Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 21

No mention of apartheid
How is it possible that this article fails to cover Reagan's 1986 veto of apartheid sanctions, which prompted Congress to override his veto (the first time since the War Powers Resolution in 1973 that a presidential foreign policy veto was overridden)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No It's covered (in detail) elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_engagementRja13ww33 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which only further demonstrates that this is notable enough to include in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's adequately covered elsewhere.....i see no need to go into detail on it here as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't get why you tried to put this under the "racism" section. There were a lot of reasons to support the minority government in South Africa that nothing to do with racism. (Starting with the fact they were a strategic ally in the region.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither the word "apartheid" nor "constructive" appear anywhere in the article. Given the preeminence of the matter during the period, I would suggest that at the very least, an acknowledgement of Reagan's involvement ought to appear in the man's article. Kotkijet (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No need for them to appear here. It was a minor part of his tenure. We don't include US-South African relations (which were good for decades) in every President's bio.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While it wouldn't be practical to include every international relationship in every bio, there is a case when it is comparatively eventful. Furthermore, although apartheid was not a defining aspect of Margaret Thatcher's tenure (itself longer than Reagan's spell as President), the matter is still afforded a paragraph in her article.Kotkijet (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the same token, Jimmy Carter's bio fails to mention he vetoed sanctions at the UN against South Africa. So it seems this is selective when it is brought up in bios.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe It is mentioned on his Presidency page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan. Do you suggest we just copy that and put that in here? Dy3o2 (talk)
 * I support mentioning the veto, but caution Snooganssnoogans to adhere to a neutral point of view in doing so. SunCrow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with an addition like that is: to adequately cover it.....you need to add a lot....and the question then becomes: do you want to add that much to this article? It's been criticized in the past for it's length.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly worth adding. I mean, first Congressional override of veto pertaining to foreign policy in post-'73 War Powers Resolution and all . . . no question, worth including. Okay, so how?  And maybe just a couple of sentences plus a link. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=909075853&oldid=909075637 I went with four sentence version, plus link. We do need the quote from Reagan that the debate was not on whether to "oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it."  And in footnote, I think it would be good to add quote from article itself that other countries later came on board with sanctions, which I understand was one of the main points of the more formal approach.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as the fact that this is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia . . . I still think we need a relatively complete (although succinct) coverage of Reagan's presidency here. In fact, I'd say breadth of coverage is perhaps the single defining characteristic of an encyclopedia. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes Strongly support including it. Even if it is covered in detail somewhere else, it is highly relevant here. Compare this to the Wikipedia article about Margaret Thatcher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher. It contains a section "Apartheid in South Africa" which covers her policy towards apartheid south Africa. A similar section for Ronald Reagen is, in the interest of balance, a necessity.Enigmie (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is covered by H.W. Brands in his biography of Reagan, “Reagan: The Life.”. He writes,
 * “At a time when much of the world sought to isolate South Africa by economic and diplomatic sanctions, Reagan stood by the government of P. W. Botha. Reagan and his administration contended that “constructive engagement” with South Africa would promote democratic reform while preserving the country from the African National Congress, which included elements Reagan deemed alarmingly communist and pro-Soviet. The policy inspired heavy criticism of Reagan; Bishop Desmond Tutu, a black South African cleric who won the Nobel Peace Price for opposing apartheid, denounced Reagan’s policy as “immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.” Eventually, Congress approved sanctions against South Africa and, when Reagan vetoed the bill, overrode the veto.” Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good encapsulation of the issue. I see no reason why a brief paragraph on Reagan's policy towards apartheid (similar to that one, perhaps a condensed version what's in the Reagan presidency article) shouldn't be included in this article. Drdpw (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole question here is why does it warrant inclusion? Is it the veto? Is it the criticism? It can't be because of the relationship because (as I have noted) it was similar to predecessors. Speaking of that, on 6/6/1977 Andrew Young (Jimmy Carter's UN ambassador) testified to a Senate subcommittee about (among other things) South Africa. And he said when asked about disinvestment in South Africa: "I think the policy officially is noncommittal. We don't advise for or against." (By the way, Andy Young was the guy who actually cast those vetoes at the UN (against sanctions for South Africa).) Let us note the irony here: a black American civil rights activist (who was a close confidant of MLK) just 4 years before Reagan comes to power, doesn't advise for disinvestment and casts votes against sanctions for SA. I think that puts into perspective the importance of this aspect of American foreign policy with regards to Africa. And yet, this isn't mentioned in one President's bio (of those who were Presidents during the apartheid period)....other than Carter, whose opposition to apartheid is noted without these facts. But we have to note it in Reagan's bio....without mentioning this is long standing policy. That's the part that irks me in this. Anyway, my 2 cents. (As someone who has listened to this type of stuff for decades.) And thanks for reading.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most Americans get it because they draw an analogy with the Civil Rights movement. They would largely guess that --  we used to support South Africa without too much thought or reflection about apartheid, but at a certain point we started to move away from that, but Reagan was slow on the uptake and a stick-in-the-mud on the issue. And, they'd be largely correct, more or less.  Although a journalistic source I found says Reagan wasn't so slow on the uptake, or only medium slow. Which is one reason I feel pretty good about my edit which is in the works [see below], and ask for your support if possible. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what "most Americans get" (or don't get), this is about accuracy, consistency, and fairness. If an addition to the article has to be made on this subject, it should reflect the fact this was a long standing policy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Long standing policy (even if largely a matter of drift). I think we should be able to find a reference broadly to that effect, although maybe not the drift part.  Give me a couple of days, maybe a week, and I'll see what I can do.  And other people are welcome to jump in, too. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the below book Jimmy Carter in Africa: Race and the Cold War (2016). It's complicated, with a lot of moving parts.  But I think it's safe to say that the Carter Administration did not make pressuring the government of South Africa to at least start relaxing apartheid a first-tier priority. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

An edit I made on Sat. Aug 3rd: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=909177538&oldid=909177092

Apartheid and South Africa

See also Presidency of Ronald Reagan, South Africa,

and the Reagan Administration's policy of "Constructive engagement."

In 1986, Reagan vetoed legislation that would impose sanctions on South Africa until the country ended their apartheid system. Both the House and Senate overrode Reagan's veto in what would become the first time since the 1973 War Powers Act that Congress overrode a presidential veto pertaining to foreign policy. The Reagan administration also opposed apartheid, but favored a more informal policy of sanctions through executive order. In a statement, Reagan said the debate was not on whether to "oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it."[ref 1][ref 2]

With the more formal approach of Congress becoming law, a number of European countries as well as Japan soon followed the U.S. lead and imposed their own sanctions on South Africa.[ref 1]

[ref 1] House overrides Reagan apartheid veto, Sept. 29, 1986, Politico, Andrew Glass, Sept. 29, 2017. On Sept. 29, 1986, the House voted 313-83 to override Reagan's veto. On Oct. 2, 1986, the Senate voted 78-21 to also override the president's veto.

[ref 2] Please also see "Senate's drive for sanctions may be blocked", The Deseret News, from about a year earlier (Sept. 11, 1985).


 * A longtime participant reverted it and said we hadn't yet fully worked through the consensus process, and I agree and respect this. So, if anyone would like to make any changes or improvements, big or small, please do.


 * My edit includes a quote from Reagan, "instead, how best to oppose it," and is on the short and sweet side. All the same, I still welcome improvements. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've No problem with adding a paragraph. A condensed version of this, from South Africa–United States relations could be added: (note, some minor wording tweaks have been made) along with a version of this from Presidency of Ronald Reagan:  The paragraph could close with this sentence from FRO's August 3 edit:  I also like the Reagan quote used in that edit. Thoughts? Drdpw (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I'd like to add a quote from the 'Life in Letters....' book where Reagan explains (in detail; in a letter to Sammy Davis Jr.) why he was against disinvestment. (But that might be making this section too long. That's been the issue with a lot of the proposed additions: they've been made in the past and a editor trims them for space down the line. It's like hitting a moving target.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC
 * The 'Life in Letters....' quote about Reagan's views on the disinvestment issue would enhance the Disinvestment from South Africa and the Constructive engagement articles nicely.
 * Here is the quote....along with how I would put it in the article (let me know what you think): In a letter to Sammy Davis Jr., Reagan explained that he opposed disinvestment in South Africa because it "would hurt the very people we are trying to help and would leave us no contact within South Africa to try and bring influence to bear on the government". He also noted the fact that the "American-owned industries there employ more than 80,000 blacks" and that their employment practices were "very different from the normal South African customs". [From: Reagan: A Life In Letters, p.520-521]Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Here goes another whack at this particular moving target; as my Ophthalmologist asks, "is this better, or worse? Drdpw (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC) "From the late 1960s onward, the American public grew increasingly vocal in its opposition to the apartheid policy of the government of South Africa, and in its insistence that the U.S. impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on South Africa. Believing that such measures would neither encourage peaceful change nor advance the cause of democracy in South Africa, the Reagan Administration developed a policy of "constructive engagement" with the white-minority South African government as a means of encouraging it to gradually move away from apartheid. This policy, however, engendered much public criticism and renewed calls for the imposition of stringent sanctions. In response, Reagan announced the imposition of new sanctions on the South African government, including an arms embargo in late 1985. These sanctions were seen as weak by anti-apartheid activists, and as insufficient by the president's opponents in Congress. In August 1986, Congress approved the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which included tougher sanctions. Reagan vetoed the act, but the veto was overridden by Congress. Afterward, Reagan reiterated that his administration and "all America" opposed apartheid, and said, "the debate … was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country." A number of European countries as well as Japan soon followed the U.S. lead and imposed their own sanctions on South Africa."


 * Yes It should be included. Mainstream, highly reliable sources make it clear this was a relevant and important event in his presidency.  Coverage in Wikipedia should similarly reflect that.  -- Jayron 32 14:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

, I compliment you on starting the below RfC to try to give us some forward momentum. I think we're pretty much right at the edge between dying on the vine, so to speak, and coming up with something pretty good. We do need a reference that supporting South Africa as a cold war ally (without too many questions or thought about apartheid) was long-standing U.S. policy which basically Reagan just inherited. Even if he missed a golden opportunity to view the Divestment movement as a good thing. Or, at least we need a reference that Carter largely had the same policy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * From Culverson, D. R. (1996). The Politics of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the United States, 1969-1986. Political Science Quarterly, 111(1), 127. doi:10.2307/2151931: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "'The Carter administration capitalized on Kissinger's efforts in southern Africa during the 1976 presidential campaign and made Africa a higher priority. It influenced the development of a more favorable climate for anti-apartheid activism. Carter's appointment of several top officials who were especially sensitive to the issue of majority rule illustrated this new posture... Young and other members of the Carter team who desired changes in Africa policy clashed with administration globalists who retained an East-West view of the developing world... Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in November, and the Republican party gained control of the Senate for the first time in nearly thirty years. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester Crocker articulated the new administration's tilt toward South Africa. He argued that the United States should abandon the idealism of the Carter era and thereby 'constructively engage' the South African government toward moderating apartheid.57 Constructive engagement appeared to diminish the likelihood of improving the political climate for anti-apartheid activism.... Anti-apartheid activists found hope in the appointment of Africanists to key Carter administration positions, and in Carter's emphasis on human rights as a guideline for conducting foreign policy. Carter's commitment to human rights was selective, but it admitted new criteria for assessing American foreign relations. For a while it seemed that Andrew Young and other regionalists were winning the battle against the globalists in the effort to construct a new U.S. policy toward southern Africa'"


