Talk:Ronald Reagan

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Ronald Reagan#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

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

02. Obsolete

There is a consensus against adding the proposed text to the Honoring German war dead at Bitburg, Germany section: In fact, some of Waffen-SS soldiers buried at Bitburg had been members of the 2nd SS Panzer Division, nicknamed "Das Reich," which had committed war crimes, although it has been estimated that none of the individual soldiers buried at Bitburg personally participated. (RfC April 2018) Since July 2020, the section no longer appears in the article.

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)

06. Superseded by #10

There is no consensus to include in the lead section, a clause in the sentence on Reagan's first term stating that during the said term, he largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis. (RfC April 2020)

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)

08. Disputed

Beginning in July 2019, there was a discussion about the integration of Reagan's remarks in a 1971 audio recording with Richard Nixon in the narrative of the body, but the closure and outcome is disputed. A similar discussion beginning in June 2020 was archived without closure or a clear consensus. Furthermore, there was not enough discussion on specific wordings or placements for a consensus to emerge on those matters. (February 2020, RfC June 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)

Infobox photo

Currently, the photo in the infobox is that of Option 1 below. Today, I discovered that a full version of the image existed (File:Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan.jpg). I uploaded a cropped version of this image to match the current infobox image, and the result is Option 2. I propose changing the infobox image from Option 1 to Option 2 for 2 reasons:

• 1: Option 1 has much darker colors than Option 2, making it harder to see detail, especially on the suit jacket and the flags.
• 2: While being approximately the same crop, Option 2 is higher resolution (2,410 × 3,020 pixels) compared to Option 1 (2,399 × 3,000 pixels).

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3, added by ~~~~

Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 - support as proposer. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: See Current Consensus (above). (#7 to be exact [1]).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Thank you for your comment. I believe that Consensus #7 ("There is a consensus that Reagan's 1981 official portrait should be the lead image") only strictly requires the use of the 1981 portrait (a.k.a. not the 1985 version). Since Option 2 is still the same image as Option 1, just with different colors and higher resolution, I don't believe changing consensus is required for the proposed switch, except for changing the link in the Consensus box. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 (IMHO) doesn't look much like the consensus photo (to me). The closer of that RFC said: "Consensus seems to be that the current image is the best option available...".Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: I believe they meant that it was the best option available out of the ones listed on the RFC. I wonder if they even knew that this alternate version existed. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote consensus #7 and interpreted that outcome as the 1981 portrait instead of a specific file, but I've changed the wording of the consensus to be more precise. Wow (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Option 2 – the coloring is not good. I tried to recolor that photo back in 2020 and got this. I then cropped it to the same dimensions as Option 1 and then tried to replace it with my recolored version at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Ronald Reagan, only for the nomination to fail. If someone can fix the green tint on his shirt for both of those files, that would be great. --Wow (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wow: Thanks - I didn't even know about that. It's too bad that the colors can't be fixed (at least by me), as the second version has much more detail than the current one. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Although Option 2 does lend a bit of a reptilian-green tint to the subject, it still seems like a more life-like depiction than the blotchy, ketchup-red coloring in Option 1 that makes it look like the subject was afflicted with rosacea during his time in office. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think your 2020 image is better than both Options 1 and 2. Can we get an Option 3? Option 1 has just such a garish, bloody-red saturation and is so weak on detail that I'm surprised that your delist nomination failed. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Option 2 - Option 1 is strangely oversaturated and lower in quality, while Option 2 has a more realistic coloring and shows more detail in his suit, the background, etc. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the red tint in Option 1 is very off-putting; that is one of the main reasons why I proposed the change. I agree that while Option 2 may have an unfortunate tint as well, the contrast between its level of detail and the lack of detail in Option 1 outweighs any argument for using the existing image. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – There's File:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981 - Reduced contrast.jpg, which has the same shot as Option 1 but reduced contrast as stated in the file's name. --Wow (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 -I think it is the best quality of the two. The lighting on the other just seems odd.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Ugh. Can I vote for Option 1.5? On my monitor, Option 1 looks oversaturated, and Option 2 looks washed out. Surely we can find a middle ground... --Jayron32 15:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 — The first photo has worked as the longtime portrait of Reagan on the article and works just fine in my opinion. As some other editors have also raised, the second photo seems to be a little foggy which may be displeasing on some displays. GuardianH (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because Option 1 has been the infobox picture for so long doesn't mean that it can't be better. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

