks haven't favored the outcome you !voted for, but I chose not to. (For the record, I anticipate an experienced closer at this point would judge no consensus on Apartheid and weak consensus to include AIDS, since the UNDUE arguments are weaker against such a short proposed addition.) {{u|Sdkb}}  04:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both - neither are significant life events that should be included in the lead of his BLP. They are adequately covered in the body of the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose extension And the reason why should be fairly obvious. Discussion has died down. Sdkb needs to back off here and let the process play out. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the original RfC closing date which should be tomorrow. Springee (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC and am adding a DNAU so that it will remain on the talk page while waiting for closure. Having only editors who specifically visit this talk page rather than a more general sampling of editors !voting from here until then raises concerns about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS formation. If others are similarly concerned, they should feel free to implement an extension themselves. WP:RFC#Duration states clearly that there is no required minimum or maximum duration, and Springee and Toa Nidhiki05 are in violation of WP:TPO by reverting my edit. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You unilaterally extended the length of an RfC without asking anyone because you aren’t happy with what the outcome will likely be. It’s not me that’s the problem here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both There is a lot to say about Reagan with only two paragraphs to summarise his precidency. On this occassion these two parts of his precidency are not important enough to include the lead section and are both considered WP:UNDUE weight. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  21:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

1985 speech

Hey, guys,

Could you please add this file to the article somewhere?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.51.107 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comedy

Muboshgu, I think Ronald Reagan is a comedian. The Guardian says so,, and so does The Daily Telegraph.

References

1. "The joke isn't on Ronald Reagan's illness, but on America for elevating him".
2. "Actors and comedians who went into politics - Ronald Reagan".

Both sources clearly say Reagan is a comedian. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something....but I don't see either source describing him as a comedian. In any case, he never did professional standup. Just telling jokes (during speeches) and doing funny movies doesn't quite qualify.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally neither of those sources call Reagan a "comedian". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section doesn't sufficiently summarize the article and needs to be simplified. It could be simplified to something like this, where it is more concise. Ronald Reagan is a longstanding featured article that shouldn't have a lead with excessive and unnecessary information. --Wow (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I reviewed your edit when it appeared, and found it very well done and neutral, so I fully support it. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronald Reagan’s racist conversation

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

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

References

1. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/reagan-nixon-and-race

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

References

1. <iframe title="vimeo-player" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/353811584" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment from closer of prior RfC

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

For reference, here is the prior close:

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

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

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

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

{{u|Sdkb}}  03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Survey - Reagan 1971 comment

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

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

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

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

• Support It's significant enough to be worth a mention, as part of Reagan's racial views. Misplaced Pages is not WP:CENSORED, and there's no reason to whitewash the comments from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Saying this is about a president making racist remarks is disingenuous because this was a decade before he became President. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion - Reagan 1971 comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "War on Drugs" was a success because

The following line is in the article:

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• FA-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• FA-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class California articles
• Top-importance California articles
• California portal selected biographies
• WikiProject California articles
• FA-Class Cold War articles
• Top-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• FA-Class Radio articles
• Low-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• FA-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• FA-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• FA-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• FA-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• FA-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• FA-Class college football articles
• Low-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• FA-Class Baseball articles
• Low-importance Baseball articles
• WikiProject Baseball articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• FA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• FA-Class American television articles
• High-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• FA-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• FA-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• FA-Class United States governors articles
• Top-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• FA-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States articles used on portals
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class Economics articles
• High-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• FA-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Selected anniversaries (January 2018)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment