Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 22

Newly released audio
Is this worth mentioning somewhere? From The Atlantic:. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. Seem to me to be a off-hand comment that is not a significant enough moment in his life.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Referring to Africans as "monkeys" is significant. I dare anyone to argue this is trivial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I am arguing it. It is a comment in the heat of the moment (in private). We can't fill every Presidential bio with backroom quotes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a modern president being explicitly and brazenly racist. It is notable by any standard. It's ludicrous to feign ignorance of the significance of this and adopt a wait-and-see approach. We do not need to come back in ten years' time to see what historians have said about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A modern President? The guy was born in 1911 and has been out of office for 30 years. A lot of men of his generation had similar attitudes about Africa. There is really nothing significant about this. It probably won't last more than a few news cycles with reputable outlets.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait We do not know how this recording will affect his overall reputation, as the article was published a few hours ago. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 14:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No This is unduly weighted and not every gaffe needs to be on his page. This was a brief conversation, not to mention the point of the call was to criticize the Tanzanians over how they voted. Dy3o2 (talk)
 * Big Time No Same reasons as above....and the fact this was a private conversation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Nixon White House tapes were private conversations too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And where in Nixon's bio (or even the article on the tapes themselves) is a mention made of racially charged language (which, IIRC, occured)? I'm not seeing it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , "On Nixon Tapes, Disparaging Remarks About Ethnic Groups", NYT. It's not in the main article but it should be, as it was a big part of the end of his presidency. It is in Template:Richard Nixon series, which is right there at the top right of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in the wiki article and the one wiki article you linked.....it doesn't appear.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Nixon's racism is not included in his article, but should be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , we can take that discussion to Talk:Richard Nixon. Because his racism was so well documented that I'm shocked it's not included at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , come to think of it, so was the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape. Point is, assumption of privacy doesn't mean anything in these cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. That nearly sank Trumps' campaign.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , they are both examples of bad behavior caught on tape, so how are they apples and oranges? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One nearly sank a Presidential run.....and the other was a comment that had (as of now) no impact at all. I would think those differences would be obvious.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Obvious yes. And the no votes above are frankly shameful, with one arguing that it isn't significant to refer to black people as "monkeys" and another saying that Reagan referring to blacks as "monkeys" isn't a biggie because Reagan had a reason not to like these specific blacks (or "monkeys" as was his preferred way to refer to them). And there's no wait-and-see that is necessary to tell whether a modern president being explicitly and brazenly racist belongs on this Wikipedia article. There is no need for 10-20 years of historical treatments to determine notability. This is just common sense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No for now There’s no indication this is going to have substantial coverage now or lasting coverage years from now. Barring that, there’s no reason to include - for now. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait as per the reasoning set forth by Susmuffin  and Toa Nidhiki05. SunCrow (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ^This editor earlier today argued for the inclusion of unverified reports of racism on the BLP of a Democratic politician, yet opposes the inclusion of confirmed racism in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction - Snooganssnoogans, first of all, your comments about another article belong on the talk page of that article, not here. Second of all, the reports of anti-Semitism that I am seeking to include at Hillary Clinton--which you, of course, are attempting to block--were corroborated by multiple witnesses, made international news at the time, and "rocked" a U.S. Senate campaign; the information you are seeking to include here just became public a few hours ago. Also, my proposed language included the Clintons' denials of the claims, for whatever those denials may be worth. Third of all, I am not opposing the inclusion of your proposed language here; I am saying that we should wait and see whether the information becomes noteworthy enough for inclusion, as I clearly stated. Please self-revert your misleading and childish comment. SunCrow (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe? The problem is, I don't know where or how this could be integrated into the article at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I created a short sub-section in 'legacy' about Reagan on race, which included his dog whistle politics, his resistance to the anti-apartheid movement, and cultivation of "reverse discrimination". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, Snooganssnoogans, your proposed section was slanted and POV. SunCrow (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, stop edit warring and vandalizing this page. You are trolling this page to make Reagan look bad by including random quotes without any substantial reasoning. Good thing the section has been slanted. Rick4512 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Nixon conversation has nothing to do with his legacy. Dy3o2 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This shouldn’t be tucked away. While I wouldn't have a dedicated section on it, as a revealing insight into his view on race it does deserve mention. Bob Spitz, author of Reagan: An American Journey, in response to the tape stated "this is stunning". It’s also leading with news outlets around the world. I got it from the front page of the BBC earlier today. To refer to blacks as “monkeys”, and “they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes“, this cannot be downplayed. He was governor of California. Hulk Hogan, a mere wrestler, was left disgraced and thrown out of the WWE for similar. Roseanne was removed from her tv show for similar. An elected leader (no doubt a number of black people would have voted for him) has even greater responsibility than these entertainers. Barton Dave (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes This is big news around the world.