But it does mean that it no doubt works; no discrepancies stick out and it can be considered, at the very least, a reliable portrayal of Reagan's time in office. GuardianH (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither - I am not in support of either and I am proposing that Reagan's second term portrait from 1985 be added for consideration as many other Presidents such as Obama, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and others use an image of the President taken during their second term or sometime in the election year of their second term (Obama in 2012 and LBJ in 1964 for Examples) HistorianL (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 unless... Option 2 is, in my opinion, of higher quality but needs some serious color correction before being used. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Better contrast, and is of featured picture status whilst Option 2 is not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

why are we not using the portrait on Presidency of Ronald Reagan? Jaydenwithay (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Jaydenwithay: That is a cropped version of the current image – option #1. Why is that page not using the version used globally throughout Wikipedia? Drdpw (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Prefer Option 1 - Maybe I've just gotten so used to the option 1 version, but option 2 seems to be excessively green tinted. The higher quality doesn't make up for the green tint. I am supporting @HistorianL and @Jayron32's call for a middle ground by adding Reagan's 1985 ofpot to the gallery. Crusader1096 (message) 16:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: Infobox Photo

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by OP. Previously discussed this year on this page. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

---

In several ways, especially it’s very dark color scheme, the current infobox photo (1981) is arguably one of the worst official presidential photographs we use here on the Wiki. I have proposed his 1985 presidential photograph as a replacement. This photo is more visually appealing, allows the reader to see more of the president's face, and is more encompassing to his presidency as whole since it was taken at the start of his second term.

I am interested in hearing other's thoughts. 7milestoHope (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• 
  1981
• 
  1985

1985 Option - for the reasons I listed above.-7milestoHope (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why we are holding two concurrent RFCs on the infobox image? --Jayron32 14:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Other conversation covered different photographs. Completely different proposal here. 7milestoHope (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but until we know the results of that RFC, it makes no sense to have this one. You've given us two choices, but what if the other RFC concludes to put the other picture in. That would invalidate this one. --Jayron32 14:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that is why I waited until that conversation stopped to propose this one. That editor's different proposal has been dormant/concluded for over two weeks. 7milestoHope (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - Either will do, 1981 has a darker background & the US presidential flag. While 1985 has the president with greying hair & in the oval office. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: See Current Consensus (above). (#7 to be exact [2]). I think this RFC should be closed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  The last consensus was established 2 years ago. It is fine to revisit with this new and different Rfc. 7milestoHope (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think 2 years is quite long enough to re-visit this. Especially when we are talking voting on the same pics.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Status quo There doesn't appear to be enough of an improvement to make this change and this is a little confusing with multiple discussion. This should be withdrawn. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Procedure close - no need to rehash established consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  On further consideration, I would support this action. 7milestoHope (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE&redirect=noLukewarmbeer (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2023 (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.

Religious aspects of assassination attempt

Should the text "Religiously, Paul Kengor attributes the attempt to Reagan scaling down his church attendance, and Reagan believed that God had spared his life so that he might go on to defeat "communism in the Soviet bloc"." be allowed to stand ?

What Paul Kengor thinks about the cause of the attack is of little concern to those who don't share his views and the accompanying "Reagan believed ..." is supported only by a citation to one of Mr Kengor's books !

I'm not good enough with the history to understand how recently this was added or by whom but I would support it being removed as it hardly seems to reach the level of "knowledge". Southof40 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of tidying up that section (see edit description). Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Protection level

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

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

Misrepresentation of presidential evaluation link

“Evaluations of his presidency among historians and scholars tend to place him among the upper tier of American presidents.”