 * FRO, supporting South Africa as a cold war ally (without too many questions or thought about apartheid), labeled the "Tar Baby Option" during the Nixon Administration, was no longer U.S. policy by Reagan's tenure. The Ford Administration was the first to unequivocally state American support for majority rule in Southern Africa.("Henry Kissinger: Negotiating Black Majority Rule in Southern Africa." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 17-051, December 2016) Carter and Reagan both affirmed that objective. Carter charted a course that differed from Ford's, and Reagan charted one that differed from Carter's, a course he (Reagan) ultimately had to alter. Drdpw (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out elsewhere in this, Carter's rhetoric may have been somewhat different than Reagan's (or other predecessors)....but when the rubber met the road, they [the Carter admin] wound up vetoing sanctions at the UN (and I cited Andrew Young's testimony to Congress where he didn't endorse disinvestment). No President (I am aware of) endorsed apartheid.....there were just differences in approaches to be rid of it and maintain SA as an ally.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * QUESTION: Does anyone object to me adding a "South Africa policy" paragraph somewhat like those I've posted above (after a little more wordsmithing)? If not, I'll do so in a few days. This has been, I believe, a good discussion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the history posted above is probably sufficient. Possibly with a link to USA-SA relations page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm gathering from the above article by D. R. Culverson that Nixon ramped up support of South Africa [less definite], Carter ramped it down, and then Reagan ramped it back up. Disappointing, but if those are the facts, we roll with it.  I do favor keeping the new section on the relatively short and sweet side. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are "gathering" is inaccurate. "Support" has to be clarified. (Apparently the quotes and facts I gave about Carter are going to be ignored.) Again: no admin "supported" apartheid.....the "support" was aimed at helping a regime who was a vital Cold War ally. So pretty much all the Presidents in this era walked that tightrope.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We should stick to what peer-reviewed academic publications say. We should not be interpreting primary sources and random statements made by officials and politicians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking random quotes here. We are talking Congressional testimony and actions taken at the UN. Anyone reading this article down the line might rightly ask themselves: well, why wasn't it until 1986 that sanctions of this level were imposed.....after decades of apartheid? After all, apartheid didn't appear in 1981. (In fact, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was first proposed in 1972.) So we need some sort of statement that clarifies this. (With proper sourcing of course.....perhaps with a link to the USA-SA relations page.) I'm still thinking about how to word it....any input on that is welcome.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I propose this addition....I think it captures a lot of the issues discussed; it is basically a combination of my proposal and drdpw: From the late 1960s onward, the American public grew increasingly vocal in its opposition to the apartheid policy of the government of South Africa, and in its insistence that the U.S. impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on South Africa. Believing that such measures would neither encourage peaceful change nor advance the cause of democracy in South Africa, the Reagan Administration developed a policy of "constructive engagement" with the white-minority South African government as a means of encouraging it to gradually move away from apartheid. This policy, however, engendered much public criticism and renewed calls for the imposition of stringent sanctions. In response, Reagan announced the imposition of new sanctions on the South African government, including an arms embargo in late 1985. These sanctions were seen as weak by anti-apartheid activists, and as insufficient by the president's opponents in Congress. In August 1986, Congress approved the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which included tougher sanctions. Reagan vetoed the act, but the veto was overridden by Congress. Afterward, Reagan reiterated that his administration and "all America" opposed apartheid, and said, "the debate … was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country." A number of European countries as well as Japan soon followed the U.S. lead and imposed their own sanctions on South Africa.

Similar to his predecessors, Reagan did not favor disinvestment from South Africa. In a letter to Sammy Davis Jr., Reagan explained that he opposed disinvestment in South Africa because it "would hurt the very people we are trying to help and would leave us no contact within South Africa to try and bring influence to bear on the government". He also noted the fact that the "American-owned industries there employ more than 80,000 blacks" and that their employment practices were "very different from the normal South African customs"

So....can everyone live with it like this?Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * looks good to me from here. if you need help sourcing ~ I'll be glad to help. ~mitch~ (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can live with it, and it's a big improvement over not mentioning it at all. But . . . instead of gradual growth of anti-apartheid activism, big upsurge in '80s, at least on American college campuses, but also to some extent internationally.  And "hurt the very people we're trying to help" had been used for a long time, and was in no way a stunningly new argument.  And a number of European countries and Japan following suit is central to whole issue, and probably should not be buried at end of paragraph. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about the activism. (It's timeline.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , it looks like you bring up a very good point, that where the rubber hit the road, the Carter administration wasn't all that advanced on South Africa. For example,
 * Jimmy Carter in Africa: Race and the Cold War, Nancy Mitchell, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2016, page 155, " . . South Africa was Britain's ninth largest export market (£654 million in 1976) . . ".
 * It sounds like we the U.S. didn't want to run too far ahead of the UK and France on sanctions, so basically, turtle speed! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I was bold and have added an Addressing apartheid subsection to the article, one which mostly follows the above rough draft. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks ok. I wish we had mentioned the fact his predecessors also were not fans of disinvestment....but perhaps a link to USA-SA relations will sufficeRja13ww33 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I like it, except for the phrase "particularly on college campuses and among mainline Protestant denominations." Because usually Catholics are ahead of the curve on social justice issues.  Maybe this was a rare exception.  The New York Times article we use as one of our references, ("Protestants Seek More Divestment," June 1986) doesn't say one word about Catholics one way or the other. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My hunch is that Anglican and other Protestant (especially Presbyterian & Reformed) denominations were more visibly at the forefront of the movement, because they had more substantive long-term missional relationships with the people of the region. The U.S. Catholic bishops were involved (see this UPI story for an example: Church leaders unite against apartheid. David E. Anderson, 1-14-1986), just not leading the charge. Drdpw (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Other Party
Should we list that he was a Democrat before 1962 under "other party" or should we keep it under "political party" in the infobox - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ~ nice to see you again ~ I think leaving it under political party is the best option ~ regards ~mitch~ (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020
Change "Reagan was the oldest person to have been elected to a first term" to "Reagan was the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency" to match WH Harrison page and it is also grammatically correct 148.77.10.25 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made the change. Drdpw (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Good read

