Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 26

Original research, and using Wikipedia's voice
Being somewhat concerned by the volume of recent changes, I spot-checked a recent batch: unified diff here. Also comparing to the version before 's recent edits. The results weren't encouraging, for neither the changes nor the old content.
 * The sentence "At the new base, Reagan noticed the flaws of government from his interactions with inefficient workers." isn't supported, or appropriately written. Woodard discusses inefficiencies in ''Federal bureaucracy", not government, and certainly not "Federal government", which is what we had before. The only person discussing "inefficient workers" is Reagan himself, a primary source; we certainly can't report that in Wikipedia's voice. None of this is in the earlier version.
 * The fragment "At the urging of many friends who ran his fundraising," is unsupported. The source refers to an organization called "Friends of Ronald Reagan", but they aren't described as Reagan's friends, but millionaire friends of Holmes P. Tuttle, who found Reagan personally and ideologically appealing. This is old content
 * "He returned to the meeting and later clarified that portions of the law undermined a citizens' right to private property." This is Wikipedia, supporting the assertion that the Civil Rights Act undermines a citizen's right to private property. "Clarified" is not an appropriate term here.
 * "highlighted the governor's ineffective responses to the Free Speech Movement, Watts riots, crime, high taxes, and excessive spending." This is new content, and unsupported. Cannon says Brown was seen as ineffective, and that is speaking generally, not with respect to these issues. Also voice issues; we're stating in Wikipedia's voice that Brown's responses to these things was ineffective, and that his spending was excessive. This is new content.

These are issues with just the four paragraphs I spot-checked. Unless it happens to be a very badly written section, this is far off of NPOV standards, let alone FA standards. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I was going to bring this up before, but you beat me to it. I'm also concerned about the sheer volume of @Wow's recent edits; they are so vast as to essentially be a near overhaul of some body sections, and this is not even to mention some removals that seem to be controversial. I agree that some review is needed. GuardianH (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's been a little bit over a month since I've been making drastic changes to practically every section, so yes, I need someone to check every sentence afterwards. @GuardianH, is there any particular topic I shouldn't have removed from this article? Wow (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the edits you've made which seemed to likely be controversial was the one in which you removed all mention of Project Socrates [1 ]. In that edit, you removed an entire section which addressed the Reagan Administration's initiation of the project — in the edit log, the description left was "no consensus on 87 crash; project socrates never happened". This seems contrary to the wikiarticle on the project, which from a cursory reading does seem to state that the project at least went into effect as a classified project. I remember seeing this a few months ago and it bothered me; I am no expert on Reagan, though this particular removal seems contentious. GuardianH (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I removed that paragraph when I was quickly trimming down the entire article before I started adding new references. I just read up on Project Socrates outside of Wikipedia and I think that we could have a brief mention of this project. Wow (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit it's bad writing. I'm trying to paraphrase what I read and I picked the pages I included based on the search index results. --Wow (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Paraphrase the source? Or the text you found? Because, if there's issues with the original text, and then you shorten by paraphrasing, we're going to end up with a complete mangle. I appreciate the effort you've put in to shortening, but we have to get this right, or reassess article status. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm paraphrasing the text of what Brands, Vaughn, Woodard, Cannon, and others wrote if that's what you mean. By the way, the rewrites so far span from the Early life to Governor of California sections, and everything else is just copied and pasted from Presidency of Ronald Reagan. I'm also figuring out how to write in different ways to avoid repetition throughout this article. Wow (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC); modified 08:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It might help if you describe exactly what your goals are, but also you need to be more careful while paraphrasing. We really will need to initiate an FAR if such issues are widespread. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My main goals are to trim down this article as others have suggested before and to convert most of the references to books and journals since most of the references come from the press and websites like the Reagan Foundation and supremecourthistory.org. Wow (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are goals I support, so long as paraphrasing doesn't become an issue. If we end up stating in Wikipedia's voice what the source attributes to Reagan (or someone else) as an opinion, we might as well use the Reagan Foundation as a source. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Wow is focusing on the sources & trimming first....I'd let them finish that first and then focus on some of these issues next.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already trimmed most of this article, so now my intention is to change the references. Yet, some of the text that's in this article doesn't seem to be supported by the books that I've used so far. I have no idea when the FAR is going to happen, so I rushed through certain edits. The other problem is that certain sections are undeveloped, particularly the ones about Reagan's governorship and presidential campaigns. Either way, my edits were bound to go through this type of proofreading. Wow (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I went through every sentence until the governorship section that I'm still expanding. I hope this set of changes is a bit more convincing. The newer text is a bit truer to the sources, but I'm still trying to stay away from writing what the books and journals say word-for-word, and I believe one of the sentences in Reagan's early political career did exactly that long before my edits. If these changes still aren't appropriate, I'll step back before any further reckoning. --Wow (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

In Legacy: "This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably"
I want to challenge the tag placed which states in the Legacy section that it is too long to read or navigate comfortably. It looks to me that it is reliably sectioned with each section not being anymore of a greater length than other sections in the article. GuardianH (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (I'm not sure I buy the other tag for that section either.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have solved the length issue by removing the overquoting and repetition. --Wow (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the legacy has a length issue. It's by far too short and only scratches the surface of his legacy. Jo1971 (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think that removing those quotes changes the fact that Reagan's legacy is the subject of substantial debate and that his exact role in the Soviet collapse is also debated. The quotefarm can certainly be moved over to en:wikiquote:Ronald Reagan if it's not there already. This article has around 9,500 words now. I think that's a much better length than 17,000 (I think?) from last year. Wow (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The information that "Reagan's legacy is the subject of substantial debate" and "that his exact role in the Soviet collapse is also debated" is without any further explanation an information probably every reader would have guessed before reading this article. So after reading he/she is almost exactly as smart as before reading it. On one of the most debated questions regarding Reagan's legacy, we do not have much more to say than "it is debated"? Seriously? By the way, I tried to add a view by Melvyn P. Leffler who put his legacy into proper perspective to Gorbachev's (which is IMO a fair assessment) but was probably too much information (now we can learn nothing about the question beyond "it's debated"). --Jo1971 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just made some tweaks to the legacy section. Many of the quotes came from those who believed that Reagan contributed to the end of the Cold War. Nothing wrong with that, but this is the full statement that led me to believe that some text had to be trimmed: Reagan's exact role in the Soviet collapse is also debated, with many proponents believing that the president's defense policies, economic policies, military policies and hard-line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and communism, together with Reagan's summits with Gorbachev, played a significant part in ending the Cold War. I was hung up on the amount of quotes being included. Wow (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On Reagan's legacy being the subject of substantial debate, there used to be both praise and criticism of his economic policies in the legacy section, but I removed it altogether because it's already addressed in the Reaganomics subsections. Not to mention, some of the other sections on his presidency also offer praise and criticism. Wow (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC); modified 02:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you changing a correct reference to an older version of (not exactly) the same article? Jo1971 (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You added one journal article from 2018 and one book from 2022. Leffler's quote is in both your journal article and Leffler's 2021 book. I want to make use of the references you've added. Do you want to use the 2021 book instead? If you do, then there's no need to use the journal article. --Wow (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, it makes sense to use the latest version but if anybody else wants to use the older version since it is publicly accessible, then that's completely fine as well. So in this case, I specified the most recent version of the article and it does not make sense to revert it to an old version. Jo1971 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And your current condensed format with the author and the title removed from the reference, also does not make sense. I will revert back to my original format. --Jo1971 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean "Hunt & Miles 2021, p. 37."? That's how it's supposed to be formatted. If you hover over the "Hunt & Miles" part, it'll show you the entire reference with the authors, title, publisher, and ISBN. Wow (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that your new format does not include the author and the title of the article anymore. I guess that's not "how it's supposed to be formatted". Or is the author and the title of an article now optional information? --Jo1971 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITESHORT. Other articles like Andrew Jackson and Harry S. Truman do the same thing when it comes to citations. Wow (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CITESHORT does not mandate that you should remove author and title. What is the benefit for the reader or other editors by removing author and title? And by the way, you specified the wrong page number again, invalidating a perfectly valid and correctly formatted reference for the second time. I will revert back if you don't supply a good argument against. Jo1971 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else to respond to this besides putting your cursor over the "[name] [year], and [p. number]" of a citation. The book is still listed in the bibliography section. I also don't know how Gorbachev's minor, yet indispensable partner, setting the framework for the dramatic changes that neither anticipated happening anytime soon is not on page 37 as specified here. If you want to revert it, fine, I'll look for something else to work on. Wow (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, regarding the page number I checked the wrong reference, page 37 is correct. However, if you put your cursor over the reference it does NOT show you the author and the title of the article. These are the editors and the title of the book not the author of the referenced sentence. I will revert it. --Jo1971 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to hover over the reference and then hover over the name within that reference (that shows up), so it's a two-step process. It's a good quote though. Wow (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When I hover the mouse over the reference no. 396 in this version, it shows me this:
 * Hunt, Jonathan R.; Miles, Simon, eds. (2021). The Reagan Moment: America and the World in the 1980s. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-6070-9.
 * These are not the authors and it's also not the title of the article. --Jo1971 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right that they're not authors, but rather editors as indicated by the "eds." in that reference. It turns out that I have used this book for the governorship section (though the page cited there is written by Mark Atwood Lawrence instead of Leffler). Anyhow, I don't see the need to be that specific when each chapter and contributor is already mentioned in the book. Wow (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO author and title are essential and I am ofc interested who is the author of a specific reference without checking the book (to which most readers or editors don't have access anyways). Jo1971 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already written that in my opinion the legacy section is way too short and especially his contribution on the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union is central to his legacy. Sorry for the lengthy post but maybe it's helpful to quote a few scholars with opposing views and we can condense these arguments in the article along those lines (I usually refrain from making larger edits since I am not a native English speaker).

William Inboden, for instance, supports the conservative view.

See also

And Mr. Brands sr.:

On the other hand, Beth A. Fischer opposes the view and calls it a "myth". She argues "Triumphalists" would largely ignore Soviet motivations and sources...

...and the Soviets did not increase militäry spending...

p. 103:

...and the sources of Gorbachev's policy of "New Thinking" has its roots in reform movements within the Soviet Union decades ago.

pp. 80–89:

Melvyn P. Leffler also opposes the "Triumphalists" view like many historians specialized on the Soviet Union...

...such as Odd Arne Westad...

...or Stephen Kotkin:

And how was Reagan's importance compared to Gorbachev’s? Melvyn P. Leffler (already in the article)...

...and Vladislav Zubok both assess Gorbachev as more important.

Jo1971 (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that we need a few scholars with opposing views and that those arguments can be condensed. This type of information wasn't in the legacy section before I started overhauling it. Thanks for bringing this up. Wow (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Revisions by Wow
Since starting taking the axe to this article 20k characters have been lost, most if it apparently article text. With the high number of edits that have taken place is anyone watching these changes? Wow, would you mind a brief summary of what you have done here and where it is heading? Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @DIYeditor, sure. I've been trimming this article to a much more readable prose size. There used to be over 17,000 words and I'm trying to find ways to get it down to around 9,000. I've also been replacing hundreds of web sources with books and journal articles. I typically don't write as much as I did here, but I do realize that editing pages like this one is a monumental task. I felt that something about this page had to be done to address ongoing concerns about the length and sourcing. Wow (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is pretty long. Do any of the passages entirely deleted possibly have homes in any other articles? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The one that you reverted here is mentioned in background section of Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign. Some of the other content in general has been moved to pages like Presidency of Ronald Reagan and List of awards and honors received by Ronald Reagan. As for the article's size, I've managed to wipe out nearly 130,000 bytes, going from about 277,000 to 148,000. That's enough for Reagan to no longer appear in the top 10,000 longest pages. Wow (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I didn't realize how far back your edits went, I only looked at the first page of 500. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

picture for AIDS section
I would appreciate it if someone could include a picture of the AIDSGATE poster by ACT-UP in the AIDS epidemic section of this article to visually tie the section to Reagan the person instead of the presidency. I would do it myself, but I am very bad at working with images on here. Jaydenwithay (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone can do it if you have a free-to-use picture. Does a picture already exist on Wikimedia Commons for us to use?  If not, do you know of a picture that has a clear license so someone can upload it to Commons?  The only way we can add such a picture is if we have access to one that meets Wikipedia policy.  -- Jayron 32 19:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 this image from the Smithsonian may work?
 * https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1051180 Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. If you click on the "usage conditions apply" you see that ONLY content tagged with the CC0 icon is under a free-to-use license.  Other material is under copyright and cannot be used at Wikipedia.  See here, which states "All other Content is subject to usage conditions due to copyright and/or other restrictions and may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act. All rights not expressly granted herein by the Smithsonian are reserved, unless the Content is marked with the CC0 icon."  Per WP:NFCC, Wikipedia cannot use such content.  Since the poster in question is not marked with the CC0 icon, it is not free to use.  -- Jayron 32 21:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 does this work? https://www.flickr.com/photos/krossbow/40992214245
 * I see it says CC BY. Ideally it work be best to crop it to two panels (one portrait beside one bullseye). Jaydenwithay (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should this be included in an article about Regan the person? Springee (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Springee; a historical poster used by activists at the time of the AIDS crisis at least has a relevant historical context that goes alongside the narrative in the article. Unfortunately, that poster is under copyright, and we can't use it here.  A free image of dubious historical provenance maybe CC-BY licensed, but now we have no reason to use it, because it has no connection to the narrative.  Honestly, it's going to be very hard to find something like this to use here; any image from the 1980s would have been created before copyleft licensing was a thing.  Any image that is under CC-BY-SA or less restrictive license would have no historical relevance.  -- Jayron 32 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's improbable that posters exist that don't have enough art to be eligible for copyright; ones with just text, for instance. This would still serve the same purpose, but dodge the copyright issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If anyone really wants to go all out on this....maybe the one where they had a picture of Reagan with lesions superimposed on his face? IIRC, it was on the cover of Colors magazine and some AIDs activists brought a few versions to some protests. (All this is probably copyrighted though.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The second print was in fact made by Donald Moffett in 1987 specifically concerning inaction during the crisis, thus it does have a connection to the narrative. Jaydenwithay (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Gran Fury, the artistic arm of ACT-UP, has ceded all their work to the public domain, including the following relevant to the article section:
 * Excerpt from outdoor exhibit of 6 public officials and their derogatory comments towards AIDS victims, with Reagan quoted " . . . " representing total silence
 * The Government has blood on its hands Jaydenwithay (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jaydenwithay You might want to take a look at this in regards to the outdoor exhibit (Copyright question section). Wow (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wow I'm confused as to the problem- If you were to look at the website besides simply the public domain statement, you would find that the photo in question is an American work, and is directly from the art collective's website - thus, they own the photo and have released into the public domain. Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess. I tagged you just to see what you'd think of their response as I'm very bad with copyright. Anyways, I cropped your (reuploaded) photo to remove the excess space. Wow (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Mention Margaret Thatcher in lead section?
UK PM Margaret Thatcher and to a lesser extent Canadian PM Brian Mulroney were conservatives closely publicly aligned with Reagan. Facts707 (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

RE: Severe lack of neutrality
I apologize if my tone in recent edit summaries sound tart or barbed, but this article is in dire straits. I appreciate y'all's help so far, but as it stands now, the persistent and flagrant noncompliance with WP:NPOV is alarming and miles below the standards of an FA. I am honestly surprised that this article hasn't been subjected to a WP:FAR by now. I realize that it can be hard to distance oneself from one's personal political beliefs when editing articles such as this one, and I also realize that this article, like others with subjects that have a considerable cult of personality, may attract worshippers that may undermine WP:NPOV. This article should be the best it can be, but as of now it is not. I cannot possibly improve it all by myself (sidenote: this article is much too long for its FA status) and I am asking for your good-faith help. Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think the kind of tags you've been putting on the article (especially the NPOV) are appropriate for a FA. I also think you should hold off on this because Wow is still doing their overhaul (as far as I know) and there is some material I want to add myself (when they are done; but I don't want us to overlap).Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * An FAC done in 2006 is no defense against an NPOV tag, particularly when essentially all the content has since been rewritten. The cherry-picking from sources has been commented on enough times at this point that some tagging is entirely justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I don't get taking this action in the middle of a overhaul. Furthermore, a lot of the "cherry picking" that has been complained about (over the last month or so) has been addressed in this overhaul. But to get down to brass tacks (on one of the tagged sections)....I'm not sure how we could write a article about RR without mentioning his sense of humor, the fact he was considered the Teflon President, his folksy charm, and so on. It helps explain his popularity. (Which has mystified some people.) As much as it may appear as fluff....it's useful to the reader. But in any case, Wow (whom I don't think is done) and I will keep on some of this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You're edit-warring to keep a flattering quote from a contemporary source in, and saying that the cherry-picking has been addressed? There's no reason to use quotes from contemporary sources in this article at all. We have scholarly sources and biographies that would report a quote if significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with quoting from RS. And if you want scholarly/contemporary sources....they can be added as well. Not sure why you would delete the quote on that basis....or on the basis it was cherry picked when the "top priority" is followed by "in response to questions about perceived underfunding of the research". If the quote was included...how would you write it?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would not include the quote. As I've made obvious. Sound bytes from politicians in contemporary news sources can always be selected to make them look good or bad (I notice you're not rushing to defend the MLK quote that was removed earlier, also from RS). For a topic where reams of better sourcing exists, it is inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree. This quote is now backed by a non-contemporary source (as per your complaint). I don't know what MLK quote you are talking about, but if you have a issue with contemporary sources....why didn't you take out And the Band Played on from the AIDs section? (Something I wouldn't support either by the way.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not just the contemporary nature that's a problem, it's a contemporary news report, lacking any context or due weight. Tens of thousands of such sources exist for Reagan; we could stuff the article full of quotes from equally good sources. Broader perspective sources are need to ensure due weight. This is pretty basic stuff; I really don't know why you're making such a fuss. If we now have a book source, fine; remove the NYT source, it's redundant. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to get a idea of what you wanted. You said you took issue with it because "There's no reason to use quotes from contemporary sources in this article at all. And you also brought up the need for "scholarly sources", which left me confused since you have (in previous discussions) endorsed Shilts's book (and I agree it's a great source)....and it came out in '87, and he wasn't a scholar. Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with you, and the editor named Wow appears to be destroying the article with dozens of daily edits, seeming to subdue the accomplishments of Reagan. Can someone please speak up to this and get this article properly restored? 2600:1700:D090:3250:ECFF:D8A7:D1E2:4F32 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer this revision over this revision? What accomplishments were removed from this article? Wow (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We now have a lead restored by, an editor with a single edit to this talk page. Not to mention their entire contribution history to Wikipedia was making gnomish edits to reach autoconfirmed status, and then removing critical material from this article. This version of the lead has content unsupported by the body, and unsupported by consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Nick9289 has been blocked as a sock of User:Kozak4512. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What's humorous (only a little though) is that the Nostalgia Wikipedia article on Reagan, frozen in December 2001, seems to be more even-handed than our current article. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The "welfare queen" story is currently written bending over backwards to avoid criticism, and includes this baffling sentence: "Although he never mentioned her name or overtly mentioned her race, the Chicago Tribune labeled her a "welfare queen",[161] which critics deem derogatory towards welfare recipients and in specific cases, racist." Which takes source material criticizing Reagan's use of the story, and dumping it all on the Chicago Tribune. It also includes quite excessive background about Taylor, more so than it does analysis of Reagan's own actions. The basic narrative in the source material is quite clear; in our article, it is not. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact RR never mentioned her by name or race is something our sources note (including Cannon; who also notes the fact her case generated a lot of publicity in Illinois). But I agree that we should note RR's role in this. (I.e. him taking this nationally and the fact some considered this use by him racist/code language.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the second half of that sentence, not the first. Yes, sources agree he didn't explicitly mention the "welfare queen"'s race, but sources are commenting on Reagan's use of the trope, not the Chicago Tribune's use of a label. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Severe lack of neutrality
