Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:58, 20 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ronald Reagan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Ronald Reagan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2008, and on June 11, 2024.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 15, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 8, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed April 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 31, 2008 Featured article review Kept May 21, 2009 Featured article review Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 5, 2004. Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2004, June 5, 2005, January 2, 2014, January 2, 2018, and January 2, 2024. Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Military / Politics and Government / Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Cinema / Military history / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government / Governors / History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). More information: /  This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal. This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal. This article has been selected for use on the California portal. This article has been selected for use on the Conservatism portal. California: Los Angeles / Southern California High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is a selected biography on the California Portal. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Capitalism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism Military history: Biography / North America / United States / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cold War High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American television task force. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) [REDACTED] Baseball: Cubs Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chicago Cubs (assessed as Low-importance). College football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Bodnotbod, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 17 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Section sizes Section size for Ronald Reagan (56 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 11,308 11,308 Early life 3,309 3,309 Entertainment career 64 11,166 Radio and film 3,390 3,390 Military service 2,295 2,295 Screen Actors Guild presidency 2,818 2,818 Marriages and children 1,795 1,795 Television 804 804 Early political activities 3,885 6,315 1966 California gubernatorial election 2,430 2,430 California governorship (1967–1975) 7,459 7,459 Seeking the presidency (1975–1981) 44 15,347 1976 Republican primaries 4,139 4,139 1980 election 11,164 11,164 Presidency (1981–1989) 242 54,032 First inauguration 1,702 1,702 "Reaganomics" and the economy 347 11,138 Taxation 3,866 3,866 Inflation and unemployment 2,493 2,493 Government spending 2,136 2,136 Deregulation 839 839 Deficits 1,457 1,457 Assassination attempt 1,015 1,015 Supreme Court appointments 605 605 Public sector labor union fights 1,767 1,767 Civil rights 3,282 3,282 War on drugs 2,080 2,080 Escalation of the Cold War 6,284 6,284 Invasion of Grenada 1,401 1,401 1984 election 2,590 2,590 Response to the AIDS epidemic 3,814 3,814 Addressing apartheid 5,077 5,077 Libya bombing 2,192 2,192 Iran–Contra affair 3,422 3,422 The USS Stark incident 1,829 1,829 Soviet decline and thaw in relations 5,592 5,592 Post-presidency (1989–2004) 4,016 10,211 Support for Brady Bill 2,125 2,125 Alzheimer's disease 4,070 4,070 Death and funeral 1,781 1,781 Legacy 103 17,293 Approval ratings 7,139 7,139 Historical reputation 6,818 6,818 Political influence 3,233 3,233 Notes 24 24 References 15 26,272 Citations 34 34 Works cited 61 26,223 Books 14,888 14,888 Chapters 3,655 3,655 Journal articles 7,619 7,619 External links 102 7,070 Official sites 459 459 Media 566 566 News coverage 316 316 Other 5,627 5,627 Total 171,587 171,587

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: March 6 to 12, 2016 (3rd) December 2 to 8, 2018 (23rd)

Current consensus

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. There is a consensus to call Ronald Reagan an American politician instead of an American statesman, in the first sentence of the lead section. (RfC December 2016)

03. There is a consensus to exclude Reagan's successful push for the United States Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention. (RfC July 2018)

04. There is a consensus to include in the Iran-Contra affair section, a very brief mention of the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras. (RfC September 2019)

05. There is a consensus to add a subsection about Reagan addressing apartheid and a general consensus on the subsection's wording. (October 2019)

07. There is no consensus to include in the lead section, a sentence, immediately preceding the ones on the Soviet Union, stating Reagan resisting calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress. (RfC April 2020)

09. There is a consensus that File:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpg should remain as the lead image. (RfC May 2021)

010. Supersedes #6. There is a consensus to include in the lead section, a clause about Reagan's response to the AIDS epidemic. There is no consensus to include a full sentence there, including Reagan also headed a delayed governmental response to the AIDS epidemic during his tenure. (RfC May 2023)