 * I read the Nancy Reagan article and considered it a "Good read". There was just some comments concerning the "External links".
 * This article was also a good read but it seems the "External links" section has grown to stand alone status. I can't imagine that any editor would consider that all twenty-four links are absolutely essential to the article. It has evolved past link farming to a cultivated plantation or dumping ground.
 * The section is suppose to be created and maintained with consideration of ELPOINTS #3, links to avoid, and EL official, with a goal of minimizing the number of links and I think stating this has been overlooked would be an understatement. Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Goldwater rule and Reagan's Alzheimer's disease, i.e. "I don't recall"
Include Goldwater rule regarding (specifically Iran–Contra affair testimony example)? X1\ (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the article you cite doesn't mention the Goldwater rule. I for one don't get what you are talking about.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is something, but I'll need to get back to you, as I am in the middle of something at the moment. X1\ (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * More
 * The American Psychiatric Association issues a warning: No psychoanalyzing Donald Trump Aug 7, 2016 washingtonpost.com
 * What is the public entitled to know about a president’s mental health? thehill.com 03/29/17 with "questions still linger over whether Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease had begun to affect him in his second term."
 * Concerns About Reagan’s Mental Health Were Handled Very Differently Than Concerns About Trump’s nymag.com Jan. 14, 2018
 * Donald Trump's presidency has some in the mental health community re-evaluating their role. usnews.com April 21, 2017 with "his father showed signs of the illness while he was in office"
 * Lawmakers Will Meet to Discuss Trump’s Mental Health Next Month vice.com Aug 16 2017 with "showed speech changes indicative of dementia while in office."
 * etc. Not "No connection to the subject of this article."  X1\ (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From Is Something Neurologically Wrong With Donald Trump? theatlantic.com (January 2018), Tracking Discourse Complexity Preceding Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: A Case Study Comparing the Press Conferences of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. X1\ (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already deals with the suspicions on at what point his Alzheimer's began. Bringing up the Goldwater rule with regards to Reagan (and I am speculating as to what you mean because you haven't been clear) is a fallacy because (as per the RR main article) 4 of his White House doctors have been quoted as saying they saw no signs of Alzheimer's from him while President. These are people who saw him regularly. Furthermore, the Iran-Contra testimony is irrelevant. If the point there is (and again I am guessing because you aren't clear) the "I don't recall" type answers.....there is nothing unusual in that in any testimony of any significant length. If you want to make a point here....you need to use your own words and stop (just) referencing 3rd parties.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump defends fitness for office by saying he’s ‘stable genius,’ in book fallout seattletimes.com January 6, 2018 with "Reagan, who some believed suffered from mental deterioration in the latter years of his two terms, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease after leaving office." (ec) Here's another one.
 * Iran-Contra testimony is not irrelevant as his memory may actually been failing when he said "I don't recall", i.e. he might not have been lying. While it isn't unusual now, it was then; particularly for the sitting US president.  X1\ (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sitting President? He had been out of office for about a year when he gave that testimony.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And again I have to ask: how is the Goldwater Rule relevant here? No 3rd party answers please.Rja13ww33 (talk)

X1\, might you be trying to put a square peg into a round hole here? It would be helpful for me if you would please state in one brief sentence how the Goldwater rule article is related to the topic of the article – the life of Ronal Reagan. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected advertising in Sub Section: Cultural and political image
There's a link under the Sub Section: Cultural and political image: See also: Reagan (film). I think this is advertising. I have personally never heard of the film nor see how relevant it is to the subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGusep (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The link is to a Wikipedia article germane to this article; it is not advertising. Drdpw (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, while it is germane to the article, it seems like an insignificant piece of media and seems like in my belief advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGusep (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldest person elected to end in 2020
Maybe we should add a note that Reagan's reign of being the Oldest person ever elected will end in 2020 by either a Trump re-election or a Biden or Sanders election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B018:EA6D:D0AF:EA0A:C4E6:6B54 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL applies. What if there were a contested convention, Buttigieg ends up with the nomination, and defeats Trump? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Section on AIDS
I have tagged the section on AIDS as unbalanced. The section leads off with ACT UP's attacks on Reagan and continues with a critical tone. That should not be the focus of the section. The section should be rewritten in a neutral and thorough way by someone who knows the history. SunCrow (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed.....although I will be the first to admit: the Reagan admin's record (at first) is a degree of inaction. But one thing I think we should communicate on this point is: so were a lot of leaders on this (on both sides of the aisle in America). A good book on that is already cited in the article (i.e. And the Band played on...).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite this, an RFC is already underway to include this info in the lede. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Rumors of Alzheimer's disease
The portion of the article that refers to rumors spreading after the '84 debate links to a piece that doesn't say anything about this. The specific line is "His confused and forgetful behavior was evident to his supporters; they had previously known him to be clever and witty. Rumors began to circulate that Reagan had Alzheimer's disease." But I don't see this discussed anywhere in citation 237 (https://web.archive.org/web/20080125155140/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/newshour/84_1stprez-analysis.html). If this is true (that Reagan's debate performance led to Alzheimer's speculation) then it needs a different source. Lcduke (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Lcduke

1966 results map
if you have a reason (besides WP:OSE) why the map should remain in the governorship section, please explain here. Per my previous edit summaries, it's an insignificant image. The 1966 election makes up about a sixth of the whole section. Furthermore, for widescreens, the map is placed in a bad location, making a case of MOS:SANDWICH. This section already has another image related to the election, so one is enough. --Wow (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the map is a good one, assuming that it is statistically accurate. It does need a key explaining what the various shades of red or blue mean. The map indicates that Reagan won by a landslide throughout the state, losing only a handful of the 58 counties. A reader has no idea from the text whether the election was a squeaker or a landslide. The fact is that Reagan won by 57-43, which was quite a blow to the Democratic Party at that time. If you think the location is bad, move it elsewhere. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the situation at the time, I suppose it's a significant map, I just can't think where else to move it. Would removing the celebration photograph instead be a better option? --Wow (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I shrunk the map and added a requested key. As for widescreens, I can't tell if it's in a poor location b/c mine isn't. User:Scribatorian

Racist remarks to President Nixon
Yesterday I added this brief paragraph about Reagan's racism but it was deleted with the comment that no consensus has been reached but without invocation of any WP objection. I think it's important on its own and because it may shed light on some of Reagan's views and policies affecting African Americans.