This article seems to be inundated with nice shiny right-wing talking points about the virtues of Reagan, but glosses over/fails to mention many actions during his presidency that have had continued and consistent deleterious effects. The article is filled with vocabulary with such positive connotations it seems intentional. There is no mention about how his budget cuts to HUD resulted in a massive increase in the homeless population, specifically the rising homelessness among people with mental illnesses. The article has a grand total of seven sentences discussing his catastrophic non-response to one of the worst diseases in human history (which was partially fueled by rampant homophobia). There is zero mention of how his repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and related deregulation concerning the FCC directly led to a severe lack of media trust among the public and the proliferation of intentionally inflammatory news lacking in veracity. These are by no means the only terrible things that the article misses. This article badly needs multiple doses of reality. Jaydenwithay (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have (for example) discussed the AIDS aspect of his Presidency quite a bit (you may want to look in the talk archives). One of the main topics of conversation was whether or not to include this in the LEAD (which was shot down via RFC; see archive 21). Also, the AIDS section was all criticism at one point....and then balance was added (as per NPOV; also in Archive #21). The Fairness Doctrine is mentioned in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. (As largely irrelevant as it is at this point with the advent of the internet and so on.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In a similar vein, the article paints him as "opposed to racial discrimination", despite the fact that he used racial slurs in his private correspondence, popularized the racist "welfare queen" narrative, and appealed to southern white voters who wanted to re-disenfranchise blacks. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The conversation with Nixon was discussed previously in a RFC (see archive #23)....and it was archived without a closure or (it appears) consensus to include. The other racial issues are brought up in the article on his campaign . (They've drifted in and out of this article over the years.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "partially fueled by rampant homophobia" As much as I personally dislike Reagan, the overall culture from his era was homophobic. He was not some kind of outlier. Print media in the 1980s still had censorship codes against even mentioning gay fictional characters. And the homophobic Hayes Code had been influencing Hollywood's propaganda narratives until the late 1960s. There were not many voices supporting tolerance in the political arena, either. Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reagan wasn't homophobic in any way. (See his opposition to the Briggs Initiative for starters.) I don't think a single person who knew Reagan thought he was homophobic. Granted there were people in his administration who were, but certainly not him.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Opposed the Briggs Initiative" is a pretty low bar to clear, and not that impressive when you consider that he slashed WHO funding in the middle of the AIDS epidemic, his white house spent years joking about the "gay plague", and he's always polled well with the sorts who see AIDS as a "cure" for a social "ill".
 * The man had a talent for not "saying the quite part out loud", but if you're gonna claim that he "wasn't homophobic in any way" (especially given that that that would be an outlier for the time), you're gonna have to back that up with something. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, WHO funding by the USA typically rises and falls (i.e. yo-yos) regardless of who is President. In Obama's last 3 years (for example) it went from 212 million to 438 then back down to 341 (in 2016). I'm willing to bet you see no conspiracy there against any particular group. So how exactly do you figure opposing the Brigg's initiative "is a pretty low bar to clear"? Especially considering the support it had from the religious right. There is zero evidence that Reagan himself was a homophobe. Homophobes don't have friends like Rock Hudson. And not one quote/soundbite in your link is from Reagan himself. Indeed if you are going to claim he was a homophobe.....you are going to have to back that up. Quotes everyone but him and the typical nonsense about AIDS funding doesn't quite make it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You absolutely do not need to quote Reagan to say anything about his views on the AIDS pandemic or gay people; that would be original research. You need to summarize what scholarly sources say on the topic, which the current section signally fails to do. That talk page discussions on the topic have ended in stonewalling doesn't change the underlying issues at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So what should this section say that it (currently) doesn't say?Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The section needs to be entirely re-written based on scholarly sources, which are numerous; someone like could likely help us identify better ones, but here's some to start, , , plus the Shilts volume. Most of the current material is dreadful, and far from FA standard. It has two sentences discussing scholarly views, one of which is framed as a "claim" (in violation of WP:CLAIM); two sentences of raw stats, one of which uses a primary source; another sentence that just reports a 1986 quote with no context; a claim about funding sourced to a primary source that doesn't support it; and one sentence of "rebuttal" from an administration figure. Essentially all but the first two sentences can be dumped. If there's any rebuttal to the claims of underfunding, it needs to come from scholars. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A concrete proposal is what is needed. But as the section stands now, it captures the most frequent criticisms of the Reagan admin towards the disease (i.e. silence, underfunding, etc). As far as the primary source that doesn't support the funding stat....it's a link off to the side; directly: . As far as any rebuttal can only come from scholarly sources....I disagree. After all, you mentioned you wanted Shilts book in there (presumably 'And the Band Played on...')...and he wasn't a scholar and that's not a scholarly work. (And I say that as someone who wouldn't mind seeing it referenced either.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "and far from FA standard" Not particularly relevant. I don't know when this article became a FA, but it seems to have an overreliance on primary sources. We are citing news articles from Time, The Boston Globe, the BBC, and the New York Times instead of scholarly sources. And who the heck thought that a press release by The Heritage Foundation is an accurate source on Soviet technology? Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Heritage foundation absolutely shouldn't be a source here. High-quality news sources are okay, but only when they're actually supporting the content, and preferably only when they're retrospective sources; otherwise we get into cherry-picking. Rja13ww33, the link you provide does not in any way support the content. It's just raw numbers, it says nothing about "Reagan administration officials countered criticisms of neglect by noting..." which remains original research. Shilts is at least a comprehensive secondary source; "rebuttals" (or criticisms) from administration figures only belong when independent sources give them any weight. I don't have time to create a proposal at the moment, I'm pointing out the lack of neutrality and verifiability because, as has been noted many times before, these need fixing, and failing that an FAR is increasingly looking necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can try to clean up some of these concerns today. About the best reply I've seen on the criticisms has been in National Review (which will require proper attribution). I may throw in some other material as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm doing what I can to trim down everything before I convert most of the references to scholarly sources like the ones in Bibliography of Ronald Reagan. --Wow (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For someone who wasn't homophobic, he sure did ignore AIDS. BigSneeze444 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to avoid having this section auto-archived within days from now. Wow (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * If you take the median at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States he comes in just outside the top quartile (top 28% by my calculation). Maybe not "upper tier" but pretty close. Do you have an alternate wording to propose? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It can be similar to Barack Obama's article wording "middle to upper tier". Maybe? Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Might also be worth noting that he is certainly upper tier among the general public. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "historians and scholars have ranked Reagan among the middle to upper tier of American presidents, and he is often viewed favorably among the general public". Rexxx7777 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