--Maarten1963 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes This story is all over the news today, along with discussion of other instances. The section earlier proposed included numerous events prompting accusations of racism, and the article from The Atlantic linked above details more. If we choose to deem all this insignificant it will be to our detriment. NPOV makes it our obligation to include discussion of this issue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTNEWS. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained, this is beyond a single news story. This is a growing list of accusations, now punctuated by audio of unadulterated racism. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The way I read the rule, it's not talking about a single news story or outlet reporting it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No He was talking to Richard Nixon, who at the time was his superior. Have you heard Nixon's private conversations? More research needs to be done into the circumstances of his comment and the relationship between the two men. Sometimes people say sycophantic things to their superiors. We know Nixon said those sort of things in private. Perhaps Ronnie felt compelled to be at his level. 69Avatar69 (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I thought when I first heard about it. (Sort of playing along with Nixon's attitudes.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nixon did say some crazy things (as did many other presidents) but even on Nixon's page, not every gaffe is mentioned there. Dy3o2 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither the casual racism prevalent in the 70s that produced the conversation nor the Orwellian because-of-one-out-of-context-vignette historical revisionism culture of today is the right way. Perhaps a link to the Nixon Tapes article on here (which will contain a description of this audio) will suffice. Anyone who is interested in this audio already knows about its existence; Reagan wasn't really known for heavy racism (besides the welfare queen remark. Does anyone remember Obama's 'typical white person' remark? Unfortunately Ronnie is unable to apologize as of 2019. 69Avatar69 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's a big deal.  How could it not be?  If it was part of the cold war as I think has been suggested, Reagan could have made a comment such as, Selling out to Soviets!, something like that, and riffed on that with some strong language.  But instead, this was specifically racist and in plural form, not good. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Reagan might have just been having a bad day like we all do. Also, government officials should wear shoes, especially in New York City.69Avatar69 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No Does not appear to be a defining part of him as a person or his life. Which render it undue for his main biography. That is not to say there is not be another page where it would be proper to have this information though. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And are we excessively recoursing away from current affairs, and basically saying, hey, we can't be at the beck and call of every single item which hits the news? Which is certainly true.  But are we going too far in this direction?  I think so. This is a big item.  Future Reagan biographers will be highly likely to include it.  The story will be viewed as a big deal in one year, will be viewed as a big deal in 5 years.  American society would have to change quite a bit for this not to be the case. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you know this "will be viewed as a big deal in 5 years"? We don't run with what we think might get some traction over time. Read WP:NOTNEWS Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ballRja13ww33 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that I don't have a crystal ball. But what we can do is go with current news articles, and then if it later fades (unlikely!), we can remove it at that time.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you re-read the WP:NOTNEWS rule. That's not what we do here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditional yes, this tape should be mentioned within the context of Reagan's legacy in the article's Legacy section in a Reagan and race subsection if it generates discussion about and has an impact on Reagan's legacy with regard to race and upon how specific actions his actions of his while Governor of California and as POTUS are viewed. (Sparks of such a reexamination: from The Washington Post, from MSNBC & from National Review) Drdpw (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Was monkey a strong racial slur in the 70s? It could also interpreted as being tantamount to calling someone a clown or stupid for not wearing shoes. FYI we are all primates. Would I say what Reagan said today in a professional setting? No, then again, we live in an era where eliminating due process rights for men is a noble effort. By the way, opinion columns of for-profit newspapers are not the historical canon. Wikipedia is, however.69Avatar69 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, using "monkey" to refer to your African political opponents in this type of context was a strong racial slur in the 1970s (when I was a young man) and it has always been a racial slur. I would have been fired instantly from my first management job back then it I ever said anything like that. He did not call the African delegates "primates". Making excuses for overt racism is reprehensible. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, we should include it (not in a tabloid-like manner but within the broader context of his race relations legacy), but this is so cynical how our culture does not value the sanctity of privacy, even after death. The modern internet social media mob does not help understand these issues and Wikipedia should not encourage the persecution of acts done in private on its articles, especially if the perpetrator is long dead. We have all made mistakes in our early careers. Also were any laws broken here? California is currently a two-party consent state and you can't record telephone conversations without asking first. Edit: YES it was technically illegal. California's invasion of privacy act, which established two-party consent, was passed four years before the conversation in 1967. Nixon was ahead of his time in abusing recording technology. Today, some people are paranoid that if say the wrong thing in front of their smart TV, the SWAT team will be at their door. Poor Ronnie.69Avatar69 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