 * In discussing diplomats of African countries at the United Nations voting against a position supported by the United States government, Reagan told President Richard Nixon: "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”

--NYCJosh (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Like the person said (that removed it): no consensus has been reached (see the section above) on it's addition.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if we were to add such a section....having the heading "Racist remarks to President Nixon" is inappropriate and not NPOV. Even on (for example) Al Campanis's page, we do not introduce his remarks (on Nightline) with such a heading/label.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" is not a valid reason to remove a contribution in the absence of an objection based on WP rules. To what section above are you referring? --NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No census is a very valid reason to remove a section. It's the whole point of having the section. The section I refer to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#Newly_released_audio.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The remark itself might be worth mentioning if it can be integrated with the text. But giving the remark an entire subsection would be a total violation of WP:UNDUE. Orser67 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: I have closed the discussion about the audio clip above as rough consensus to include a concise mention of Reagan's remarks integrated into the narrative of the article body. Discussion about specific wordings or placements may now take place here, although editors are cautioned that they should use the results of the above discussion as the launching point for the rest of this one. Sdkb (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you two have been editing this page a bunch recently. You may be interested in taking on this task. Sdkb (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To me a big difficulty in this is (if it must me included) is: where to put it? I think it is very much out of place in the legacy portion of the article. Therefore, it likely belongs somewhere in the "Governor of California" section. (Considering this chronologically.) But there it would stick out like a sore thumb.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there was a rough consensus for inclusion and I think Sdkb's closing should be seen as coming from a good faith editor with a reasonably strong POV with respect to the subject based on the RfC below. The fact that Sdkb is pushing for inclusion after closing rather than letting the previously involved editors handle things suggest they didn't make closing with a dispassionate POV. Again, this doesn't mean the closing was in any way bad faith, only that a personal POV with respect to the subject might have pushed inclusion vs no-consensus. Springee (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article either. The only place I could think of adding it wasn't here, but at Political positions of Ronald Reagan, which already happens to be there. --Wow (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding the Year of the Bible
In February 1982, Senator Armstrong, alongside Congressman Carlos Moorhead sponsored the resolution S.J. Res 165 authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible”. President Ronald Reagan implemented the resolution as Public Law 97-280. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019crisissimus2 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This proclamation, like most presidential proclamations, is not noteable. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"End of the Cold War"
I'm quite surprised to see this in the introduction as an event that occurred during Regan's time in office. The Cold War was not over by January 20, 1989.

This is not an ideological point, but a factual one. I can certainly see where Reagan helped to end the Cold War, and relations between the US and the USSR had fundamentally shifted by January 1989 with glasnost official policy and a household word in the West by then, but the Cold War wasn't over by the time Reagan left office, as the introduction unambiguously states.

I'm new to this article and no doubt this has been debated and dissected in the past, but what is the rationale and reasoning for this assertion? Moncrief (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The intro doesn't say the Cold War was over by January 1989. It just says Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including the end of the Cold War,.... (It also states that the Soviet Union collapsed years after he left office.) Most historians consider this time frame [88/89] as the beginning of the end for the Cold War with the Soviet withdraw starting in Afghanistan, growing unrest in Eastern Europe (including Soviet Republics), thawing of relations, etc, etc. I suppose it's arguable as to when it could be said it started.....but I think it's unquestionable that the nature of the conversation had changed by 1989.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * makes a good point. How about we change it to the winding down of the Cold War? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'd have a problem with that....but some more feedback from a few more regulars would probably be in order.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point ; perhaps “ could be changed to “ Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, too. We cover elsewhere in the intro Reagan's relationship to the end of the Cold War, so I think in this sentence it'd be fine to talk about it as ongoing at the time. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Perhaps, Sdkb, this would be agreeable to all concerned:
 * The AIDS crisis could be noted by adding a sentence after the sentence ending ... and fought public sector labor. The anti-apartheid issue could be noted by its inclusion in this sentence: Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including ending the Cold War, the bombing of Libya,, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran–Contra affair. Drdpw (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the AIDS crisis, I don't think that text would be sufficient. It's too passive and makes no mention of anything Reagan did or didn't do himself (we're not at Presidency of Ronald Reagan here, we're at his bio page).
 * For apartheid, I considered adding it as a clause as you propose, but I decided that wasn't quite enough weight given the significance of the issue and coverage in the body (I think one sentence is warranted; compare, for instance, that we spend more than that on the collapse of the Berlin Wall/reunification of Germany, which didn't even occur until after his term). I also have a similar concern as I do with AIDS — just listing it communicates only "this issue happened", and gives no indication of how Reagan felt about it or dealt with it. Since it's possible to provide that information while remaining concise, I think we ought to. Sdkb (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reasons these aren't in the lede. Aside from them honestly not being as notable as the other stuff in there, nor being core policy points, in the lede neither has any sense of nuance that's in the body; saying he "opposed apartheid sanctions", for example, is not an accurate and comprehensive summation of his apartheid policy, which was constructive engagement. Reagan also imposed sanctions on South Africa, including an arms embargo. The Reagan administration's goal absolutely was to move South Africa away from apartheid, they just had a different method that Congress ultimately rejected. Including only one part of that in the lead is, well, misleading. Similarly, AIDS is also a matter of perception. AIDS spending actually increased and Reagan said in speeches it was a top priority. So "ignoring AIDS" was not a policy piece of the administration, either. Expansive coverage of these in the lead would increase it when it is already quite lengthy, so I really don't see these as needed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding apartheid, being concise in the lead is necessarily going to involve leaving out some amount of detail, but the essence of Reagan's approach was that he preferred much milder measures than Congress and many members of the public, and I think my addition captured that in a neutral way. Regarding AIDS, I deliberately included that in the sentence on his first term, where Reagan made no public speeches about AIDS. He did start to give it a little attention in his second term, and there's some debate to be had about whether it was enough (which is too messy to get into in the intro, but many experts maintain it was still woeful neglect), but there's no question that he nearly entirely ignored it in his first term. Sdkb (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Sdkb is closer to what the article says regarding apartheid but still does not carry the same balance. I think it should be reduced to a clause in the foreign affairs sentence as it is definitely not more significant than the other things listed.
 * Reagan resisted calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress
 * should be:
 * and favoring constructive engagement with South Africa regarding apartheid
 * or better:
 * and apartheid in South Africa

The lede should be brief and neutral. It may already be too long and expanding it with lopsided POV in one case and excessive detail in another is not an improvement. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I like this idea in using the more generic “was confronted with”. I’d prefer the mention of constructive engagement, but mentioning it as an issue he faced sounds fine to me. Toa <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My response to "was confronted with" is the same as the one I had to Drdpw above: it's too passive and gives readers no indication of what Reagan's approach to the issue. Regarding sourcing, the body currently cites an activist organization, but it could have easily (and probably should be changed to) cite reputable academics.