Lead claim

Reagan's policies also contributed to the end of the Cold War and the end of Soviet communism

This appears to be a pseudohistorical and negationist myth that conservatives have maintained for some time now. The first phase of the Cold War came to an end during Reagan's regime, and along with it Soviet communism, but there is no evidence whatsoever Reagan had anything to do with it, and when the Berlin Wall finally came down in 1989, Reagan wasn't even around. The precipitating event for the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet communism was the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, not Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete "change X to Y" to propose? Drdpw (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that implied by my comment? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you just state that you think that the sentence is biased and needs to be changed. Propose a concrete change, for, as you know, this is not a forum for general discussion on the topic. Drdpw (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How odd. I don't see a general discussion. I have proposed that the article is biased, repeatedly, for many, many years. And it is. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

What source citation in the article supports the claim that "Reagan's policies also contributed to the end of the Cold War and the end of Soviet communism"? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Text describing the role of Reagan's policies in the Cold War is in two subsections, "Escalation of the Cold War" and "Soviet decline and thaw in relations". I agree that this sentence in the lead paragraphs is not accurately supported by, and does not accurately summarize, those subsections. The subsections themselves look to me to be reasonably close to neutral, but this sentence needs to be adjusted to properly summarize them. Do you want to propose a revised wording here in the talk page? Bruce leverett (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, there's more material in the Legacy > Historical reputation section, which is where I think the statement in question comes from originally. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Still working on it. I have to review a lot of literature and that will take me several days. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If you can think of a better wording that represents the section, have at it. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In 2008, British historian M. J. Heale summarized that scholars had reached a broad consensus in which "Reagan rehabilitated conservatism, turned the country to the right, practiced a 'pragmatic conservatism' that balanced ideology with the constraints of government, revived faith in the presidency and American self-respect, and contributed to critically ending the Cold War", which ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

This quote, as it turns out, is not Heale's words as it suggests, but rather that of professor David Henry writing a larger book review of Ronald Reagan and the 1980s: Perceptions, Policies, Legacies (2008), of which he summarizes the epilogue of the book, which was written by Heale. This ignores the wider scope of the same review of a book which Henry suggests in a balanced manner "is neither universally positive nor reflexively skeptical of Reagan’s intellect, political skill, or influence in foreign and domestic affairs"; Henry also notes that Niels Bjerre-Poulsen contributed an essy "on the conservative 'crusade' to install Reagan in the pantheon of the greatest presidents", an effort I've commented about here in the past. While it is of course, accepted academic style to cite a source about another source, particularly when it's one academic in the same field commenting about another, one could also argue that this quote is used in a misleading way, perhaps even cherry picked. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not many totalitarian polities have collapsed overnight as USSR all by themselves--a strong outside push is typically involved. Reagan led the strong outside push. There is a lot of discussion among scholars. see for example Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?" Strategic Insights, Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004) online who states: "My own conclusion is that Reagan was neither decisive nor irrelevant. Reagan contributed positively to the end of the Cold War, but his role was just one of several essential factors and his positive contributions were not always the result of taking a hard-line stance." Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the Legacy section; I had forgotten to look there.

The sentence in the lead has at least two obvious problems:

• It cites the article about Reagan in Britannica. We aren't supposed to be citing other encyclopedias; and in the lead section, we aren't supposed to introduce new material that needs to be cited, as everything here is supposed to summarize, and be supported by, the main body of the article.
• The second phrase, "... and the end of Soviet communism", is not supported even by the Britannica article. The quotation from Heale doesn't mention the dissolution of the Soviet Union either, although the text in which we quote Heale also states that the Cold War endied with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Without having handy access to Henry and Cannon and/or Brands, I cannot tell if we are doing WP:SYNTH here. In that sentence in the lead section, I would suggest just removing the last part, "...and the end of Soviet communism". It is actually neutral to say that Reagan's policies contributed to the end of the Cold War, specifically because he signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and generally because, as president of the United States, he couldn't help but contribute to whatever was happening at the time in the Cold War.