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


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


 * Yes. I am honestly surprised that this is even up for discussion. His own daughter couldn't defend these remarks and there are some people here defending it. It is something highly significant, especially when taken together with his views towards apartheid south Africa and many other things. Enigmie (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is defending his remarks. It's just not relevant to this article. You're right his daughter was saddened by this audio, but she also said her dad was not like that at home and taught her not to be racist. She said if her dad were alive today he’d make amends. Dy3o2 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the release of this tape generates discussion about and has an impact on Reagan's legacy and how his actions in life are viewed, then it (the tape) is relevant to the article. Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a story that when Reagan played football at an Illinois college, a hotel refused to rent rooms to several of his African-American teammates. Reagan got pissed off and invited the players to spend the night at his home which happened to bee relatively nearby (this might be another famous Republican, but I think it's Reagan). And not that good characteristics or good deeds automatically cancel out bad ones, or anything of the sort. But rather, that it's our job to give a relatively full accounting of our biographical subject, and from a variety of solid sources. I will look for this story in a bio or news article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That story is in the article (in the Religion section).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, I do see from this same section the claim "Reagan identified himself as a born-again Christian," with a reference, although I'm pretty sure in one of the presidential debates, Reagan said "born again" was not a term his church used.  (and as far as the story about his teammates, the one source by Kengor I can find in our references doesn't have a page 15) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes It should be included. Significantly covered by a multitude of mainstream, highly reliable sources.  Coverage in Wikipedia should similarly reflect that.  -- Jayron 32</b> 14:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes The only WP objection has been that Reagan's remark was "private" and not sufficiently notable. First, Reagan made the comment when he called the White House (so not off the cuff) and said it to the sitting president of the United States, and did so in the context of a major issue of the day, the UN vote on China. A private comment would be something he says off the cuff at home to his wife.
 * Second, Jono1011 (on Aug 3 above) makes a good point about balancing Reagan's 1966 comments.
 * Third, perhaps more important, Reagan's views of Africans also may shed light on his policies and speeches with respect to African Americans. E.g. his dog whistle to Southern white racists when speaking at the Neshoba County fair about "states rights" (a loaded term) in his 1980 campaign. In fact, as seen in the Wash Post coverage below, Reagan's comments according to some pundits help provide a context for comments by later American presidents. Further relevance of Reagan's comments is discussed in the links provided below.
 * Fourth, regarding the wait and see approach to see whether Reagan's comment to Nixon has created controversy and is therefore notable per WP, the answer is clearly yes, with leading US general circulation daily periodicals discussing it, some examples here:
 * 1. Why Donald Trump is just following in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps on race

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/04/why-donald-trump-is-just-following-ronald-reagans-footsteps-race/
 * 2. How a Historian Uncovered Ronald Reagan’s Racist Remarks to Richard Nixon https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-a-historian-uncovered-ronald-reagans-racist-remarks-to-richard-nixon
 * 3.Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/
 * 4. Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/31/ronald-reagan-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/1876134001/
 * 5. Why is anyone surprised by Reagan’s racism?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/08/02/why-anyone-surprised-reagan-racism/wVSXLxvnSXV2WlUJ3rbcQL/story.html
 * 6. Reagan Called Africans ‘Monkeys’ in Call With Nixon, Tape Reveals

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-racist.html
 * 7.Despite sunny image, Ronald Reagan’s racism paved the way for Trump’s

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article233373467.html
 * 8.Being Right About Reagan’s Racism Was Bad for Jimmy Carter

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-racism-monkeys-tape-jimmy-carter.html
 * 9.Reagan's racist call with Nixon echoes strongly today

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/opinions/reagan-nixon-racist-phone-call-joseph/index.html
 * 10.Ronald Reagan's Daughter Says Audio of Her Dad Calling African Diplomats 'Monkeys' Made Her Cry

https://time.com/5642040/ronald-reagan-daughter-racism/
 * I am stopping at 10 but I think I have amply made my point.

--NYCJosh (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all the linked stories are in response to this <b>at the point it was released</B>. Some of the posters who objected did so on the basis of whether or not this will have any impact on Reagan's long-term legacy. That remains to be seen. Also, the fact he was talking to the President doesn't erase the fact this was a private conversation. I'm fairly certain he didn't know Nixon taped his conversations. (Indeed, the Watergate committee didn't know until they were advised of it.) As far as Reagan using the term "state's rights".....he used the terms all the time with no racial context whatsoever. I'd be curious how all this "shed light on his policies and speeches with respect to African Americans". Exactly what policies did he have that somehow connects to this?Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


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

But that's just one example of how Reagan's racist attitude as demonstrated in the phone call regarding the UN vote may inform our understanding of subsequent events and speeches. Additional relevance is provided by the 10 examples I brought, including context for speeches by later presidents, including present day.
 * Even if the comment had been "private" it would not mean it is not notable. A private comment may, in fact, be more candid and thus more revealing. But in fact when someone actively calls the White House to register a view about an important vote in the UN, and tells it to the president of the US, it is hardly "private" and it is not unfair to take note of it.
 * When every major newspaper and so many other major periodicals and broadcast news networks are reporting on it and struggling with its implications, it is notable.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you said it was "not off the cuff", when clearly it was. (I doubt he worked up a speech to express frustration during a private phone call.) And again: WP:NOTNEWS. This thing didn't last on the front page (even on sites like CNN and MSNBC) much beyond one or two news cycles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wanted to give others a chance to weigh in.
 * It wasn't a formal speech but Reagan did more than ample opportunity to reflect for a while before calling the White House and registering his views with the president of the U.S.
 * The call wasn't just a couple of news cycles, it was the subject of numerous opinion pieces by columnists of major U.S. general circulation periodicals (see my list above and one could easily find many more). Not sure what else one could have expected when major revelations about a president who was dead for decades come to light. It's not just "news"--it sheds light, as discussed in the opinion pieces themselves and as I have noted above.--NYCJosh (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was a couple of news cycles (if that). Even the left-wing outlets have dropped this on the front pages. The opinion pieces are by (pretty much) all the usual suspects.....desperate to find the most nefarious explanation they can for losing election after election (and a lot of people who use to vote for them).Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a lot of editorializing, and all of it irrelevant. What happened to NPOV? Reagan's racism is a legitimate mention as part of his legacy, like it or not. As regards any mentions by left wing outlets. A great many of these outlets and editors weren't even around during his time, and the world has moved on RR is hardly a relevant subject on which to waste ink and paper.Oldperson (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of editorializing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Reaffirm Oppose Looking back at it all it does not appear to have a lasting impact on his life as a whole. While it did receive a lot of attention when released that largely died to almost nothing rather quickly. If more scholarly sources start including it as something important about his life then we could start taking a look at adding it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you may have accidentally voted twice. (Looking at a bold "No" vote above on from 2 August.) ~Awilley (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you stalking me again? Anyhow changed it to reaffirm since it was much later with new information. I can see how it would be confusing. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Whether it had a lasting impact on his life is irrelevant, not to mention I have no idea what that phrase means. It is, however very significant as it gives an important insight into who the man really was, as compared to his crafted public image, and quite apparently from all of the links above, his attitude has had a profound effect on the body politic and the direction this nation has taken since his presidency. As a matter of fact he kicked off his campaign in the same city which was front and center in the murder of the three civil rights workers, whose bodies were buried in an earthen dam Philadelphia, Neshoba, Mississippi and as a matter of fact Trump Fired up the crowd in the same place. Yes a lasting impact on American politics and perhaps in the end democracyOldperson (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The stuff I was mentioning is in reference to WP:10YT. Yes if it has lasting impact is extremely relevant to determining if it is WP:DUE to be in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dukakis also spoke at the Neshoba county fairgrounds. It's been a favorite for politicians both before and after Reagan. And furthermore, Reagan's campign didn't "kick off" there. He announced his candidacy in NYC.Rja13ww33 (talk)

Reagan in college standing up for two African-American teammates
Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America's Fortieth President, Kyle Longley, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, John W. Sloan, [https://books.google.com/books?id=NHJsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=%22The+coach+decided+that+the+whole+team+would+therefore+sleep+on+the+bus%22&source=bl&ots=sbadmnksb1&sig=ACfU3U282Log-7WGqwBcT6wtFNL4OPzBhA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUpZyE_vPjAhVKlKwKHdg5AVcQ6AEwCHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20coach%20decided%20that%20the%20whole%20team%20would%20therefore%20sleep%20on%20the%20bus%22&f=false Ch. 3 "Reagan and Race: Prophet of Color Blindness, Baiter of the Backlash," Jeremy Mayer, page 73], 2007.

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

--

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

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

Oppose closing I second Spingree's concerns. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

Reagan's greatest regret
I didn't remove the statement from the article. But it is a strong statement and the source appears weak. "Years later, no-fault divorce became Reagan's greatest regret." TOP IOWA CONSERVATIVE: Divorce Is Not The Answer to Domestic Violence Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I would expect to see the source for such a strong statement to come from a more in depth look at Reagan and one that was not as self serving. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FloNight, I have modified the sentence to state: I have also added a citation: p. 44 of Michael Reagan's 2004 book "Twice Adopted". Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Too much of a testimonial
I liked Ronald Reagan. I voted for him twice, always thought that he was a nice guy, and, in retrospect, a definitely better than average President. Parts of this article, however, have far too much of a testimonial flavor about them. Fine for the Reagan Library, perhaps, but not for an encyclopedia article. Take this paragraph from the Religion subsection:


 * Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people; this faith stemmed from the optimistic faith of his mother[1] and the Disciples of Christ faith into which he was baptized in 1922.[1]For that period, which was long before the civil rights movement, Reagan's opposition to racial discrimination was unusual. He recalled the time when his college football team was staying at a local hotel which would not allow two black teammates to stay there, and he invited them to his parents' home 15 mi away in Dixon. His mother invited them to stay overnight and have breakfast the next morning.[2][3] His father was strongly opposed to the Ku Klux Klan due to his Catholic heritage, but also due to the Klan's anti-semitism and anti-black racism.[4] After becoming a prominent actor, Reagan gave speeches in favor of racial equality following World War II.[5]

I'm sorry, I'm sure a lot of work went into this and the bio as a whole, but this is not encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia shouldn't be declaring in its own voice that Reagan had faith in the goodness of people, and it shouldn't be presuming to know that this faith came from the "optimistic" faith of his mother. If we are going to include testimonial fluff/stuff like that (and we shouldn't include too much of it) at least let it come as the opinion of reliable sources whose opinions are attributed to them within the text. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the issues with this article has always been: how long should it be? One editor (a admin no less) said above that this thing is already 5 times longer than it should be. So I can see a case for cutting the "fluff"....but the fact is, a lot of the fluff would have to stay in if some of the efforts (above) are successful so that we may have balance. Also, even in the case of a encyclopedia, they do try to give a flavor of the man. (And in the case of Presdients, typically pretty flattering.) In The World Book Encyclopedia (1989 version) for example, it says this about Reagan the man in the introductory paragraphs: <i>"Reagan was a skillful campaigner and a gifted speaker. He stressed such traditional values as work, the family, patriotism, and self-reliance. At the age of 69, Reagan was the oldest man ever elected President. But he looked far younger and was vigorous and athletic. Reagan listed his chief interests as drama, politics, and sports. Reagan especially enjoyed horseback riding at his weekend ranch, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara, Calif."</I> I'd like to add that the racial stuff (both pro and con) are for the most part missing from the article as well. (Especially as any campaign tactic. Just the facts ma'am vibe.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP; that passage is a particularly egregious example. With regard to size, WP:AS is the guideline. This article is too long, too detailed, and has NPOV problems. Instead of a neutral biography, it's a mixture of flowery praise, damning condemnation, and mind-numbing detail that is clearly the efforts of somebody to prove something at some point (i.e., federal income tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7 billion to $549 billion ... no context provided. Is that good growth? Slow growth? Did it have anything to do with Reagan's policies? Or was it the policies of the Democrats in Congress?). Meanwhile, entire sections of relevant information are altogether missing (e.g, Tip O'Neill isn't even mentioned). It'd be a long haul to bring this article up to shape, but in my view, the next step for this article should be WP:FAR. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To Rja13ww33: Yes, but World Book Encyclopedia (does it still exist?) was the reference set that we always told school kids to use first since it was easier to read and less sophisticated than Britannica, Americana, or Collier's. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at Britannica's current (on line) article on Reagan: ..."[Reagan was] noted for his conservative Republicanism, his fervent anticommunism, and his appealing personal style, characterized by a jaunty affability and folksy charm. The only movie actor ever to become president, he had a remarkable skill as an orator that earned him the title “the Great Communicator....[later on] After a successful screen test at Warner Brothers, he was soon typecast in a series of mostly B movies as a sincere, wholesome, easygoing “good guy.” (As many observers have noted, the characters that Reagan portrayed in the movies were remarkably like Reagan himself.)” So no, it's not unusual for a encyclopedia to get into a bit about the man himself. I've got a set of Britannica(s) (from 1968) right here on my shelf and the articles about other significant figures are similar. The whole question here is: how long do we want this thing? (And that controls the "fluff".)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I suspect Britannica has changed a bit from the 1952 edition which was handed down from my grandparents to my parents and then from my parents to my brother. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The section on religion is fully sourced to a major book from a major publisher: Kengor, Paul (2004). God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life. HarperCollins. The reviews have been positive (see https://www.amazon.com/God-Ronald-Reagan-Spiritual-Life/dp/006057142X It's Wikipedia's role to summarize wha tthe reliable secondary sources like this one actually say. I have not seen any other RS that deny the points made at grfeat length by Kengor.  I do not see a problem.  Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So how did Kengor determine that Reagan had ? Did he compare Reagan's faith in the goodness of people against the average person's faith in the goodness of people and find that Reagan's faith was particularly strong, and if so, how did he measure faith? I'm surprised to read you say that you do not see a problem with saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that a person had a "particularly strong" faith in anything. At the very least, that should be prefaced with "according to Kengor". In fact, I'm going to go add that now. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * read his book. he talked to people who knew young RR and president RR, and read many thousands of pages of documents = years of work. That's what professional historians do and why they can produce reliable sources. All the bios of  RR discuss his religiosity and to my knowledge no one disputes Kengor.   Historians have also given a lot of attention to religion & Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Carter. Rjensen (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How does he know how much "faith in the goodness of people" is the "average" amount of faith, and how much is a "particularly strong" amount of faith? What I'm saying is, it's a BS description, because it purports to quantify an unquantifiable, subjective assessment (faith in the goodness of people). We can't really say, as fact, that one person's faith in his fellow man was greater than average, unless we claim to be able to measure such a thing, which we obviously can't. We can say Reagan was religious; we can say he was an optimist; we can say his optimism came from his faith; but we can't say he had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people, in wikivoice. We can say people thought he had particularly strong faith in the goodness of people, we can say he had a reputation for it, but we can't say it as if it were an objectively true fact, and not a matter of opinion, even if widely-held. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 04:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "How does he know how much" Scholars do that by studying a lot of people using very good sources, and then discussing their conclusions with fellow experts.   If there is disagreement then that leads to LOTS of discussions at meetings and in scholarly journals (there are over 1000 scholarly history journals in USA today, most of them online with critical reviews of books by historians). It's the main line of work of historians. It enables them to say,  for example, that Reagan was better at politics than Jimmy Carter, and that both Reagan and Carter were strongly influenced by their deep religion. -- on the last point look at: William Steding.  Presidential Faith and Foreign Policy: Jimmy Carter the Disciple and Ronald Reagan the Alchemist (2014) Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Levivich is exactly correct here. Editors are obliged to use reliable sources but editors are not obliged to include anything and everything those sources say about a particular subject, that's the role of an editor, to be sagaciously selective. And editors are most certainly not obliged to parrot fine sounding but inherently subjective statements about the subject, just as they would not be bound to parrot scathing subjective criticism of the subject, even if it comes from highly respected reliable sources. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Was it really necessary to add that lengthy quote? At the risk of sounding like a broken record player: this thing has already been criticized for being too long as it is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah!! It's already too long. You'd have thought this guy was a professional wrestler for God's sake. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one of the issues I've always said we have here: not maintaining a consistent standard from article to article. (Or sometimes not at all.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been a fan for the laughs over the decades (starting in the late 50's) but recently I've found it pretty vapid. I just have to shake my head how the folks who edit these wrestling bios lovingly describe every story-line series of "matches" the wrestler was involved in. It would be like editing the bio of a movie actor and describing the plot of every damned movie they were ever in. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The "War on Drugs" was a success because [Insert correlation]
The following line is in the article:


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

The line is sourced to primary sources (an interview with a former Drug Czar who clearly has a stake in the matter). The content is not defensible. There's an enormous academic literature on the subject, so there's no excuse to include idiotic content about correlations from a person who clearly has a conflict of interest. There are countless factors that may affect rates of drug use, and there are academic studies that use various strategies to draw causal inferences. It's absurd to include this content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So why not write up a summary of this "academic literature" that disputes this (with RS cited) and lets take a look?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the academic literature disputes the text above. I'm saying that the text should rely on the academic literature or at the very least on secondary RS coverage (such as newspaper coverage). The text in the article shouldn't be sourced to primary sources, in particular on controversial subjects and on subjects with extensive secondary literatures. It's pretty tendentious of you to insist that I need to source any content that I want to add to academic publications and run it by you first whereas you can add piss-poor content sourced to primary sources and will revert anyone who contests the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the claim is backed by "academic literature", I see nothing wrong with keeping what supporters argue (with this RS added in). In your previous edit, you wanted to eliminate the reduction in drug use in it's entirety. You are now admitting it is backed up by RS. Seems to me that your approach was wrong.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. I'm neither saying that the content is backed up nor refuted by the academic literature (I have no idea if it is). I'm saying that text on Wikipedia should be sourced to RS and the quote in OP isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you claim there is "enormous academic literature on the subject".....you just don't know what any of it says? Ok. Well, I'll see if I can find a RS to back this up and add it in. Otherwise, we can reduce it to something he claims.....ok?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Found this . To quote: "...a 12th grader in 1978 was fully 3 times as likely to be a current marijuana user (defined as any use in the past 30 days) as a 12th grader in 1992 (prevalence rates of 37% vs. 12%)." There is also a chart illustrating this on p.889 of the article. Since this is the American Journal of Public Health, I assume there are no RS issues. So I would assume everyone would be ok with me adding this as a RS for Dr. Kleber's (quite correct) claims?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The source does not as far as I can tell attribute the change to the War on Drugs or Reagan's policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why the text "which they [supporters] attribute to the [the reagan admin's efforts]" was added. We are clearly presenting the opinions of supporters of this policy.....and are not necessarily saying they are right. We cannot present the detractors case only (for outcomes; as you wanted to do) and leave out the other side of the argument. That is not NPOV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not here to build a case for one side. That's original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We are here to present a balanced perspective. The fact you want to include the criticism and exclude the arguments of supporters (whose data is backed by RS) says it all. I (believe it or not) am a serous critic of the drug war and question the connection made there as well. But NPOV means putting aside one's personal feelings and editing fairly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism of the Reagan administration's War on Drugs is sourced to an overview article by PBS: "Mandatory minimums become increasingly criticized over the years for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine." The criticism is also so notable as to be the subject of an article (Race and the war on drugs) and substantiated by a large academic literature which shows that the War on Drugs indeed did boost racial disparities. That the Reagan administration's policies successfully reduced drug consumption should likewise be sourced to excellent RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing what you do know the "academic literature" literature says and what you don't. In any case, there is nothing wrong with including the argument of a supporter(s) claims. (Especially if it is backed by RS.) We clearly delineate his opinion from causation. It is impossible to prove causation.....but that doesn't mean we can omit the arguments of supporters.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot present the detractors case only (for outcomes; as you wanted to do) and leave out the other side of the argument. We absolutely can. In fact, we are required to do so if we can't find adequate sourcing for the "other side"; crowbarring in weak or poorly-sourced arguments to 'balance out' something according to an editor's personal perspective is WP:FALSEBALANCE.  And in this particular case the sourcing is subpar.  The cite to the National Institute on Drug Abuse is unusable because it is a self-published unduly self-serving claim per WP:ABOUTSELF, while the interview is WP:RSOPINION at best; it is not citable for statements of fact the way it is being used here.  If the statistics are genuine, relevant, and mean what you want the article to say they mean, it should be easy to find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources rather than an interview with a political appointee. --Aquillion (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you will look further down in this thread, another editor verified these numbers with other sources.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Springee, since you in the RFC above claim to be a stickler for a high DUE bar, can you please instruct Rja13ww33 that content sourced to a primary source does not meet DUE, and that we need to source content to high-quality RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Snooganssnoogans [] Springee (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The brazen hypocrisy is not surprising in the least at this point, but thank you for once again confirming it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The brazen incivility is not surprising. If you have a problem with another editor you ask them, not me.  Springee (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I can verify the 12% in 1992 number but the 1980 number seems off (this same report suggests it ought to be much higher). Public Health Report v170 issue 3 "PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, PEOPLE", 1992. Also this Monitoring the Future also gives facts for long term studies that match the statements but point out that that 1991/1992 was right when the curves bottomed out (fig 5-4a pg 272). --M asem  (t) 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you're truly interested in academic/scholarly sources to improve the "War on Drugs" section, there is an entire chapter devoted to the subject in Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning. That is one potential starting point. MastCell Talk 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed
In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed as in my opinion it is pointless to have an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, now that there aren't any notes in the article. You could have done that yourself, as I just did. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)