1985 Option - for the reasons I listed above.-7milestoHope (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE&redirect=noLukewarmbeer (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why we are holding two concurrent RFCs on the infobox image? -- Jayron 32 14:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Other conversation covered different photographs. Completely different proposal here. 7milestoHope (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but until we know the results of that RFC, it makes no sense to have this one. You've given us two choices, but what if the other RFC concludes to put the other picture in.  That would invalidate this one.  -- Jayron 32 14:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I waited until that conversation stopped to propose this one. That editor's different proposal has been dormant/concluded for over two weeks. 7milestoHope (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Either will do, 1981 has a darker background & the US presidential flag. While 1985 has the president with greying hair & in the oval office. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: See Current Consensus (above). (#7 to be exact ). I think this RFC should be closed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The last consensus was established 2 years ago. It is fine to revisit with this new and different Rfc. 7milestoHope (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think 2 years is quite long enough to re-visit this. Especially when we are talking voting on the same pics.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Status quo There doesn't appear to be enough of an improvement to make this change and this is a little confusing with multiple discussion. This should be withdrawn. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedure close - no need to rehash established consensus.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, I would support this action. 7milestoHope (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Currently, the photo in the infobox is that of Option 1 below. Today, I discovered that a full version of the image existed (File:Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan.jpg). I uploaded a cropped version of this image to match the current infobox image, and the result is Option 2. I propose changing the infobox image from Option 1 to Option 2 for 2 reasons:
 * 1: Option 1 has much darker colors than Option 2, making it harder to see detail, especially on the suit jacket and the flags.
 * 2: While being approximately the same crop, Option 2 is higher resolution (2,410 × 3,020 pixels) compared to Option 1 (2,399 × 3,000 pixels).