The source provided behind this stated that the presidency was rated high only in opinion polls, and was generally rated lower by historians and scholars. Tledbet94 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you take the median at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Scholar survey summary he comes in just outside the top quartile (top 28% by my calculation). Maybe not "upper tier" but pretty close. Do you have an alternate wording to propose? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It can be similar to Barack Obama's article wording "middle to upper tier". Maybe? Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Might also be worth noting that he is certainly upper tier among the general public. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like "historians and scholars have ranked Reagan among the middle to upper tier of American presidents, and he is often viewed favorably among the general public". Rexxx7777 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! –CWenger (^ • @) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Patti Davis

His page should mention the rape allegations by Patti Davis, Selene Walters, and more. MisfitBlitz (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Patti Davis's allegations do not involve the President.....and Selene Walters allegations are pretty much tabloid territory (first surfacing in Kitty Kelly's book).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

can we see some sources for whatever Walters alleged? I am not familiar with this particular subject. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Reagan Campaign's Plot to Extend Hostage Crisis

There is reporting from Peter Baker at the New York Times regarding the Reagan campaign's possible deal with Iran to extend the hostage negotiations passed the election in order to secure the election for Reagan. "Mr. Connally said, “‘Look, Ronald Reagan’s going to be elected president and you need to get the word to Iran that they’re going to make a better deal with Reagan than they are Carter,’” Mr. Barnes recalled." - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html

This should probably be added in the "1980 election" section and possibly reiterated in the reformation of this current sentence "In a final insult to President Carter, Iran had waited until Reagan had been sworn in before sending the hostages home" into: "Iran had waited until Reagan had been sworn in before sending the hostages home, in concurrence with the recommendation made by Reagan campaign in order to get a better deal" Xstaffelbach (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

How is that any different from what we already cover in October Surprise (1980)? :

• • One of the leading national issues during 1980 was the release of 66 Americans being held hostage in Iran since November 4, 1979. Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration—in fact, minutes after he concluded his 20-minute inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election to thwart President Jimmy Carter from pulling off an "October surprise"." Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

How we do it is sufficient. This is one of numerous allegations with the October Surprise theory. It's best just to link to that article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s no longer a mere allegation. It’s been known for decades, with numerous foreign sources confirming and verifying it; the most recent source confirming it simply confirms what we already know to be true, namely, that the Republican Party worked behind the scenes to keep Americans imprisoned in Iran to win an election. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still a allegation. Even the NY Times story said "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic"....and that is being polite since the only people who can corroborate his story all heard it from one source: Barnes himself. This is not to mention the fact John Connally III said he was with his dad when he briefed Reagan about the trip and nothing like this came up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

An "allegation" that has more evidence than most historical events considered facts. I don’t expect you to stop denying reality any time soon. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You do know that most of these allegations fell flat on their face during the Congressional investigation of them right? (Starting with Banisadr. Have you ever read what they found in their questioning of him? My money is on "no".) And I nearly fell out of my chair when this article held up Yasser Arafat as some sort of credible source. Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This POV was debunked 12 years ago.. It’s hard to take you seriously when you fail to account for all the evidence at hand. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Another non-RS? Way to go!Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