The idea that Reagan's policies somehow brought about the dissolution of the Soviet Union several years after Reagen had been president is something that we have to mention, since it is widely circulated, however little or however much it is supported by serious historians. But the lead paragraphs are not the place to assert controversial ideas like that. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A few more comments, because this kind of illustrates the problem:

1. Reagan rehabilitated conservatism. Why was conservatism in need of "rehabilitation"? Is this a reference to Nixon and Watergate? It's an odd idea, that a political philosophy was in need of rehabilitation. I have trouble accepting this. How was conservatism rehabilitated? I ask because I don't know the answer and I suspect it doesn't make sense to our readers either.
2. Turned the country to the right. I don't think there is a rational argument against this, as the facts show that Reagan turned the US rightwards. Anyone who disputes this is living on Earth2.
3. Practiced a 'pragmatic conservatism' that balanced ideology with the constraints of government. This is an assertion that appears questionable and far from neutral.
4. Revived faith in the presidency and American self-respect. See no. 1. This is clearly a reference to the Nixon administration. This may be what conservatives believe, but it sounds like an assertion of faith in conservatism, not a neutral statement.
5. Contributed to critically ending the Cold War. This is an accepted tenet of conservative philosophy. But is it true?

Just wanted to show what I thought was also problematic. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We do source (at several points) this. At one point later in the article, it says "Many proponents, including his Cold War contemporaries, believe that his defense policies, economic policies, military policies, and hard-line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and communism, together with his summits with Gorbachev, played a significant part in ending the Cold War. Source #397 says exactly that: "A dedicated anti-communist, he reached out to the Soviet Union and helped end the cold war." Source #395 quotes Gorbachev directly saying: "He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War". We can add more if necessary. In 'Restless Giant...' for example (by: James Patterson, a heavyweight historian whose work is already cited in the article) he acknowledges that there is debate on this point (more on that in a minute) but ultimately says (on p.216): "Many evaluators nonetheless correctly concede Reagan's contributions ." John Lewis Gaddis (maybe the most highly regarded historian of the Cold War) also says Reagan played a important role in the end of the Cold War (in works like 'The United States and the End of the Cold War...')

So there is sourcing to say this.....however, I do acknowledge that there is debate on this in numerous other RS sources. Ergo, acknowledging that, maybe something more appropriate for the LEAD is to say something like ..." policies are also believed to have contributed to the end of the Cold War by ..."Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Everyone wants to claim credit for ending the Cold War. Misplaced Pages must carefully avoid choosing between many claimants. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

US bias?

Critics have felt that the administration ignored the human rights violations in the countries they backed, including genocide in Guatemala and mass killings in Chad.

It's strange how outside the US, there's no "critics have felt" fudging and hedging. "Heavily supported by the Reagan administration, local forces wrought catastrophic violence in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Meanwhile, in Guatemala, US-supported military regimes carried out genocide in the name of fighting communism." Tanya Harmer, London School of Economics, author of Allende's Chile and the Inter-American Cold War which won the Latin American Studies Association Luciano Tomassini book award. In support of this claim, Harmer cites historian Stephen G. Rabe, The Killing Zone: The United States Wages Cold War in Latin America. It's so weird how this critical consensus is reduced to "critics have felt" by Reagan devotees. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, propose a concrete change to the sentence, this is not a forum for general discussion. Drdpw (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any general discussion. I have proposed that the statement from the article "Critics have felt that the administration ignored the human rights violations in the countries they backed, including genocide in Guatemala and mass killings in Chad" is biased and factually inaccurate, and I've cited two well known, award winning academics that say otherwise. Firstly, this has nothing to do with "critics". Is someone a "critic" if they write "US-supported military regimes carried out genocide in the name of fighting communism"? I don't think so. This reframing of history as that of critics and supporters is highly suspect and indicative of bias in itself. More to the point, it's laughable that a featured article uses language such as "critics have felt that the administration ignored the human rights violations in the countries they backed", a revisionist form of bias if there ever was one. This has nothing to do with what "critics have felt", it has to do with the US supporting regimes which carried out genocide to fight communism. That's it. But for some reason, we can't actually say that. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be rewritten. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with what critics felt or whether the US ignored or did not ignore human rights violations. This is a subtle form of misdirection. The issue is that genocide by regimes the Reagan administration supported was carried out; whether they ignored it or not is besides the point. They supported it, they funded it, and in many cases, they apparently trained the people who committed the genocide. This kind of editorial misdirection and bias is overt. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Then propose alternate language, and see if it gains consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The first thing I'm doing is looking at the current sources that allegedly support this wording. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Critics have felt that the administration ignored the human rights violations in the countries they backed