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


 * Option 2 - support as proposer. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: See Current Consensus (above). (#7 to be exact ).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I believe that Consensus #7 ("There is a consensus that Reagan's 1981 official portrait should be the lead image") only strictly requires the use of the 1981 portrait (a.k.a. not the 1985 version). Since Option 2 is still the same image as Option 1, just with different colors and higher resolution, I don't believe changing consensus is required for the proposed switch, except for changing the link in the Consensus box. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (IMHO) doesn't look much like the consensus photo (to me). The closer of that RFC said: "Consensus seems to be that the current image is the best option available...".Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe they meant that it was the best option available out of the ones listed on the RFC. I wonder if they even knew that this alternate version existed. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wrote consensus #7 and interpreted that outcome as the 1981 portrait instead of a specific file, but I've changed the wording of the consensus to be more precise. Wow (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Option 2 – the coloring is not good. I tried to recolor that photo back in 2020 and got this. I then cropped it to the same dimensions as Option 1 and then tried to replace it with my recolored version at Featured picture candidates/delist/Ronald Reagan, only for the nomination to fail. If someone can fix the green tint on his shirt for both of those files, that would be great. --Wow (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't even know about that. It's too bad that the colors can't be fixed (at least by me), as the second version has much more detail than the current one. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although Option 2 does lend a bit of a reptilian-green tint to the subject, it still seems like a more life-like depiction than the blotchy, ketchup-red coloring in Option 1 that makes it look like the subject was afflicted with rosacea during his time in office. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your 2020 image is better than both Options 1 and 2. Can we get an Option 3? Option 1 has just such a garish, bloody-red saturation and is so weak on detail that I'm surprised that your delist nomination failed. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 - Option 1 is strangely oversaturated and lower in quality, while Option 2 has a more realistic coloring and shows more detail in his suit, the background, etc. Jaydenwithay (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the red tint in Option 1 is very off-putting; that is one of the main reasons why I proposed the change. I agree that while Option 2 may have an unfortunate tint as well, the contrast between its level of detail and the lack of detail in Option 1 outweighs any argument for using the existing image. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment – There's File:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981 - Reduced contrast.jpg, which has the same shot as Option 1 but reduced contrast as stated in the file's name. --Wow (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 -I think it is the best quality of the two. The lighting on the other just seems odd.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Can I vote for Option 1.5?  On my monitor, Option 1 looks oversaturated, and Option 2 looks washed out.  Surely we can find a middle ground... -- Jayron 32 15:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 1 — The first photo has worked as the longtime portrait of Reagan on the article and works just fine in my opinion. As some other editors have also raised, the second photo seems to be a little foggy which may be displeasing on some displays. GuardianH (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because Option 1 has been the infobox picture for so long doesn't mean that it can't be better. Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But it does mean that it no doubt works; no discrepancies stick out and it can be considered, at the very least, a reliable portrayal of Reagan's time in office. GuardianH (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither - I am not in support of either and I am proposing that Reagan's second term portrait from 1985 be added for consideration as many other Presidents such as Obama, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and others use an image of the President taken during their second term or sometime in the election year of their second term (Obama in 2012 and LBJ in 1964 for Examples) HistorianL (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 unless... Option 2 is, in my opinion, of higher quality but needs some serious color correction before being used. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Better contrast, and is of featured picture status whilst Option 2 is not. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * why are we not using the portrait on Presidency of Ronald Reagan? Jaydenwithay (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a cropped version of the current image – option #1. Why is that page not using the version used globally throughout Wikipedia? Drdpw (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Prefer Option 1 - Maybe I've just gotten so used to the option 1 version, but option 2 seems to be excessively green tinted. The higher quality doesn't make up for the green tint. I am supporting @HistorianL and @Jayron32's call for a middle ground by adding Reagan's 1985 ofpot to the gallery.  Crusader 1096  (message) 16:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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


 * How is that any different from what we already cover in October Surprise (1980)? :
 * One of the leading national issues during 1980 was the release of 66 Americans being held hostage in Iran since November 4, 1979. Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration—in fact, minutes after he concluded his 20-minute inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election to thwart President Jimmy Carter from pulling off an "October surprise"." Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How we do it is sufficient. This is one of numerous allegations with the October Surprise theory. It's best just to link to that article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s no longer a mere allegation. It’s been known for decades, with numerous foreign sources confirming and verifying it; the most recent source confirming it simply confirms what we already know to be true, namely, that the Republican Party worked behind the scenes to keep Americans imprisoned in Iran to win an election. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's still a allegation. Even the NY Times story said "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic"....and that is being polite since the only people who can corroborate his story all heard it from one source: Barnes himself. This is not to mention the fact John Connally III said he was with his dad when he briefed Reagan about the trip and nothing like this came up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An "allegation" that has more evidence than most historical events considered facts. I don’t expect you to stop denying reality any time soon. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You do know that most of these allegations fell flat on their face during the Congressional investigation of them right? (Starting with Banisadr. Have you ever read what they found in their questioning of him? My money is on "no".) And I nearly fell out of my chair when this article held up Yasser Arafat as some sort of credible source. Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This POV was debunked 12 years ago.. It’s hard to take you seriously when you fail to account for all the evidence at hand. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another non-RS? Way to go!Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * More of your disinformation? I cited the source that the NYT (and all other reliable sources) discussed directly as evidence.  It appears you haven’t read any of the sources discussed here.  No surprise, of course. All you’ve managed to do is repeat old, discredited claims.  That link is from the NYT times article discussed here: "Still, a White House memo produced in November 1991 by a lawyer for President George H.W. Bush reported the existence of “a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown.” That memo was not turned over to Mr. Hamilton’s task force and was discovered two decades later by Robert Parry, a journalist who helped produce a “Frontline” documentary on the October surprise."  Parry is a reliable source and cited by the NYT as such.  It’s obvious you didn’t read the article this entire discussion is based on because you keep making statements directly contrary to it. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article you linked to was not the NY Times. It was the Washington Report....which isn't on our RS list. The article you linked to before was in The Intercept which as per our RS list: "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source". Feel free to try again. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you persist with misinformation after being repeatedly corrected. The article I linked to is FROM the New York Times, who originally linked to it in the article that is the basis of this discussion.  It is abundantly clear that you have not read any of the sources under discussion as you keep making false comments and arguing about long debunked ideas, over and over again.  I even made this explicit in the former comment up above, where I quoted the NYT passage directly.  At this point, it appears that you are intentionally disrupting the discussion, just like you did with all the previous archived discussions. Once again, Parry is a reliable source, he’s a professional journalist who the NYT cited and linked directly, which is where the content and link up above come from.  It doesn’t matter if you personally believe this is an unreliable source, it’s from the NYT.  Case closed; enough of your intentional misdirections and red herrings.  Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You never get tired of distorting/lying about things do you? Only The Intercept article linked to the NY Times. And the NY Times article (as I have pointed out to you before) said "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic..." among other things that call his story into question. In your first post in this thread you said "It’s no longer a mere allegation. It’s been known for decades...". How exactly is a story that is considered "problematic" to confirm a done deal and a proven fact? It isn't. Ditto with Parry's allegations and so on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve addressed your erroneous claims and misinterpretations here. Please refer to that link for any future concerns. If that does not suffice, please visit the Teahouse or the help desk where someone will walk you through how we use sources on Wikipedia. Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well no, you really haven't made your case at all. You've linked/given reference to 3 things here: 2 non-RS (one of which I will address below)....and a article in the NY Times which itself calls into question the Barnes story. Not good enough. To say the October Surprise is the real deal is a calim that needs a multitude of RS saying so....and I don't see it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2023
Regarding the assasination attempt. Original text: On March 30, 1981, Reagan, James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy were struck by gunfire from John Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton. Although "right on the margin of death" upon arrival at George Washington University Hospital, Reagan underwent surgery and recovered quickly.[226] Later, Reagan came to believe that God had spared his life "for a chosen mission".[227]

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

I thought i'd just add a small detail about what he suffered from after the assasination attempt, so that users do not need to go looking for it in the other wikipedia page. --> In case of my horrible structural or grammatical use i would suggest you change a few words to make it read smoother. Thymme (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lizthegrey (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)