More of your disinformation? I cited the source that the NYT (and all other reliable sources) discussed directly as evidence. It appears you haven’t read any of the sources discussed here. No surprise, of course. All you’ve managed to do is repeat old, discredited claims. That link is from the NYT times article discussed here: "Still, a White House memo produced in November 1991 by a lawyer for President George H.W. Bush reported the existence of “a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown.” That memo was not turned over to Mr. Hamilton’s task force and was discovered two decades later by Robert Parry, a journalist who helped produce a “Frontline” documentary on the October surprise." Parry is a reliable source and cited by the NYT as such. It’s obvious you didn’t read the article this entire discussion is based on because you keep making statements directly contrary to it. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked to was not the NY Times. It was the Washington Report....which isn't on our RS list. The article you linked to before was in The Intercept which as per our RS list: "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source". Feel free to try again. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you persist with misinformation after being repeatedly corrected. The article I linked to is FROM the New York Times, who originally linked to it in the article that is the basis of this discussion. It is abundantly clear that you have not read any of the sources under discussion as you keep making false comments and arguing about long debunked ideas, over and over again. I even made this explicit in the former comment up above, where I quoted the NYT passage directly. At this point, it appears that you are intentionally disrupting the discussion, just like you did with all the previous archived discussions. Once again, Parry is a reliable source, he’s a professional journalist who the NYT cited and linked directly, which is where the content and link up above come from. It doesn’t matter if you personally believe this is an unreliable source, it’s from the NYT. Case closed; enough of your intentional misdirections and red herrings. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You never get tired of distorting/lying about things do you? Only The Intercept article linked to the NY Times. And the NY Times article (as I have pointed out to you before) said "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic..." among other things that call his story into question. In your first post in this thread you said "It’s no longer a mere allegation. It’s been known for decades...". How exactly is a story that is considered "problematic" to confirm a done deal and a proven fact? It isn't. Ditto with Parry's allegations and so on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve addressed your erroneous claims and misinterpretations here. Please refer to that link for any future concerns. If that does not suffice, please visit the Teahouse or the help desk where someone will walk you through how we use sources on Wikipedia. Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well no, you really haven't made your case at all. You've linked/given reference to 3 things here: 2 non-RS (one of which I will address below)....and a article in the NY Times which itself calls into question the Barnes story. Not good enough. To say the October Surprise is the real deal is a calim that needs a multitude of RS saying so....and I don't see it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support with necessary modifications to the lead. Ronald Reagan, widely regarded as the worst president in US history, put politics and personal ambition over country and conspired to keep Americans imprisoned in Iran to destroy any chances that Carter (widely seen as the greatest president in US history based on his moral and ethical character) would get re-elected. It’s time to put a dent in this fictional and embarrassing hagiography composed of fantasy and propaganda written by conservative activists, and to start writing about historical facts. It is clear to the most unbiased observer that Reagan wasn’t this hero as conservative activists are so desperate to portray him as; Reagan was a traitor to America in almost every way, from spying on his friends, to attacking students for exercising their rights, to dismantling the democratic system that had been in place for centuries. The October Surprise wasn’t a one-off, it was exactly who Reagan was and how he managed to use power against the American people to make the rich richer and undermine the US Constitution to keep the wealthy on top. In his excessive zeal and greedy need to dominate the working and middle class, Reagan looted the US treasury, increased the debt, cut education, privatized government services, moved American jobs overseas, busted unions, made people poorer, disenfranchised minorities, promoted white supremacism, challenged secularism and increased the role of religion in government, expanded the military, attacked gay people, and supported apartheid. He would never have been allowed to do this if it wasn’t for October Surprise. It should be mentioned in the first paragraph in the lead. The idea that Reagan was one of the greatest US presidents has always been a manufactured myth by billionaire-funded conservative think tanks who are tasked with writing revisionist history by their donors. At some point, this game has to end. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"made people poorer, disenfranchised minorities, promoted white supremacism" Well, this description is much closer to the Reagan that I remember. But I am not certain how is this relevant to the October Surprise narrative. Dimadick (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