 * Sdkb (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, two sides are presented in the AIDS section of the article and there is no reason to express only one, or either, in the lede, when most of the other things in the lede are just mentioned without any further explanation. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not see the need to mention either issue in the intro. Far more important issues are mentioned and also, these issues are handled adequately in the article and in the article on his Presidency.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You made your personal views on covering apartheid clear when you initially !voted against having any mention of it anywhere in this article. The consensus ultimately moved in a different direction, and you need to apply WP policy to this article as it is, not as you might wish it were. There is nothing in MOS:INTRO that says we should leave out material from the lead because it is "handled adequately in the article". Sdkb (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand you just dropped any pretentions of good faith. Nice. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am applying WP rules. (Starting with WP:WEIGHT.) The topics you want to add to the intro simply aren't important enough (relative to his overall tenure) to warrant a intro mention.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?
 * A clause in the sentence on Reagan's first term stating that during said term he.
 * A sentence (immediately preceding the ones on USSR) stating

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


 * Support both as proposer. Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both. Reagan’s inaction at the start of what became the AIDS pandemic largely guaranteed its devastation. It’s valiant to want to safeguard his reputation from the truth but that’s already been let out. At least we can try accuracy. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We’re beating this dead horse again? See above. Nothing new has been proposed here that wasn’t rejected above. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was nothing rejected above. There was limited discussion that failed to reach any consensus one way or the other, thus we're having an RfC to bring in additional voices. Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both It's not lead worthy and is adequately addressed in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both. Short concise mentions of extremely important aspects of the Reagan presidency, in particular the response / non-response to the AIDS crisis which cannot in good faith be considered unimportant enough for the lead. Not only an extraordinary tragedy in terms of human loss, but there have been countless academic treatments which highlight the role of the Reagan administration in the HIV/AIDS crisis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem here is the South Africa bit is not actually remotely representative of his actual policy on South Africa, which was constructive engagement. The fact this was just plopped here by OP with no additional comments or justification is frankly insulting after the lengthy discussions that have already happened here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how more context would add anything. The administration opted for the weakest possible response to Apartheid, pretending that this response would be more fruitful. From the same President who called Africans "monkeys". The proposed lead of course says none of that, only that the administration fought against attempts to sanction the Apartheid regime in South Africa, which is entirely accurate and is also consistent with the crux of "constructive engagement". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft support first Criticism of his handling of the HIV epidemic is a major part of the criticism of his presidency, and should be mentioned in the same vein that Bush's criticism of the Katrina crisis, is in his lede. The direct wording "largely ignored" and "resisted calls" is using wikipedia's voice incorrectly. Inclusion of lede worthy criticism should be written "has been criticised for..." with citations for the criticism that lends it sufficient weight (i.e. a major retrospective from a news source). Symmetricnoise (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether a president took action on an issue or not is a verifiable factual assertion, and thus appropriate for Wikipedia's voice, which calls a spade a spade. Reagan never gave a speech mentioning AIDS during his first term, so we would probably be on solid ground just stating that he "ignored" the crisis, but we are certainly fine with "largely ignored". Likewise, "resisted calls" is a factual historical assertion about Reagan's policy position. Look at how often that phrase is used in neutral historical biographies of Reagan on a variety of issues. Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial oppose I have no objection to a brief and NPOV mention of Reagan's response to apartheid in the lede. As far as HIV/AIDS, I do not believe it is a significant enough issue to include in the lede; also, the proposed language is both vague (what does it mean to "largely ignore" something?) and factually dubious. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both The epidemic and apartheid are two issues very widely covered in RS about Reagan and proposed mentions seem appropriate in length. Rab V (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both - Neither had much significance on his life as a whole and would be largely undue for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Question, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was noticing that bug; it looks like at 2187 bytes it was just barely over the cutoff. I think the references are what pushed it over; I'll try adjusting that and hopefully Legobot will update automatically. Sdkb (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, this is an article about the man, not specifically the presidency. This is a case where we need to follow what other summary sources say and we must understand that there is little more than 1-2 paragraphs to summarize his entire presidency in the lead.  That means even the big items like Russia and the ending of the cold war, get only limited mention in the lead.  All four of the articles being used to support inclusion are topic specific.  Thus an article about AIDS says Reagan didn't act.  That may be significant to the topic of the early history of the AIDS epidemic but that doesn't mean it's significant in context of Reagan the person.  Given this is an intro about Reagan the person, not the Reagan administration, the portion of the intro which summarizes his 8 years in office is necessarily brief.  Even the material that might be DUE in a Reagan administration article lead is at risk of being cut from the lead here in order to make room for things like Reagan's acting career and time in California politics.  Hence why we should use biographical sources about Reagan the person to indicate what topics are the most significant to and thus DUE in the lead.  The same may be true of apartheid.  Currently no sources have been put forth to suggest it's a DUE topic for the lead.  Per wp:SUMMARY the portion of the lead discussing the presidency should be a summary of this section Ronald_Reagan and really that section should be gutted and moved to this article Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan.  The lead follows the body and, per SUMMARY, the parent article sections should follow the main topic articles.  The RfC is suggesting we do it the other way around.  Springee (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have always believed that the lede is a summary and must not be bloated with excessive details. If we must add that bit about AIDS, then what is preventing us from adding other minutiae covering what transpired during his two terms. Furthermore, his administration's response to the AIDS epidemic has been controversial and contentious. This is, at least, reflected in the AIDS section of this article, which states that his administration's lack of response to the epidemic is attributed to activists. We might want to expand this section first with evidence that indicates some form of consensus that he ignored the AIDS problem and caused the explosion of AIDS cases in the US. I have similar view regarding the apartheid issue. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the article, 20,000 people died of AIDS before Reagan was willing to speak about it publicly. Any general biography of Reagan you might find at your local library will discuss the issue at length. To call it "minutiae" is frankly absurd. Sdkb (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be indicating that - per the article - Reagan speaking out (or whatever implication it entails) would have made a significant dent on the statistics, calculate the number of deaths after he gave the speech you cited. Before the speech: 20,000. After the speech: 70,000. I have previously mentioned that the statistics and Reagan's purported complicity to the AIDS deaths are attributed to activists in the article. Perhaps you could improve this particular information in the Response to the AIDS epidemic section with more mainstream sources given how you said that it is available in the general biography of Reagan you might find at your local library. Also, there is a context to the use of the term "minutiae". I apologize if it aggravates you but I stand by my position that it is a mere detail in Reagan's life. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Speaking from the perspective of somebody who contributes mostly to South African political and apartheid related articles and has only marginal knowledge of the Reagan presidency (beyond his limited foreign policy overtures like constructive engagement dealing directly with South Africa), this is not noteworthy. Reagan adopted a lukewarm “hands off” policy with regard to South Africa, which is why he generally opposed mandatory sanctions. He also refused to lift the preexisting US arms embargo on South Africa despite the hopes of the apartheid government, and under his administration the US did not veto a UN resolution condemning South African raids into Angola - again, despite expectations to the contrary. South African-US relations were also heavily strained by Operation Argon in 1984. A lukewarm and inconsequential relationship with apartheid South Africa, much like the one the US pursued with many African states at the time, is not noteworthy in the grand scheme of the Reagan presidency. I will offer that in most memoirs I’ve read of apartheid era politicians and military chiefs, Reagan is barely mentioned at all (another telling clue), and rather than expressing gratitude for his futile opposition to sanctions, the authors chose to criticise him for not doing enough to aid them. In South African historiography Reagan era diplomat Chester Crocker is featured much more prominently; and in the lead of his article his activities vis-a-vis South Africa ought to be mentioned, but again, Reagan is always relegated to the periphery. -- Katan gais (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both The purpose of the lead is to summarise the most important points in the article; given how much has been written about the Reagan Presidency, that's a really, really high bar to surmount. This proposal would give the two events more weight in the lead than everything except for Reaganonics and relations with the Soviet Union and I haven't seen much to justify that other than assertions of personal opinion. The supporting citations mentioned are a pair of news articles, a "personal look back" and a medical journal article from 1986. That's a pretty good indication this isn't DUE. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Unless these two points are represented more heavily in the article, I don’t think they should be in the lede. There’s only so much you can mention there before it becomes cluttered. ~ HAL  333  05:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both There are two sides to these issues shown in the article itself and only one is presented here for the lede. Also the second proposal adds an absurd amount of text for what is a less significant issue. Sdkb ignored good faith attempts to negotiate an NPOV phrasing above and pushed ahead with this so at this point I have little interest in trying to work with them. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did engage with your proposed alternative above, but you failed to address the serious concerns about it. It should be noted for the record that you stated above, and while you are free to change your opinion on whether the topics merit inclusion, retaliation for others' reluctance to adopt your preferred language is not a valid reason for doing so. Sdkb (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both I am not familiar with the weight of the sources, but I am an American and know the cultural image of Reagan in my demographic. I am a gay male and in my social circle, talk of Reagan is talk of his response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. In other social circles I do wiki outreach to support the African diaspora in North America. In that context talk of Reagan's South Africa apartheid response comes up regularly every few months even among young people today. From my perspective, which I think is prominent and mainstream, Reagan's HIV and apartheid responses are defining in the legacy of his decisions.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment You have a interesting circle of friends. For myself, I cannot think of the last time Reagan's handling of apartheid has ever come up in any conversation I've had (either at the time, or in the years since).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed on the above. I cannot speak for how Reagan is remembered in the gay community in the US (it’s possible that in those circles criticism about his handling of HIV crisis is what he’s primarily remembered for) but among those South Africans and foreign scholars of South African history I’ve collaborated with, Reagan is not at all considered noteworthy in the timeline of the apartheid era. His aide on African affairs, Chester Crocker, gets far more attention due to his role in negotiating Namibian independence and an end to the hostilities between the apartheid government and Cuba/Angola. I’m actually a little skeptical of the claim that one of the primary reasons Americans remember Reagan is for his alleged support of apartheid, but if that’s the case, it’s certainly a phenomenon limited to that side of the pond. -- Katan gais (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Neither comes remotely close in importance to Reagan's handling of the cold war, which ultimately resulted in the end of Communist regimes controlling the lives of half a billion people, give or take. Hence both fail MOS:LEAD.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment An IP editor with an editing history of a few dozen edits stretching back to May 2017 attempted to !vote in this poll. Their !vote was as follows:
 * removed their !vote, noting in edit summary "we can't take an IP editor's word." I reverted, refactoring to correct the malformed parts, since to my understanding, there is no policy blocking IP editors from !voting in an RfC, and per WP:TPO, we should be careful before removing others' talk page comments. reverted me, noting in edit summary "There’s no reason to include this." I note that both DIYeditor and Toa Nidhiki05 have expressed views counter to the IP editor on the issue this RfC is about; regardless of intentions, I do not think it comes across as a good look to be removing !votes of editors who express an opinion you disagree with. Sdkb (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened an ANI related to the IP edit here []. Personally I'm inclined to delete as I don't like the idea of any !vote being made under false pretense.  However, I think this becomes an issue where talk page policies/guidelines need to be followed.  I wouldn't assume that the IP's edit history means anything in this case.  If this is a shared IP those previous edits could very well have been made by a different person.  Springee (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeking clarification, Springee. Regarding the username, my AGF interpretation was that the IP editor may have just been trying to mimic the user signatures of signed in editors, not knowing how to create an account themselves. Sdkb (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Following clear consensus at ANI, an admin has restored the !vote below. I have to admonish you both here. As much as I try to assume good faith, the fact that ANI had to get involved to prevent a !vote from being straight-up wiped away reflects exactly the sort of tendentiousness that makes so many editors reluctant to contribute to this type of article and so many of those who do burnt out from it (including myself). We can be better than this. Sdkb (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don’t have authority to admonish anyone. The issue was discussed and resolved - that’s how the process works. Don’t be a drama queen. Also, if you’re going to accuse people here of tendentiousness editing, don’t hide it in a hidden template area. Maybe you should take your own advice and read WP:AGF again. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid accusations. I didn't open the ANI because I felt anyone was acting in bad faith.  I opened it because I really didn't know what the correct way to handle this was.  I'm a bit disappointed that it seems the admins missed that this was a question in hopes that we could all learn rather than any attempted to admonish anyone.  Springee (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny that my entry into this was to agree with you that some mention of these topics should be made in the lede, just that I disagreed with your wording. You're the one who quickly grew frustrated with trying to negotiate wording or justify your version and slapped an RfC on something that had hardly been given time to be fleshed out. Now I am guilty of tendentious editing because I mistook a forged or badly malformed signature for being malicious/disruptive? I, incorrectly but I think quite understandably, assumed that either an IP editor was falsely claiming to be someone else, or that an IP editor was claiming to be someone (an existing account) which could not be verified. The third option did not occur to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This was my opinion as well. I assumed the IP was trying to impersonate an editor. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This was my opinion as well. I assumed the IP was trying to impersonate an editor. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support both Both of those issues were a part of his presidency and ignoring his policy towards them is a biased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.150.70.148 (talk) 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both These are verifiable facts that happened during Reagan's Presidency. He was a very influential President, and his Administration's notable actions for both good or ill should be given prominence despite conservatives wishing to memory hole the aspects of the Reagan Administration that look less than admirable to today's public.  Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is an article about Reagan the person, not the Reagan administration. That is a different article.  Springee (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support both as crucial missteps of his presidency. ɱ  (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both There's just a lot of information in the lede already, none of which I can justify trimming, and the proposed information to add isn't of comparable importance to what is already in the lede.  Ergo Sum  17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both - not appropriate per WP:LEAD as it's just small parts of the article (e.g. a fraction of 9.3.3), had small coverage giving this POV at that time, and just not a BLP enduring impact in his life.  Note the AIDs subsection has sourcing issues and mostly is channeling activist group statements of circa 2016 rather than the 1980s sources or authoritative RS.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Not convinced that either are that important to be mentioned in the lead. I'm in fact surprised that both sections in the article are larger than the one on his assassination attempt. Seems like WP:UNDUE to me, particularly on South Africa. Hzh (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Include both I am surprised why it had been ignored to this day. These issues were very significant in those days. NavjotSR (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether that is true or not does not justify the loaded wording proposed here which does not reflect the balanced POVs of the article in the clause or sentence, or DUE weight in the length of the sentence. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both'. Neither were significant during his term in office.--Eostrix (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial support With two or three paragraphs in the article each, a mention in the lead seems reasonable for both topics (see MOS:LEADREL), like other sections of comparable length (Reagan was raised in a low-income family in small towns of northern Illinois. = two paragraphs, In 1980, Reagan won the Republican presidential nomination and defeated the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter. = three paragraphs, the bombing of Libya, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran–Contra affair. = not quite two paragraphs per point but they all at least get mentioned).
 * The proposed AIDS clause could be inserted as is (I'm surprised it's not mentioned already) but given the length of the intro, the apartheid line should be condensed. Could have something like ? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 09:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose closing of RfC The RfC has gone for a month. There is no reason to extend it just because an editor isn't happy with the outcome. There is no evidence that the additional trickle of !votes will add extra clarity. Springee (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , please don't extent the RfC without just cause. The discussion has died out.  What justification do you have for extending it?   Springee (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * More input could be useful in making consensus clearer (the most recent !vote was only yesterday, so it clearly hasn't fully died out), and extending won't do any harm. If you really want this closed, feel free to list it at WP:ANRFC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a clear no consensus with a slight majority favoring exclusion. You however have argued vigorously for inclusion.  Sorry, ANRFC is where we can go for getting a closing.  We don't need to leave the RfC open indefinitely in hope that things will change.
 * I'm fine listing it at WP:ANRFC for closing; my suggestion of that above wasn't facetious. Please WP:AGF and don't accuse me of wanting to extend it since you think it won't close the way I !voted. I could just as easily have accused you of wanting to close it as soon as possible since the !votes in the past two weeks haven't favored the outcome you !voted for, but I chose not to. (For the record, I anticipate an experienced closer at this point would judge no consensus on Apartheid and weak consensus to include AIDS, since the UNDUE arguments are weaker against such a short proposed addition.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose both - neither are significant life events that should be included in the lead of his BLP. They are adequately covered in the body of the article. Isaidnoway (talk)  09:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose extension And the reason why should be fairly obvious. Discussion has died down. Sdkb needs to back off here and let the process play out. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original RfC closing date which should be tomorrow. Springee (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC and am adding a DNAU so that it will remain on the talk page while waiting for closure. Having only editors who specifically visit this talk page rather than a more general sampling of editors !voting from here until then raises concerns about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS formation. If others are similarly concerned, they should feel free to implement an extension themselves. WP:RFC states clearly that there is no required minimum or maximum duration, and and  are in violation of WP:TPO by reverting my edit. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You unilaterally extended the length of an RfC without asking anyone because you aren’t happy with what the outcome will likely be. It’s not me that’s the problem here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1985 speech
Hey, guys,

Could you please add this file to the article somewhere?

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

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

Both sources clearly say Reagan is a comedian. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing something....but I don't see either source describing him as a comedian. In any case, he never did professional standup. Just telling jokes (during speeches) and doing funny movies doesn't quite qualify.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally neither of those sources call Reagan a "comedian". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section doesn't sufficiently summarize the article and needs to be simplified. It could be simplified to something like this, where it is more concise. Ronald Reagan is a longstanding featured article that shouldn't have a lead with excessive and unnecessary information. --Wow (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your edit when it appeared, and found it very well done and neutral, so I fully support it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)