This passage is sourced to Geoffrey Wawro, professor of military history, on p. 381 of his book Quicksand (2010). Looking at the page, we find the following: "Reagan largely ignored the human rights violations that had troubled the Carter administration. His "Reagan Doctrine" sought anticommunist guerrillas wherever they cropped up, whether in Angola, Nicaragua or Afghanistan." There is no criticism of Reagan by Wawro in this book or anywhere else for that matter. Yet, a Misplaced Pages editor describes him as a "critic". This is the problem I'm talking about. I should note in passing that Salem Media Group has chosen Wawro as a featured author over at their Conservative Book Club. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say Wawro offers "no criticism of Reagan"....while simultaneously providing the quote (on p.381) where Wawro says "Reagan largely ignored the human rights violations that had troubled the Carter administration.". Saying someone "largely ignored the human rights violations" sure sounds like criticism to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I will try to keep this brief, but I could easily write 20,000 words on this subject. It's not a criticism, it's a fact based, historical observation based on the Reagan Doctrine. It's not a subject of dispute or controversy. What would be a "criticism" is interpreting the result, such as making a critique arguing that the implications of ignoring human rights abuses to prevent the communists from winning the Cold War lessens the standing of the United States at home and abroad, particularly in upholding its core values to promote democracy and human rights. This kind of critique comes up a lot. By analogy, we saw it widely discussed during the Bush 43 admin in the context of John Yoo, the Torture Memos, and enhanced interrogation methods. The critique in this case, is not that the US under a Republican administration engaged in these acts, those are historical facts. The critique is that such acts led to a weakening of American values at home and abroad and made foreign policy more difficult to achieve, as it "decreased the feasibility of counterterrorism policies, alienated traditional allies, and weakened the influence of American soft power around the globe" (Lal 2023). To conclude, Geoffrey Wawro should be attributed as a military historian who observes or notes that the Reagan administration ignored the human rights violations in the countries they backed. This is not in dispute by anyone. Note, there is no reason to call Wawro a critic here, as there is no critique (By ignoring human rights violations, the Reagan admin did x, y, and z to American a, b, and c.). The underlying problem here, is that calling a military historian a "critic" for simply stating facts about military history is a form of bias. This is because "critic" in the specific context of politics, implies not just the simple definition of "a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something", but more importantly, a critic in political discourse is often assumed to be at odds with the subject, such as a "critic" of Ronald Reagan. In conservative discourse, this leads to loyalists treating critics as the opposition. This is very subtle. By calling a military historian a critic here, you are using loaded language that sets up pro-Reagan readers to dismiss his POV because it isn't "loyal" to Reagan. This is an easy way to psychologically dismantle anything you don't like in this biography and promote a hagiography in its place. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with getting specific as to who the "critic" are/is. It was probably just the writer's way of rolling a number of people into one term (as there are multiple cites). I doubt there was any POV-pushing intent. After all, if someone was to ID them based on the sources....that would imply just Person X or Y takes issue with Reagan here.....when in fact, it is much more than that. I cannot think of a source that combines everyone under that banner however.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There's two other things here that shed additional light, but I'm not sure how easy it is to add. First, the notion that human rights should be ignored in favor of winning the war with the Soviets appears to greatly predate Reagan according to Wawro, going back at least 20 or more years to the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Second, it needs to be made clear that Reagan, unlike Carter, de-prioritized human rights to play the kind of hardball that was talked about in the Eisenhower admin. This explains some of the mechanics behind the Reagan Doctrine and how it ties into older policies and activities. Wawro has an interesting quote about this, in regards to the Russian influence in Iran under Mosaddegh, before he was overthrown in the 1953 coup: "The Soviets were ruthless operators who needed, as CIA agent Miles Copeland put it, to be 'matched perfidy for perfidy' in a program of 'crypto-diplomacy' that would add steel to America’s 'romanticized' public diplomacy of freedom, democracy and human rights." This draws a line from anti-Soviet US policies in the 1950s directly to Reagan, which appear never to have changed. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

