Talk:Ronald Reagan and AIDS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Reagan first acknowledges AIDS, beginning at the 7:12 mark.
Moved to mainspace by Wasianpower (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thanks for writing this article (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Buidhe! Article has been updated with history.com source removed and wording in lede adjusted to make it more clear which part of the article it's referring to. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Kirchick cites the different government reactions as a reason why during the 1980s the rate of HIV infection in the Great Britain was just 10 percent of that in the United States" This sentence may still need work. I can't see the full context or what source he cites, but I looked it up and ran the numbers for 1989, at which point the number of infections was 20 times larger in the US which also has 6x greater population. That does point to a substantial difference but doesn't support Kirchick's argument. I would prefer to cite epidemiologists for claims about the causes of different prevalence rates.
Stand-alone "defense" and "criticism" is typically integrated into one reception section, maybe put the defense last since the criticism section sums up the overall view.
"In 2015, following the release of the short film When AIDS Was Funny, renewed criticism from progressive media ..." I don't see where the sources discuss progressive media. If they are being cited as examples of progressive media, this paragraph likely falls foul of WP:NOR (and UNDUE).
"However, it is controversial whether Reagan himself could be considered homophobic, or if his personal views on homosexuality affected his AIDS response." part 1 is a false dichotomy, part 2 is unprovable (and I'm not seeing anywhere the opposite argument is made). The ultimate controversy/criticism is not about what Reagan believed but what he did, the article should reflect the bulk of the legacy section.
"Timeline of the Reagan administration's AIDS response" If you keep this section everything needs an inline citation. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirchick's source for the one-tenth figure is The Age of Reagan by Wilentz, I don't have access to this book though. The other issues have been addressed. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've gone ahead and changed the 10 percent figure to a more general figure that is still in line with what Kirchick wrote, and also in line with your analysis. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the hook + article probably meet the requirements now but I'm not sure if the video does. (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Very nice page! Thank you for the great work :)

Broc (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC[edit]

Consider including this image as wp:NFCC (higher resolution versions are available via google images) (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Percy source[edit]

Discussion on the William Percy source which was removed. I'm also a little unclear on this source, but I included it after I found it referenced throughout many pages on the topic including LGBT history in the United States and LGBT movements. It seems pretty clear based on the William A. Percy article that this was in fact his personal website. I'm fine with this source being gone, it's borderline IMO, but I wanted to start a discussion on it anyway in case it needs to be removed from other pages. I am fairly certain based on a little digging the passage originates from this text: https://www.routledge.com/Before-Stonewall-Activists-for-Gay-and-Lesbian-Rights-in-Historical-Context/Bullough/p/book/9781560231936 though I have thus far been unable to find a copy of the text. I think based on WP:SPS that as long as it is uncontroversial that this is in fact Percy's website, this should be a fine source as he was a respected subject matter expert. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which say this is Percy's website: 1 2
The articles from the website also appear to have been used in published texts: 1 2 3 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't access the text that the article is based on, I would say you shouldn't cite it—inaccessibility is an automatic wp:V failure. Also, you can't assume that another contributor didn't engage in close paraphrasing or failed verification issues. A lot of older websites are now permanently inaccessible even if archived on wayback because of Adobe Flash and other software deprecation. These sources have to be removed because they can no longer be verified by anyone, imv. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passage I wrote in this article was based on the article as archived, here, not based on what other editors had written; so at the very least there's no game of telephone going on between multiple editors. If the article can be verified via archive, would you lean towards it being verifiable? IMO that's not really any different than anywhere else on Wikipedia where dead links are included as a source, but I'm open to other viewpoints here. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch my previous reply, I found a book which discusses Percy's discussion on AIDS and the gay rights movement, which I will cite as a source instead. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I couldn't see any text on the archive site, but if I copy and paste then I can get some text. That's not the same situation as having no way to verify the content. The new source you added is Cambridge scholars publishing, which is effectively a self-publishing outlet. I'm still not sure why it makes sense to highlight Percy's opinion or elevate this fringy website, which if Wikipedia is correct, was established "to publicize those who don’t demonize 'the Eight P’s': promiscuity, public sex, pederasty, pornography, prostitution, paraphernalia, poètes maudits, and “planters” (dead males who made Western Civilization and most others)" It would be better to look for scholarly sources about the hiv-related gay rights movement under Reagan (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source for the "Eight P's" claim? I'm a little confused which website that's referring to, but that's definitely a weird thing to publicize if true. Like I said, I'm not particularly attached to this source or anything but William A. Percy was a notable scholar in the LGBT history field, and IMO I can't really see a reason to throw out his work entirely. Might be better at this point to replace the book with a direct link to the piece though, Cambridge scholars seems sketchy af. Okay I did some more digging Percy definitely advocated for pederasty which is also NOT what I thought it was, I'm just going to go ahead and delete the source. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed title change[edit]

It has been proposed at the DYK talk section on this article that the title of this article be changed, possibly to "Response of the Ronald Reagan administration to HIV/AIDS". Tagging people involved in that discussion @Bruxton, @AirshipJungleman29, @Andrew Davidson, Hydrangeans as well as Buidhe who has contributed to this article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an improvement but perhaps we should consider following the format of existing pages which include:
  1. Cannabis policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
  2. Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
  3. Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a rename seems unnecessary and like it could potentially imply a different article. Articles about highly influential/powerful people—U. S. presidents and non-presidents alike—and their interactions with notable topics appear throughout the Wikipedia. Examples include (alphabetical by surname or reign/position name):
Additionally, this article goes into details about Reagan personally (such as his acquaintanceship with Rock Hudson, his post-presidential career, and how this plays into Reagan's legacy), that are encyclopedic because they're covered in due, independent, reliable sources—like The New York Times, The Triumph of Nancy Reagan (Simon & Schuster, 2021), Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington (Henry Holt and Company, 2022), the numerous sources in the legacy section—but could be out of scope for an article about the Reagan administration rather than about Reagan the president and post-president. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, this was generally my rationale for titling the article this way in the first place. With the examples provided here I do feel much better about the current title being in line with encyclopedic tone. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In those other cases, the named person was quite involved personally. But this doesn't seem the case with AIDS. For example, the NYT currently recalls how Reagan got personally involved repeatedly in previous Middle East crises. We know that this was personal because he put it in his diary. But for AIDS, "Mentions of AIDS in these diaries are sparse". Andrew🐉(talk) 06:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We might try to match the three titles that Andrew suggested above, otherwise the suggestion buidhe agreed to is an improvement. Bruxton (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Template:United States policy, the common title format for these articles seems to be "[TOPIC] policy of the [PRESIDENT] administration", such as Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. CMD (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS&oldid=1223306192"