My overarching point, is that it is a historical reality along with all the others that I’ve listed that have been censored and whitewashed from this article in favor of a propaganda puff piece that presents a hagiography in its place. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Still going with this stuff about how Reagan is "widely regarded as the worst president in US history" eh? I'd knock that off if you want your credibility to rise a bit. But in any case, as I noted above, there are some issues with the Barnes account that make it no different than the numerous other allegations that have surfaced over the years (aside from the fact there has been no major investigation into it). It's sort of like the Jimmy Hoffa or JFK allegations....you get a new twist/confession on them ever so often....and typically just as hard (if not impossible) to confirm.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in replying, as I was almost hospitalized for the overwhelming irony in your comment accusing me of losing credibility for pointing out facts, when Reaganomics is, perhaps, the most discredited idea in the history of political philosophy, composed of baseless assertions and a lack of evidence at its foundation, and taken serious by almost nobody. Yes, those tax cuts for the billionaires will be trickling down any day now to help us. Tell me another one. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I see you haven't lost your predilection for going off topic and POV pushing. Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is history. Republican policies and philosophies are so discredited that they can’t win over the public through democratic elections nor through the marketplace of ideas, so the only way conservatives can "win" is to cheat, which is where the October Surprise comes in, voter suppression, and all the rest. Republicans and conservatives are even on record admitting this. There’s an entire trilogy of books about this subject by academics and journalists and the judicial system keeps bringing them to justice on an almost daily basis (Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman are the latest). Your specious argument that this long history of conservative corruption and malfeasance filled to the brim with rat fuckery and anti-democratic machinations is a "conspiracy theory" that lacks evidence is not just laughable, but a denial of historical reality. It happened and it continues to happen. The October Surprise is no different than what Republicans have been doing all along, except they got away with it in 1980. Now, you are trying to whitewash that history and make it go away. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you writing a campaign commercial or participating in a wiki talk page discussion on the October Surprise? (It's hard to tell.) As it stands, most RS still consider this a theory or allegations (at best). Even the NY Times piece calls this into question (as I have pointed out). [At the risk of venturing into OR (which I guess I can do since you seem to be ok with other actions that don't conform to policy here)....this story doesn't pass the laugh test. Presumably this would want to be kept secret....so they go all over the Middle East and tell anyone who will listen (outside of Israel of course) about this? And you do know (as the NY Times piece pointed out) this trip was in the newspapers right? That's a sure fire way to keep things quiet. Anyway, back to observing wiki policy...] It's not a matter of whitewashing anything....it's a matter of what the sources say. (Viriditas's POV not withstanding.) About the only source you've given so far that doesn't say this is still just a allegation is The Intercept....and as per our RS list "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source". (If they regularly used Yasser Arafat as a source....I can see why.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted; however, it is at odds with our best sources. Conspiracies happen, quite often, actually, and we recently saw how Republicans conspired to cheat during the past 2020 election, and the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive per the J6 committee. I understand that no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise since you’re a True Believer in the myth, legend, and cult of Reagan, a myth that’s been debunked for so long that I find you to be a most curious relic of the past. I get it, your mind is made up, and facts can’t be allowed to get in the way. The October Surprise isn’t a one-off, this kind of thing keeps happening with conservatives, again and again, over and over. Deny it all you want, the pattern is obvious to anyone with a pulse. It needs to be mentioned and put in the correct context per the OP, as it’s timely, important, and relevant to this biography, for without it, Reagan would never have been president, and the US would have never gone down the regressive and anti-democratic path it has. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well all you seem to have is your opinion....backed by a lot of non-RS. If those are your "best sources"....I guess that tells us all we need to know. But thanks for dropping by every couple of months with your latest I-Hate-Reagan diatribe.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not my opinion at all, but the opinion stated in the cited literature about the significance of October Surprise. You would know this if you read any of the sources instead of arguing from old, out of date sources from 12 years ago. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

None of your "cited literature" falls on our RS list. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

All of it is reliable, and it is all cited by the NYT, including the Parry material and the link to his work. You’re either refusing to read the article under discussion or you are just disrupting this discussion with falsehoods like all the other times you did this. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Parry article isn't in a RS.....and using Parry to confirm Parry is like using Oliver Stone to confirm the movie 'JFK' is right. That's too PRIMARY. We handle Parry appropriately elsewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me this opportunity for a teachable moment: 1) Robert Parry is an investigative journalist known for his award winning reporting. He has been heavily critical of the CIA, which is likely why you take a personal issue with him, as much of your contributions intersect with the subject (Gary Webb, etc.) 2) The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) has been evaluated by the Wikipedia community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs as a reliable source] and does not appear on the list of perennially disputed sources. The WRMEA is famous for publishing articles by former intelligence analysts, which is likely why it draws your personal ire, much as does Parry. 3) The aforementioned New York Times article discusses Parry’s role as an investigative journalist on the subject of the October Surprise and links to the WRMEA in its article. Therefore, the NYT is being used as a reliable source in this instance, not Parry, nor WRMEA, irregardless of your personal animosity towards both. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings you might still entertain. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not how this works. A noticeboard discussion does not establish this as a RS. This is not on our RS list [3]. We need established, high quality RS to back this kind of extraordinary claim. The fact it isn't on a "perennially disputed sources" list doesn't make the cut. And again: Parry can't prove Parry is correct.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. From recent edits in Wikipedia, it appears the only knowledge that people have of the October Surprise conspiracy theory is what they have read in Baker's article. Has anyone bother to read any of the findings noted in the joint report of the October Surprise Task Force? The House October Surprise Task Force (not mentioned in Ronald Reagan's article) looked at the allegations that make up the October Surprise allegations and found them not credible. This article also doesn't name or mention the claims (and sometimes outright fabrications) of Richard Babayan, Abolhassan Banisadr, Ari Ben-Menashe, Richard Brenneke, Danny Casolaro, Cyrus Hashemi, Jamshid Hashemi, Barbara Honnegar, Oswald LeWinter, Robert Parry, or Gary Sick. Why would we start with Barnes? The article already accurately and sufficiently states: "In a final insult to President Carter, Iran had waited until Reagan had been sworn in before sending the hostages home." -Location (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The NYT article cited above directly addresses your concern. It appears you did not read the actual article this entire discussion is based upon. Why am I not surprised? Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've read Baker's article multiple times, and I just read it again trying to figure out what you think might be the smoking gun that is addressed in it. In the context of your other posts here, my guess is that you are putting a lot of weight on Robert Parry's reports. You linked to this article in WRMEA written by Parry (that indicates it was first published in Parry's Consortium News) and this article in the Intercept that rehashes Parry's reports and links to various articles of his in Consortium News. Giving credence to Parry's reports is problematic for numerous reasons. For example, not only did he give Jamshid Hashemi a prominent platform to spread his stories, his comments in the WRMEA/Consortium News article indicates he continued to give credence to Jamshid Hashemi long after those allegations were found to be fabrications. Similarly, Parry ignored all of the witness testimony and documentary evidence that showed William Casey was not in Madrid (where he was alleged to be conspiring with the Iranians on Reagan's behalf) and he chose (as Baker has cited) to believe that one line in this memo - without seeing, knowing the contents of, or who sent the referenced cable - is proof that there was a conspiracy. There is also no evidence that Parry attempted to interview the author of the memo (Paul Beach) or the recipient of it (Ed Williamson) even though both were and are still alive. FWIW, Consortium News has been mentioned in WP:RSN multiple times and it looks like the majority of editors who have responded do not think it is a reliable source. We can certainly bring up Parry/Consortium News there again if you think that should be brought to another forum. -Location (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say absent a clear consensus to include this looks like questionable content at best and would likely need a RfC for inclusion. Based just on the evidence presented above I would oppose inclusion. Springee (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding a wiki link for "stagflation"

There is no reference to what "stagflation" is within the article, so it may be useful to link to the page on stagflation when the term is introduced in the third introductory paragraph to help any unfamiliar readers. LokenAkhanteros (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. It was already linked in the body, but doesn't hurt to do so in the lead also. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

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

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

I thought i'd just add a small detail about what he suffered from after the assasination attempt, so that users do not need to go looking for it in the other wikipedia page. --> In case of my horrible structural or grammatical use i would suggest you change a few words to make it read smoother. Thymme (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lizthegrey (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

d

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

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

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

I'm getting some deja vu here. Hasn't this already been addressed?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The current wording, published after your initial request above is a succinct and clear summary of the event: On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton. Also struck were: James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy. Although "right on the margin of death" upon arrival at George Washington University Hospital, Reagan underwent surgery and recovered quickly from a broken rib, a punctured lung, and internal bleeding. If anyone wishes more details on the event they can click on the nearby link to the attempted assassination article. Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

change in consensus on AIDS in lede

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

See the "Current Consensus" on this page. We had a RFC on this about 3 years ago....and there was no consensus to include this in the lede.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware there was a RFC on this topic three years ago. I believe they made a poor decision then, which is why I would like to open another RFC. Jaydenwithay (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, we go with consensus (not individual POV). And 3 years seems a little soon to be re-visiting this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your individual POV, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for others'. Jaydenwithay (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, WP:CCC Jaydenwithay (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This back-and-forth discussion is a waste and will be fruitless. If, after reading the 2020 discussion and Rfc, you wish to propose a NPOV sentence for the lede about the Reagan administration's response response to the AIDS epidemic, then start a new Rfc. Drdpw (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

After 3 years, there'd be nothing wrong with proposing a new RfC. Preferably with some new sources or framed somewhat differently to take account of intervening narratives. Also, see WP:RFCBEFORE. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that there is much point in having a RFC every 3 years. (Sort of like continuous voting.) In any case, I am aware of nothing new on the Reagan-AIDs issue in that span of time. Certainly articles on this subject get published ever so often....but it is recycling the same points. Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Reagan's legacy has come under fresh scrutiny over time. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

In the last 3 years....and with new info related to the AIDs issue? I'd be interested to see what that is. So far, all I've heard is: a editor didn't like the outcome of the last RFC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it, the problem with the RfC from several years ago was that the proposed sentence was not worded in the best way as far as WP:NPOV goes, so I would change that aspect. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Historical reputation and Featured Article requirements

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

We just did a overhaul of the page, and I think it is much improved. But it has certainly changed since it's last FA review (quite a while ago). As far as that section header goes....I've given some thought as to how to address it. May post it here first. (Give me about a day or so.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, the tag was placed with this edit at 02:23, 8 January 2023. I don't see anything in that section that is inaccurate, but I can understand how some who have a negative view of Reagan might think it's promotional. Consider adding material noting that his "economic legacy is mixed". Possibly note that critics say his "legacy (is) tainted by AIDS, Civil Rights and Union Policies". -Location (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please improve the page soon, I'll await your improvements! Thanks. Personally, I think that a re-assessment of the entire page would be a good idea. There has been done quite a lot of research on his politics in the past decade since the last FA review. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than place the entire burden on others, you could do a thorough reading of the article and recommend some specific changes. Looking forward to reading your suggestions! -Location (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'm not familiar with the relevant sources and don't want to do that currently, sorry. I only think that no article should be a WP:FA while not meeting the relevant criteria. I'll leave my involvement here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Jaydenwithay, you were the one who tagged the "Public image" section (which has been renamed "Historical reputation" and has gone through some changes). Do you have specific recommendations or sources for changing that section so that the tag can be removed? -Location (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

- Mention of the Reagan/Nixon "monkeys" tape would be helpful in this specific section.

- "Many conservative and liberal scholars agree that Reagan has been the most influential president since Roosevelt, leaving his imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics through his effective communication of his conservative agenda and pragmatic compromising." This sentence is subjective and in Wikipedia's voice and should be removed or rewritten in a way that makes it clear that this is a POV of specific scholars.

- There is both cited praise and criticism of Reagan's economic policy, but no historical criticism of the effects of his social policies, like the racially-tinged "welfare queen" rhetoric, War on Drugs that led to spike in incarceration, and of course the AIDS epidemic. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We had a RFC on the monkey deal and it didn't make it (for inclusion in the article). We probably could use a statement in the legacy section on the rise of incarceration from the war on drugs.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The RfC on the tape where Reagan calls African UN delegates monkeys uncomfortable wearing shoes was not definitely resolved, as stated on this talk page. Jaydenwithay (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV / WP:FA revamp summary

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

Wow could summarize it better than me...but he went through and verified all the references (I helped him some with that) and we also (I think) improved the language. It was quite a overhaul. You may want to look for yourself at the changes since that time. The legacy section could still stand some tweaking....am working on that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's still lots of sources that can be turned into page numbers beginning with the apartheid section. I've taken a break from editing this page. The legacy section could be rewritten in chronological order like Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation and Ulysses S. Grant#Historical reputation (but very briefly of course). I think every section except for Taxation and Historical reputation has improved in that there's less trivia and repetition, and more concision. This just a quick comment, I might leave a longer response later. --Wow (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Age

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