These are interesting, but the topic is straying from a biography of Reagan. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

My overarching point is that so-called human rights violations by the Reagan administration reveal a trans-epochal nature at their root. While we can say the Reagan administration was responsible, and that is indeed true, a closer look reveals that this idea, that human rights are not important or essential but are just a talking point to "sell" soft power, goes further back to the 1950s. I think this reveals something important about the long-range policymaking, indicating that it doesn't exist in a vacuum and it didn't just pop up overnight in 1980 but had been around for many decades, and continued as a guiding policy at some level from administration to administration regardless of who was president. This also reveals an idea that is often glossed over in historical biographies like this one, that there are policy blueprints and decisions being made that don't originate in a specific time or place associated with the subject under discussion but precede it over long periods of time. In this regard, there should be a way to take this into account and reframe it, to show that Reagan was carrying out older policies and guidelines for fighting the Soviets that had been resurrected after Carter was voted out of office. Wawro emphasizes the difference between the two admins as a matter of fact. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a point I've made on this talk page quite a few times....but there wasn't much support for putting that in the context of the Cold War. (I heard a lot of stuff about "this page is about Reagan".) And really Carter didn't have completely clean hands in this regard either, despite his rhetoric on human rights. (The realities of the Cold War forced him into things that he probably wasn't too keen on doing.) But really it predates the Cold War too. (After all, in WW II (for example) we partnered with one of the biggest mass murderers in history (as well as the biggest colonial empire ever).)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Good points. I will revisit the second part ("Other human rights concerns include the genocide in Guatemala and mass killings in Chad) tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction in lead

I propose that the first lead paragraph be rewritten to read as follows:

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th president of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989. Prior to his presidency, he was a career actor. A member of the Republican Party, he became an important figure in the American conservative movement. His presidency is known as the Reagan era.

References

1. Brands 2015, p. 261. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrands2015 (help)

Notes

1. Pronounced /ˈreɪɡən/ RAY-gən

This is consistent with the intro for the bios of previous U.S. presidents. Векочел (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Векочел (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Is the change just splitting up the first sentence? If so, this looks good to me.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This change is pretty much rewriting the first sentence. As stated by other editors, I think it's made clear that Reagan was an American politician by stating that he was the president of the United States. Векочел (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's good to remove "American politician" here, since by saying that he was the president of the United States, we also establish that he was American, and that he was a politician.

Take a look at #Current consensus, paragraph 1, and the RfC that it summarizes, Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 18#RfC about whether Reagan is a statesman in the lead section. This kind of argument, over whether we should say "politician" or "statesman", becomes obsolete if we don't have to say either. However, it is a very instructive discussion, which I myself have quoted in other discussions. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What difference does it make if we're not defining him as either a politician or a statesman? Векочел (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC on introduction

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: Biographies Politics, government, and law 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.

Should the first sentence in the lead be rewritten: (red to be removed; green to add) "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who served as the 40th president of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989"? Векочел (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Modified the RfC question to show the suggested change. SWinxy (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment:Other presidents have their intro similar to this one (see Obama's and Clinton's). Point #1 of the Current Consensus (see above) says there is a consensus to call him a "American politician....in the first sentence of the lead section". Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  In general, arguments of the form "there are other articles that do it this other way" are not conclusive. There are more than 40 articles about U.S. presidents, and many of them begin in a way comparable to what is proposed here.

  The Current Consensus argument was whether to use "politician" or "statesman". The proposed rewrite doesn't use either one. Not using either one was not one of the alternatives discussed in the earlier (2016) RfC. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus was to use "American politician", the fact that not using either one was not a alternative discussed is irrelevant. The fact remains: the current consensus calls for "American politician".Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support the proposed rewrite. It eliminates unnecessary duplicative crud; that is, given that the sentence must have "president of the United States" in it, it doesn't need to also have "American politician" in it. The proposed rewrite also eliminates "actor". I am in favor of mentioning Reagan's background as an actor in the first paragraph, because it was (and still is) a major component of his notability. But that's perhaps for the next sentence; the first sentence should be constructed as described in MOS:FIRSTBIO, and it should be constrained from itemizing all the notable things about the subject, as mentioned in MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I also agree with the proposed rewrite. Him being an actor is indeed a key reason for his notability, but it does not have to be included in the very first sentence. The proposed edit is more concise, less repetitive and gets straight to the point, in regard to his principal reason for notability. Svenska356 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Disagree: I think the existing sentence provides context without complicating. Having the two notability components - politician and actor - does not overload as described in MOS:LEADCLUTTER and it also provides sufficient context and explains why the person is notable as described in MOS:FIRSTBIO. For a non-American new to American politics it is interesting to know that Reagan was a politician and actor, just as it would be interesting to know Trump is a politician and businessman (now) while in 2016 he was a businesspersson turned president! Rigorousmortal (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  A mention of Reagan's career as an actor can be added to the introductory paragraph, such as: Prior to his presidency, he was a career actor. Векочел (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sentence is better as is, serving to more completely describe the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose (called by bot) for reasons already mentioned by Rigorousmortal and Ssilvers: present sentence provides context without complicating, alternative is worse. I would like people to check the troublesome edit history of the proponent of this RfC. I am troubled with his/her edits removing content without explanation, introducing mistakes and in particular not replying to other editors warnings. IMO this RfC is unnecessary and a waste of energy.Wuerzele (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am disappointed to see this level of blatant ad hominem argumentation in response to what I perceive as a well-intentioned RfC. Have we forgotten WP:Assume good faith? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose another unneccessary, if not totally wrong, proposal. The presidents, kings, etc, are the notable people, not Wikipedians who manage to get the beginnings of those articles changed more-or-less just to get some imagined credit/notability for changing them. I oppose any and all unneccessay changes. Many of them smack primarily of a lack of respect for the previous work of others. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose; his status as an actor is still a major part of his bio (in part because it led into his presidency) and therefore belongs in the first sentence. Also, "politician" is the normal way to describe people notable for political careers; I don't see any real argument for removing it. And overall the "actor and politician" wording just reads more smoothly; it's not true that trimming words always makes things better. The proposed alternative feels choppy and incomplete. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Reagan's notability as an actor deserves a whole sentence. An independent clause tacked on to the first sentence would be OK. Something like Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th president of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989; earlier, he had played starring roles in films is what I have in mind. Just throwing the word "actor" in there, as we are currently doing, has several problems. It doesn't say whether Reagan was in film or on the stage; it doesn't say that he played leading roles, it doesn't say that he was a star. Readers can't learn much from that. It doesn't do justice to Reagan's notability. As a rule of thumb, if something is really notable, it needs to be presented as if it were notable. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think readability is suffering with this sentence, also this is a lead section just introducing he was an actor. His acting career in detail is covered elsewhere. Onikaburgers (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support for consistency with the ledes of all other deceased former US presidents, including the late Jimmy Carter. Like Carter's humanitarian career, Reagan's acting career is covered elsewhere in the lead section. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not any more, apparently: Special:Diff/1268066636 (see also Special: Diff/1267741178). Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disagree I think the current version "was an American politician and actor who served as" is better than the rewrite. Reagan was also well-known for being an actor before he was a politician, and I think that fact should be prominent in the lede. GretLomborg (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Soft Oppose I don't necessarily think the rewrite is bad, but it's not much of an improvement. I don't see any problems with the current first sentence in the lead. He was also well known as the governor of California, not just the president, so "politician" is an apt general description. And as has been noted by others, his acting career was a prominent part of his notability. In fact, it made his presidency itself all the more notable. Even Doc Brown couldn't help but exclaim "Ronald Reagan? The actor!?" when Marty tells him who the president is in 1985. Kerdooskistalk 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose present wording provides context. His status as an actor is still a major part of his bio (in part because it led into his presidency) and therefore belongs in the first sentence. Also, "politician" is the normal way to describe people notable for political careers … overall the "actor and politician" wording just reads more smoothly … The proposed alternative feels choppy and incomplete. per Aquillion. Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment MOS:FIRSTBIO defines context as location or nationality for the activities that made the person notable. In both the present wording and the proposed wording, "United States" is the context. No additional context is needed.

MOS:FIRSTBIO also requires noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for. "president of the United States" is the noteworthy position. Since this is a political position, it is repetitive and superfluous to additionally specify "politician". This is true even if the president had no formal political career before becoming president, e.g. Zachary Taylor.

The basic advice from Strunk & White is:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.

This is the gospel of serious writing, and published books, magazines, even encyclopedias do not throw in extra, duplicative, words, as we are throwing in "American politician". Some Misplaced Pages editors claim that this practice makes the text "flow more smoothly" or "read more easily", but one must consider it from the point of view of the actual reader, not the editor. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Standard sentence structure for the former president's leading section while providing important context of his acting career making him an actor-politician. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose That would be assuming that the POTUS has to be wholly American, with no dual nationalities. It would also be assuming that is it common knowledge that you have to be a natural-born citizen to hold the office, which I imagine is not the case in many English-speaking territories. It may seem trivial, but it still provides important context for many readers. Not to mention that it completely disregards political notability elsewhere. MB2437 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Where is the reference to "natural-born"? "American" does not imply that. Likewise, "American" does not imply "wholly American, with no dual nationalities." The end of the line is, "American" does not teach the reader anything that he does not learn from "president of the United States".

I am not sure what you are trying to say about "political notability elsewhere". But, inasmuch as the presidency is a political position, "politician" does not teach the reader anything that he does not learn from "president of the United States". If you think the same reasoning applies to the first sentences of articles about other countries' heads of state, then I agree. In the examples given by MOS:FIRSTBIO, two (Cleopatra and François Mitterrand) were heads of state of other countries. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Precedent leans towards the current version, and I also think that his acting career is important enough for the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• FA-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in People
• FA-Class vital articles in People
• 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 United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• FA-Class American cinema articles
• Mid-importance American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• FA-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history 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
• Mid-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• FA-Class United States History articles
• Top-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States articles used on portals
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class California articles
• High-importance California articles
• FA-Class Los Angeles articles
• Mid-importance Los Angeles articles
• Los Angeles area task force articles
• FA-Class Southern California articles
• Mid-importance Southern California articles
• Southern California task force articles
• California portal selected biographies
• WikiProject California articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago 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 Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• FA-Class Economics articles
• High-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• FA-Class Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• FA-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• FA-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• FA-Class American television articles
• Unknown-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• FA-Class Radio articles
• Low-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• FA-Class Baseball articles
• Low-importance Baseball articles
• FA-Class Chicago Cubs articles
• Low-importance Chicago Cubs articles
• Chicago Cubs articles
• WikiProject Baseball articles
• FA-Class college football articles
• Low-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment