Wikipedia

Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 20

< Talk:Ronald Reagan
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Deacon Vorbis in topic Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2019
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

RfC on whether Reagan's successful push for Senate ratification of UN Genocide Convention merits inclusion.

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

The consensus is to exclude this information from the Ronald Reagan article.

Cunard (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Reagan's successful push for Senate ratification of the UN Genocide Convention, including winning over fellow conservatives, show enough of his personality to be worth including in our Ronald Reagan article, as opposed to our Presidency of Ronald Reagan article? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

After 40 years, US appears ready to ratify UN genocide treaty. Reagan credited with deflecting conservative concern on sovereignty, Christian Science Monitor, Nicholas C. McBride, May 10, 1988.

Reagan Signs Bill Ratifying U.N. Genocide Pact, New York Times (Archives), Steven V. Roberts, Nov. 5, 1988.

And the following shortish paragraph might be one such way of including this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=843979122&oldid=843967109

  • Oppose Seems to me to be a fairly trivial moment among the issues the President faces. Virtually no one is pro-genocide, but the bill (largely pushed by Senator Proxmire) got hung up over concerns in how it would effect various actions in the Cold War. (I.e. would it become a propaganda tool?) It's a fairly symbolic action and the UN adopted it decades before the US Senate did. (To no avail since "genocide" has happened even since the US Senate adopted this.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Either SOAPBOXing and/or we may be getting buttered up here for future edits. The editor proposing this has wanted to add all kinds of negative stuff to the article in the past. So this might be trying to give the appearance of objectivity.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33: - Hmmmmm.... Ok. Why folks gotta be hating on Reagan? Can't the GOP have one OK prez from the past 50 years? NickCT (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I do want a full-bodied Reagan and not some Sunday school figure. The main pop culture positive is that Reagan won the cold war, the main pop culture negative is that he wrecked the American middle class. Both are exaggerations! And on both we should strive to be middle-of-the-road using a variety of good sources. As it now stands, our article does not mention "middle class" a single time, and that is just plain weird. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you before: there is no official government statistic that defines one as "middle class". So that's probably why it's not in the article. His contributions to the end of the Cold War (both povs) are included....so I don't think it's missing anything.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
So many agencies and departments of the U.S. gov't compile various economic statistics, I'd be surprised if at least some of them didn't talk about the middle class and attempt various measurements. Even so, there seems like they'd be ample economists, journalists, etc. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Again: there is no official government statistic that defines one as "middle class". (Not sure how many times I'm going to have to say it before it sinks in.) The government does have a official poverty threshold. But to say anyone outside of that is "middle class" (or some level of middle class) is high debateable and depends on a variety of factors (especially cost of living where one lives).Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Then let's go with some unofficial measurements! The claim that Reagan did lasting damage to the American middle class is THE MAJOR criticism thrown at him. And we do a readers a disservice by not including at least several writers who talk about this from a variety of different viewpoints.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The wealth/income gap (which is a pretty deep topic and goes beyond any single politician) is linked in the legacy section of the article. I think that is sufficient. With that said, I will now (as per Drdpw's request) stop the off-topic conversation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@FriendlyRiverOtter: Stop this off topic conversation, as this RfC is NOT about Reagan and the Middle Class. Drdpw (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
And fellow editors, please notice the double standard! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would not mind mentioning that Reagan had the United States join in an international human-rights treaty, making genocide a punishable offence. But the United Nations' text on the participants of the treaty mentions that the United States added some terms of its own before joining. The influence of the treaty on American legislation seems rather mininal. The United States effectively requested exceptions for genocidal acts commited during arned comflicts (!) See: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&clang=_en#EndDec
    • United States of America,
    • Reservations:
      • "(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
    • "*(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."
    • "Understandings:"
      • "(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.
      • (2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.
      • (3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.
      • (4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.
      • (5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate." Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for putting this up here. I think you might be right that the exceptions take away much of the import. The exception during armed conflict does seem a big one as you point out. All the same, it's semi-technical language, and of course treaties can have either a bigger or smaller effect than the wording might imply. Ideally, I'd like to include this as a source, as well as some good journalistic sources.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree that this is UNDUE for this article and is better placed in Presidency. And the bit about showing his personality is pure WP:OR. Look... this article is almost 97,000 chars long. WP:TOOBIG says at 50k we should start thinking about splitting the article. This is not the time to be adding stuff, rather, is there anything we can move to the Presidency article??? – Lionel(talk) 05:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) keep that in Presidency article. and that is distinctly not what TOOBIG says in the least. It is a useful "rule of thumb" and any article to have anything to do with this type is going to be 100-200k. Article size has zero bearing so far on this discussion. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not here - as an implementation detail for the Genocide Convention, it should go into that article if included anywhere, with the Presidentcy article as a distant second-choice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This content belongs in the article about Reagan's presidency, not in his biography. The discussion about the middle class is seriously off topic, and simply does not belong in this RFC. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The United States added the following understanding to its ratification: "(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention."
    https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&clang=_en#EndDec
    Please notice the part "without the specific intent." So, if we're just fighting a war, we don't want to be accused of genocide. Perhaps most countries feel this way. And since genocide can start slowly and only be clear in retrospect, for example manipulating an already existing famine, yes, I would like the definition and my own country's understanding to be quite a bit more proactive. Maybe even the phrase, we will proactively take steps to avoid genocide especially during periods of war, or something of this sort. And if this is a wish-list item, so be it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonsensical sentence in the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the lead this: "Reagan enacted cuts in domestic discretionary spending, cut taxes, and increased military spending contributed to increased federal outlays overall, even after adjustment for inflation." Makes no sense. (It even has a grammar error, it is missing a determiner before "contributed".) Cuts in discretionary spending and cuts to taxes do not increase federal outlays, whatever that made up term means. They increase federal deficits, which is the appropriate and well defined term. I think it would be more precise, and obviously more correct, to change the sentence to: "Reagan enacted cuts in domestic discretionary spending, cut taxes, and increased military spending which contributed to increased federal deficits, even after adjustment for inflation." 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

spelling error in portion on Reykjavík summit.

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

at Reykjavík in October 1986, where they met alone, with translators but with no aides. To the astonishment of the world, and the discussed of Reagan's most conservative supporters

Obviously the word should be "disgust". I would propose, however, that a better word to use would be "chagrin" or "displeasure".

Hope this helps. 203.13.3.94 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for noticing. The section also included grammar errors. Dimadick (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Changes to environmental policy

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is missing a section on environmental policy changes introduced by Reagan.

His actions to severely inhibit the U.S. climate change movement and increasing the exploitation of fossil fuels may have most significant effects on the future of mankind and should be mentioned.

Please refer to chapter six of Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change By Nathaniel Rich for more information.

A little hard to take this seriously considering it claims that the science of Climate Change was "settled" in the 80's. (And it all could have been fixed then.) In actuality, this is the period when consensus was just beginning to form. The article also goes with the (oft repeated) idea that Carter would have somehow fixed this issue while omitting the fact that the cornerstone of Carter's energy plans (far more than the synthetic fuels program) was a two-thirds increase in coal production. Pound for pound, we are talking more CO2 production with Carter than without him. About the only nation that has eliminated this issue (in terms of emissions) is France and that is because of massive use of nuclear energy. And Reagan was a advocate of nuclear energy, while the same people who worry on this issue traditionally haven't been.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Change 1949 to 1948 Coolguy1029 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Where in the article should this be changed and why should it be changed? This request seems to be too vague to be actionable. Sakura CarteletTalk 15:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is There No Mention of Reagan's Defunding of Solar Energy?

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Why is there no mention in the article of Ronald Reagan's repeal and defunding of the solar energy research and business initiatives that had been begun under the presidency of Jimmy Carter? Aside from the glaring ommission of his anti-renewable energy stance, this article is very biased in its depiction of Ronald Reagan's political administrations. Apparently, the article has been written by pro-Reaganite supporters without any counterbalance from editors that don't see him as a god... How did this article get a gold star? How did that slip through the cracks? Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mostly because it did not matter to his main BLP. You could try Presidency of Ronald Reagan if you like though. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It would seem to me to be a fairly minor point in his Presidency. Solar (even by the most generous estimates) has very little potential in satisfying future power demands. (Due (in part) to it's intermittent nature.) In Reagan's time, the collapse of oil prices pretty much dealt a death blow to such research. Carter himself (as I note elsewhere on this page) slated the vast majority of future energy to come from coal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above that is only the most immediately apparent gap. There have been a significant number of omissions in general on his history that are pushed in the press. There is nothing quite like rewriting history by suppressing information is there? It is a way of making a room look sunny even when it is cloudy overhead. Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Eh, the info is already in the article it belongs in. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion there are a number of myths/distortions about the man that are regularly pushed by the media. But this is not a forum.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
We are not talking about myths or opinions, just missing facts. This article only presents some "facts," many of which are skewed, that have been "selected" through the bias of their editors... It is a pervasive problem throughout Wikipedia, and a significant reason for why universities or vetted or peer-reviewed publications will never be able to use the contents of Wikipedia as "factual" contributions from a properly researched encyclopaedia. It will forever remain a mob-based reference. I assume that the two of you are here, because you are watchers who have assigned yourselves as "watchers" to "protect" or "guard" against editor contributions that do not meet your approval. That is thuggery, not collaboration, as was the original intention of this encylopaedic repository. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This version of the Reagan article was as is before I even contributed very much to it. So that assumption is incorrect. The article is actually in better shape than it has been in years. Facts need to be put into perspective. We cannot put every last thing that happened during his presidency into this article. (It's already been criticized for being too long.) So the significance has to be weighed. (Which I have done above.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the article is the perspective. It is entirely one-sided and biased. You and your cohorts who are obviously fans, have rewritten history to remake Ronald Reagan into a myth, rather than a historical figure. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing "one-sided" about this article. I have noted the issues with your proposal. Personal attacks will get us nowhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
And by the way (just to settle this)...the numbers for Federal R&D dollars are here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf (see Figure 1). As you can see Federal spending on all renewables wasn't even 2 billion (in 2016 dollars) in 1981. Even assuming this trend continued, what grand breakthrough would have happened with solar that didn't happen considering the hundreds of billions that have been spent on solar R&D globally since that time?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"That is thuggery, not collaboration, as was the original intention of this encylopaedic repository. " Stevenmitchell, may I remind you that we have a policy called Wikipedia:No personal attacks? : "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."

I am not a fan of Reagan, and personally consider him to be much worse than Jimmy Carter. But the ONUS for including additional material is on you. "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Patriotism

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was re-eading the Legacy section of the article and noticed the phrase: "The combination of Reagan's speaking style, unabashed patriotism"

Should not this be Nationalism or National conservatism instead of Patriotism? Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing explanation about the discovery of Marilyn Monroe

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Currently the article states:

While with the First Motion Picture Unit in 1945, he was indirectly involved in discovering actress Marilyn Monroe.

But that's it. It should be supported with a "how" or a "because" otherwise it just sounds like an empty piece of a meaningless trivia. Did Reagan give her a job? Suggest her to a film producer? etc

Well i did a quick search and found the answer here: how Reagan indirectly discovered Monroe.

Should be in the article though?81.141.60.212 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It does seem tangential to RR’s life story, and as such, immaterial to this article. Drdpw (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Politician ⭢ Statesman

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps it would be time to amend the first paragraph to read 'statesman' rather than 'politician', in accordance with recent amendments made to the article of George H. W. Bush Qaei ☎ 17:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Without timely opposition, I shall change it. Qaei ☎ 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
With the late President George H.W. Bush, it's natural and healthy for people to speak well of someone who has just died. I don't think this means we need to automatically revise other articles. All the same, since Reagan at the very least did allow a wind-down to the cold war, I don't have a big problem referring to him as a statesman. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In December 1983, while speaking to an audience of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, Ronald Reagan recounted an inspirational act of bravery by a former Medal of Honor recipient: "A B‑17 coming back across the channel from a raid over Europe, badly shot up by anti‑aircraft ... The young ball‑turret gunner was wounded, and they couldn't get him out of the turret there while flying. But over the channel, the plane began to lose altitude, and the commander had to order bail out. And as the men started to leave the plane, the last one to leave – the boy, understandably, knowing he was being left behind to go down with the plane, cried out in terror – the last man to leave the plane saw the commander sit down on the floor. He took the boy’s hand and said, 'Never mind, son, we'll ride it down together.' Congressional Medal of honor posthumously awarded."[1] New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson subsequently checked all 434 Medal of Honor awards and could find no citation matching Reagan's story. Days later Nelson wrote, "It’s not true ... It didn’t happen. It’s a Reagan story ... The President of the United States went before an audience of 300 real Congressional Medal of Honor winners and told them about a make‑believe Medal of Honor winner."(Lars-Erik Nelson, The New York Daily News. December 16, 1983) Disabled veteran Dominic Antonucci, after reading Nelson's column, suggested that the story bore similarities to a scene in the 1944 film Wing and a Prayer. "Adding to the confusion," wrote Nelson, "Dana Andrews at one point reprimands a glory‑seeking young pilot with the words: 'This isn’t Hollywood.' ... You could understand that some in the audience might confuse reality with fiction."( Lars-Erik Nelson, The New York Daily News. December 28, 1983) Nelson later wrote that Reagan's story was also found to have similarities a fictional account in the April 1944 issue of Reader's Digest.(Lars-Erik Nelson, The New York Daily News. January 11, 1984)] Madanda1 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

suggested edit to correct: change "538 electoral votes" to "531 electoral votes" to reflect number at time of FDR

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reagan faced former vice president Walter Mondale when he ran for re-election in 1984, and defeated him, winning the most electoral votes of any U.S. president, 525, or 97.6 percent of the 538 votes in the Electoral College. This was the second-most lopsided presidential election in modern U.S. history after Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1936 victory over Alfred M. Landon, in which he won 98.5 percent or 523 of the 531 electoral votes.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonggi (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Y Corretion made; thanks for pointing out the error. Drdpw (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

drop minor episodes

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Wiki has limited space and numerous short items need to be dropped--they are mostly about other people--a protester, a reduced sentence--usually ones that are hardly known--and say little or nothing about Reagan and do not help readers. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Rjensen, do you have specific suggestions? If so, go ahead and trim where you think appropriate; you have a good eye for detail. Drdpw (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks--I trimmed it a bit. Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So for my info: is this the desired length of the article? Or is there a consensus on that one way or the other?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Judiciary tab says he only had three appointees to the sc after listing 4 appointments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.5.238.37 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Y You are correct, Reagan did make 4 SCOTUS appointments: O'Connor, Rehnqust, Scalia and Kennedy; I will make the correction. Drdpw (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

CIA/Drug/Contra allegations

Latest comment: 5 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

These allegations are sufficiently covered in other articles (directly/indirectly) referenced by this one. Furthermore, even bringing up Gary Webb's allegations are unnecessary as the scope of what he claimed (i.e. the most significant aspects) were proven false and are sufficiently covered in his article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a biographical article on Reagan -- not on the CIA. Gary Webb did allege the CIA was involved but his book never says that Reagan was trafficking cocaine. Nor does any reliable secondary source, not anor any of the sources listed in the controversial edit. Multiple investigations by Congress & leading newspapers have rejected Webb's claims about the CIA trafficking cocaine. see CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually Webb's book did make some (preposterous) allegations about the Reagan admin directly. But (like I said) his work has largely been discredited on this topic (despite all the recent efforts to rehabilitate his image). There isn't much doubt that many were willing to look the other way about who they were working with (witness the William French Smith letter). But that is hardly tantamount to advocating drug entry into the country. It's a result of the logistical issues of keeping a army in supply while simultaneously working within a natural drug route. (I.e. you've got to get supplies to people in the backwater of a third world country.) No serious expert on the drug trade has ever said the Contras/Nicaraguans who got mixed up in the drug trade played a pivotal role. One of Webb's own colleagues (while checking his story) called 30 cocaine experts, and none agreed with Webb's notions of the Contras "sparking" any epidemic.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
But none of the sources cited in the June 7th edit [2] (nor subsequent) are the San Jose Mercury News.
And since you bring it up, I understand the Washington Post was against the Gary Webb story primarily because of "not invented here" syndrome, and the whole story was much more interesting than merely Webb being "proved" wrong. Perhaps he blurred what he believed to be the case with what he could demonstrate was the case. In any case, we do have other journalistic sources, such as: "US Concedes Contras Linked to Drugs, But Denies Leadership Involved," Associated Press, April 17, 1986.
We need to go with these, neither overstating nor understating. And even though we often do go with merely one source, I'd like to have at least two, and preferably three.
And fairly or unfairly, presidents get blamed for scandals within their administration. Same for governors and mayors. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I frankly don't see the need. If this resulted in something significant (something the DOJ investigation rejected completely).....I could see it. But this was a negligible impact on the drug trade and was par for the course with most rebel groups (on both sides) of the Cold War (especially in the latter stages). Including operational issues in CIA activities isn't something really noteworthy in a POTUSA bio. As for Webb.....it really was a case of a lack of editorial oversight. (And a guy just not familiar with the drug trade.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It's part of Iran-Contra. And furthermore, it's something people know about and often hold misconceptions about. So, if we summarize the parts which are documented with references, we're doing a world of good and doing exactly what we're supposed to.
Rather agree with you regarding rebel armies. It's almost like we'd have to look to find the exceptions as far as ones which stay with their original high- or at least merely medium-minded goals. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Including this (operational aspect) in the President's bio is unnecessary. This is more of a CIA scandal than anything else.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Seeking solid secondary references -- yeah or nay -- on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra scandal:
A transcript of a House or Senate committee hearing would be a primary source. An article in a newspaper discussing such a hearing is a secondary source. In addition, a news article discussing a White House report is also a secondary source, such as:
  • 'Some individual Nicaraguan Contras may have engaged in activity with drug traffickers, but there is no evidence that leaders of the rebels were involved, the Reagan administration says.
  • 'A three-page report from the administration said Wednesday that the Contra connections to the drug traffickers occurred in 1984 and 1985, when the rebels were ″particularly hard pressed for financial support″ because they were not receiving U.S. aid. . . '
  • ' . . . In the paper, the administration asserted that ″we have no evidence that the leadership of the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO) is, or has been, engaged in drug trafficking.″ . . . '
---------------------------------
  • 'A pilot told a Senate hearing Wednesday that his firm contracted with the State Department to fly clothing to Nicaragua's Contras in 1986 at the same time he was operating as an undercover drug smuggler for two federal agencies. . . '
  • ' . . . "There will be other witnesses who will testify about running drugs simultaneously while running supplies to the Contras," [Sen. John] Kerry said. . . '
And reader, I encourage you to look for other articles or sources and pull what, in your judgment, are the most pithy excerpts. And then we will still need to summarize. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Why exactly would this be worthwhile to include in the article?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the allegations are part of Iran-Contra. They are however, only tangentially tied to Ronald Reagan himself; thus they are immaterial here in this broad life-biographical article. So, summarize the parts which are documented with references in the Iran–Contra affair article. That's the place to include detailed information about these allegations, not in the main Ronald Reagan article. Drdpw (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The section of our article entitled Presidency (1981–1989) is going to include policies, actions, etc, above and beyond what Regan himself the man did. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The article, including the Iran-Contra subsection does that quite well as it is. I see no good reason for folding this tangential material into the mix. Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
-----------------------
  • 'THE CENTRAL Intelligence Agency deliberately ignored evidence of drug smuggling by its Contra allies in the Eighties, the agency has admitted. . . former CIA Inspector-General Frederick Hitz . . . '
  • ' . . . In six cases, "CIA knowledge of accusations or information indicating that organisations or individuals had been involved in drug trafficking did not deter their use or employment by [the] CIA." . . . '
  • ' . . . Many allegations concern the pilots who flew military supplies to the Contras. . . . . . The CIA response was direct: "Would appreciate Station advising [DEA] not to make any inquiries to anyone re Hangar no. 4 at Ilopango since only legitimate... supported operations were conducted from this facility." . . . '
  • ' . . . The Hitz report is adamant that the CIA itself did not indulge in cocaine smuggling to support the Contras' operations. "No information has been found to indicate that CIA as an organisation or its employees conspired with, or assisted, Contra-related organisations or individuals in drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras or for any other purpose," it says. . . '
As above, it's our goal to be right down the middle, neither over-shading nor under-shading. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Like I said: mostly a CIA scandal. Adequately covered elsewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As I've said before FRO, the information you wish to add to this article is tangential here and belongs elsewhere. Drdpw (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
To me, it's a big part of Iran-Contra, which is a major political scandal. Don't see how it's tangential in any form.
In addition, people sometimes remember this or state this in shorthand form as "CIA running drugs." And even if one is to argue that providing cover to drug smugglers is not too different from doing it yourself, we can't blur in that way. Here at Wiki, we've got to stay right down the line with what our references say. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
We need a goodly range of participants. Not just a few folks chatting around the office water cooler, so to speak. Have started the below RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

It seems that Rja13ww33 is canvassing !votes: [3][4][5] –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Just alerting regular contributors. Rjensen and Drdpw have in fact already expressed their opinions before this RFC. Just need them to record it formally.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I’ve issued a warning for canvassing. User:Rjal3ww33, it would be more appropriate to provide notification to all WikiProjects tagged here. Regardless of motive, tagging individual editors looks highly suspicious. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
edit conflict What about FriendlyRiverOtter? And why did you notify Lionelt who hasn't been active here? –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
In case you missed it: FRO has already voted. Lionelt has been active here in the past and is a good contributor in the past. I have no idea what his view will be on this. I was not aware of this rule and will keep it in mind in the future.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, I'm thinking you asked people you're comfortable working with and whose past work you respect. I personally don't have a problem inviting three people.
My big issue is that we need significantly more people participating. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I asked people who had already expressed and opinion and one more who is a regular.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Inviting past editors of Reagan article, say, within last three months

The past editors who haven't already participated here, and everybody but the bots! And something simply such as:

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

And this won't even be within a country mile of polling because we're inviting all previous participants. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I invited all editors of the Reagan page up through and including March 24th, except for those who had already participated in the RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Is our Reagan article pristinely perfect as of 2019?

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I say, perhaps even some major issues.

Judiciary section

For example, this edit from June 19, 2019, regarding the supreme Court in which we're really trying to nail down and communicate clearly that Reagan promoted Rehnquist from Associate Justice to Chief Justice and then appointed three brand new faces to the Court. And I'm still not sure that on a quick reading, or partial reading, that we really got it right. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph so that it more clearly conveys the fact that Reagan made 4 Supreme Court appointments (to fill 1 chief justice vacancy and 3 associate justice vacancies). Drdpw (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Just the way you phrase it right there: " . . made 4 Supreme Court appointments (to fill 1 chief justice vacancy and 3 associate justice vacancies)." A lot of people are going to read it quickly and make the assumption, 4 brand new faces on the Court. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Extremely unlikely; your argument is based a false premise. The subsection clearly communicates that Reagan elevated Rehnquist from AJ to CJ and appointed three new members to the Court. Drdpw (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Article lede

Or, this edit as of July 19th, "condense lede; move material . . ." For a total loss of 1,369 bytes. That's a pretty major change. And I don't see other editors jumping in to help this editor, or at least give it a good once over. Well, we're all pressed for time, and have our specific interests, that's a fact. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In your estimation, what specifically should not have been moved or redacted? Drdpw (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm deep-diving on the Contra drug issue, and now the Court issue, plus my other interests. It doesn't have to be me. But it is disconcerting that seemingly no one has taken a look at a pretty major change. Oh, well, hopefully we'll get lucky. And again, sometimes you have to just jump in there and make a major change. I'm glad the member did so. But then, like any writing, sometimes it's helpful to have a fresh pair of eyes to review something. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Well the drug issue is in the process of being addressed.....so I'm not sure why you would make it an issue here as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of OTR's reason, following this discussion has taken all who watch this page on a convoluted journey. Drdpw (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran–Contra affair

Well, big changes, small changes, sometimes if you don't make the change, it doesn't get done.

On the specific subject of Iran-Contra, because it is controversial, I favor step-by-medium-step, with solid support by references. Nothing fancy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There are no "pristinely perfect" articles anywhere. But this article is excellent shape considering the space allotted.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, outside of the drug issue, would you care to be more specific about what is the issue with the Iran-Contra section?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Assault

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hasn't this been added and canned before? Can we develop a (permanent) consensus as to if it is worth including (so it doesn't keep dropping in and out)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What assault? What is the history of assault being added/ removed from this page? Dy3o2 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Assault It's appeared.....then disappeared over the years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No, this should not be included in the page. It is not relevant. Rick4512 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Including one anti-immigration activist's opinion of Reagan's immigration reform

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's nothing NPOV about only including criticism of Reagan's immigration reform, in particular when the sole criticism is from a founder of the crackpot organization Center for Immigration Studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Going to re-remove this. Taunton was a white nationalist and his concerns are not relevant to anything. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Reagan and Apartheid

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedural close - there is another section with a pending resolution. Jdcomix (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the article concisely cover Reagan and the Reagan administration's approach and record on Apartheid in South Africa, such as the basic elements of Constructive engagement (the administration's policy on South Africa) and the administration's 1986 veto of apartheid sanctions, which prompted Congress to override his veto (the first time since the War Powers Resolution in 1973 that a presidential foreign policy veto was overridden)?[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

For context, this is how H.W. Brands, the Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin, covers Reagan and Apartheid in his Reagan biography, Reagan: The Life:

“At a time when much of the world sought to isolate South Africa by economic and diplomatic sanctions, Reagan stood by the government of P. W. Botha. Reagan and his administration contended that “constructive engagement” with South Africa would promote democratic reform while preserving the country from the African National Congress, which included elements Reagan deemed alarmingly communist and pro-Soviet. The policy inspired heavy criticism of Reagan; Bishop Desmond Tutu, a black South African cleric who won the Nobel Peace Price for opposing apartheid, denounced Reagan’s policy as “immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.” Eventually, Congress approved sanctions against South Africa and, when Reagan vetoed the bill, overrode the veto.”

Survey

Comment: Recommend this is closed. We are close to a resolution in another section (that will likely result in a addition). So I'm not sure why this was started.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Rja13ww33. Toa Nidhiki05 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No mention of Reagan's dog whistle politics

Latest comment: 5 years ago40 comments12 people in discussion

The term "welfare queen" does not appear anywhere in this article, nor are any of Reagan's coded racial appeals. Ian Haney López's Dog Whistle Politics (Oxford University Press) devotes considerable attention to Reagan. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Also covered elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queenRja13ww33 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Which only further demonstrates that this is notable enough to include in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not really....especially considering the errors Lopez makes on this subject....including claiming (in the book you mention) that the Reagan's welfare queen was "mythical". That has been completely debunked. See my link above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I eagerly anticipate your peer-reviewed publication rebutting Lopez's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Already done. Even Slate (finally) admitted that the "welfare queen" was real.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html (And was guilty of far worse than RR ever accused her of.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Somehow you (1) don't understand the concept of peer-review and (2) link to a piece which is a summary of a book literally titled, The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth. It would be funny if it weren't a good indication of why this Wikipedia article has been scrubbed of all kinds of highly notable content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
So I point out (with indisputable proof) where Lopez is wrong on this and you would like me to write a book to be peer reviewed? Interesting. By the way, what "peer review" (other than a book review) did Lopez's book get? Academics crawled all over it to check it's accuracy.....or did he get a pat on the back on places like MSNBC or The Nation?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
What on Earth are you rambling about? The link that you yourself plastered on this talk page as a purported rebuttal of the welfare queen myth is a book that is literally titled The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read the link (in particular the first few paragraphs). The author discusses others who (like Lopez) claimed she didn't exist. The fact is: she did, and her crimes (as is also laid out) were even worse than that. Any of this making sense yet?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree this should be covered. The fact that these issues are covered elsewhere is unhelpful when those articles are not even linked here. And if the issues are covered here, they also require a summary. The newly released tapes are directly linked to that and clearly relevant to this article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
These issues are relatively minor compared to his overall life.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV provides that we "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The welfare queen issue is certainly significant and has been discussed widely in numerous RSs. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Well obviously we disagree as to if it is significant enough to include here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Ian Haney López is clearly a partisan figure that sees racism in everything. Although presented as one, dog whistling is not an exact science. The fact that the term 'stop monkeying around' can be seen as a dog whistle depending on who says it, depending on who its said to, demonstrates my point. So I don't think it's fair to mention welfare queen as a form of racist dog whistle when the intention of Reagan was not to bring race into it, but to acknowledge the real abuses in the welfare system. If you want to bring up the term welfare queen in this article, make it neutral and mention that Reagan's intent was to shine light on abuses and bring about reform. Dy3o2 (talk)
I'm still waiting to hear what this alleged "peer review" actually consisted of (considering the fundamental facts of the book are screwed up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Reagan referring to black people as monkeys seriously calls into question your claims of his intent. Taken together they support the necessity to include this as a significant issue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
How is that not synthesis? Dy3o2 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The proposed section (still included here) discussed a number of examples of racism. There was no synth. I'm saying this isn't an isolated instance, and numerous examples support including the section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not more than a sentence or two - Lopez's opinion/interpretation regarding Reagan's words should not be accorded undue weight. SunCrow (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No My reasons are given above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Uh, yeah It was a big part of his politicking. He used the case of an alleged "welfare queen" in his 1976 and 1980 races for president. It goes along with the policy positions he favored as president. Here's a WaPo article on it from May 2019. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment You need to show not that it is mentioned in literature about dog whistle politics but that it is mentioned in standard biographies of Reagan. To what degree did Reagan appeal to racism in order to win the presidency and how racist were his policies? None of this is addressed in the article, but then I don't know the extent to which the literature on Ronald Reagan address these issues. TFD (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    The Four Deuces, there's quite a bit on it, mostly based on the "welfare queen" thing. [7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Four deuces, this is discussed in Lou Cannon's bio on Reagan (to name one). But no serious biographer of him (including Lou) has ever said his winning the Presidency was due to race.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, nobody said he won the presidency due to racism. However, the sources are clear in how he used the welfare queen story in his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. How much that factored into his 1980 win is unknowable. The Four Deuces, here's another source about Nixon and Reagan's racial appeals leading to Trump's. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not questioning whether Reagan used dog-whistle politics, but what weight sources about him give it. Lou Cannon's biography based on a quick glance gives little space to it. TFD (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, it's very knowable if you follow the polls of the time. In any case, contrary to mythology of the Democratic party (about Neshoba and so on) this racial "code" stuff was pretty far from the centerpiece of Reagan's campaigns. A lot of people could have beaten Carter in '80. (Code or no code.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is much like the Willie Horton ad, which is mentioned on the H.W. Bush page. In fact, as demonstrated, this was used more extensively and in more than one campaign. Indeed, the term "welfare queen" is inextricably linked to Reagan − how can it not even be linked here? Absolutely significant, and potentially violates NPOV if we choose not to include. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Willie Horton was a much bigger part of the '88 campaign than the welfare queen thing was in '80.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The term, and its link to Reagan, are still in the news today: [9] [10] [11]. How does this article not even link to the page on the term? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The (search) term goes straight to the article on the subject.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
And the page itself states, "During his initial bid for the Republican nomination in 1976, and again in 1980, Reagan constantly made reference to the "Welfare Queen" at his campaign rallies." Contradicting your assertions that it was an insignificant part of the campaign. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You made the comparison to Willie Horton. If that is the comparison, the welfare queen wasn't mentioned once in the debates in '80.....Willie Horton was discussed in the debates in '88.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how all that is tied to the topic at hand. Reagan was critical of programs that just about all Americans currently use.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No It should be kept in his presidency article, it lacks weight for here. Also the idea of a "racism" section is an absolutely no. PackMecEng (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, sort of I think this is the kind of thing where he use of specific terms, if mentioned, should be explained using direct attribution so analysis is done in the source's voice. Something like "Reagan used the term "<insert term here>", which has been characterized by <source A> and <source B> as "dog whistle politics". It seems that in mainstream, reliable sources this is an important part of the narrative, but I also think we need to attribute the analysis of the deeper meaning of such terms in the voice of the sources of that analysis rather than Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 14:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra

Latest comment: 5 years ago62 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to include a very brief mention. A noticeable majority, but a narrow one, support inclusion (if it were much narrower, I'd have to say there was no consensus). Several of the supporters of inclusion emphasize that the topic is, though important enough to mention to give context to the scandal, is so tangential to the biography of the man himself that the mention should be very brief. I don't see much support for FriendlyRiverOtter's suggestion of "a medium-length paragraph or two short paragraphs", even "three sentences" is probably too much. Something like Jschnur's suggestion of a few words added to an existing sentence seems as close as we can hope to get to a consensus position. As several people have said, the topic deserves more in depth coverage, but not in this article; we have multiple other articles that go more in depth on the Contras and the scandal. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes. It's a major part of the Iran-Contra affair, which was the scandal of the Reagan administration. In addition, it's something people remember and occasionally talk about. It's a bit of a glaring admission for us not to include it. Furthermore, we've got good references, such as:
    CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent [UK], Andrew Marshall in Washington, 7 November 1998:
    " . . . The Cold War was in full flood in the mid-Eighties, and the then president Ronald Reagan was on a crusade. He was intent on ousting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua with the assistance of his CIA boss, William Casey, and Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council. . . "
    To me, this is a big enough part of Reagan's presidency and should clearly be included in the longish Presidency (1981–1989) section we already have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No - This is already covered in other articles and is only tangentially related to Reagan. This content belongs in other articles. Honestly this RFC is completed unnecessary given everyone else here has said it isn’t worth including. Toa Nidhiki05 16:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    But this "everyone else" only included two persons. And on as important a topic as our Ronald Reagan article, we're going to need a few more more folks than that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    In actuality, 4 editors (including myself) total have rejected this (either in the talk section or here): Rjensen, me, Drdpw, and Toa.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    In the above section "CIA/Drug/Contra allegations," I discussed whether to include or not with only two fellow editors: Rja13ww33 and Drdpw. I see that Rjensen made one comment before I got there. And on the history page for the article itself, I see Toa twice deleted the drug angle. Hey, it's all good, we're all pressed for time. Whatever contributions people are able to make is for the better. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No - This is really more of a CIA/Contra scandal and doesn't have much connection to the Reagan admin. True it was (loosely) part of the Iran-Contra scandal, but it was also a normal byproduct of the Cold War as it was not unusual at all for rebel groups to get mixed up in the drug trade. The fact that the CIA was willing to look the other way makes it worth noting in it's article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    "doesn't have much connection to the Reagan admin" ? ? . . . . . More assertively confronting the Soviet Union was a big part of his foreign policy, and Iran-Contra was almost certainly the major scandal of his administration. I see the Contra drug smuggling as a medium part of a big part and well worth including. Now, this said, of course not to the extent of bogging the article. More like a medium-length paragraph or two short paragraphs, something of this length. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    Very tenuous connection at best. It's rare to include field snafus in clandestine ops in a President's bio unless it results in something significant. In this case, it meant nothing as numerous investigations have established.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes as was significantly covered in reliable sources in connection to Reagan Atlantic306 (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No no biography mentions this--and no RS in recent years acdepts the claim, which was refuted decades ago. No CIA employee shipped drugs. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No the information is already covered in other articles and is only tangentially related to RR. This content belongs in those other articles, not in this one. Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
People have such misconceptions about this, I don't see how a single sentence is going to do it. Maybe three sentences if we really get it tight. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
If it has to be included (and I wish it wasn't because it is covered well elsewhere), I'd agree with that. You'd have to make clear the CIA wasn't being a particularly good watchdog.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning against inclusion. It seems disproportionate to mention such a tertiary aspect of the event in the biography of a subject not directly involved in that aspect. bd2412 T 20:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm new so I apologize if I'm not following the right protocol. I'm actually the cause of this discussion because I originally added a section that was since removed. My thought is that there should at least be a sentence to direct others to other articles with more info, because without including it there is no way someone would even know to look. It feels like censorship to not mention that many Americans do associate RR with the influx of cococaine in the US...Again, please have patience with my inexperience.Marialeeg (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If someone was interested in this subject.....I'm not sure why they would come to this article in the first place. The first place most people would start (I would think) would be the Contra article which has references all over the place. There is (also) a entire article devoted to the CIA's "involvement" with drug trafficking as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Marialeeg, I re-added your work twice (June 12th and 13th), only changing the beginning a little, because I think your work's plenty good enough and our article is better with it than without. Now, I would like to have clickable links if possible, even though that is not an etched-in-concrete policy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, I envision someone coming to our Reagan article maybe because they're heard him referred to a couple of times and would like a good overview. Or, maybe there's a particular aspect of Reagan they'd like to dive into. Now, you write CIA's "involvement" adding the quotation marks. If the CIA is providing cover to even a couple of drug smugglers, that does sounds like involvement to me. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Someone coming here for that has been listening to a lot of urban legends. All this is beat to death elsewhere in wiki. And I put the involvement of the CIA in quotation marks because rarely do I see it quantified/qualified (as I have done elsewhere in this discussion). Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to say no, we do not include. The contents are adequately covered in other articles, and Reagan denies direct involvement anyhow. The article's arc on Iran-Contra was basically that it was a scandal that affected Reagan's presidency, because he ought to have known, and perhaps put a stop to, the payments to the Contras. If one wants to know about the drugs - they can go to the myriad of other articles available that describe this topic. Colipon+(Talk) 20:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    Nicely stated; adding tangential information to the Iran–Contra affair section doesn't enhance or improve it. If anything, adding CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking to section hatnote would suffice. Drdpw (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No already covered in other articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - The scandal must be mentioned, since it was an important element of the Reagan administration and the drug smuggling must be mentioned, since it was an important part of the scandal. Simple. It is also a very well documented element, even if some people aren't aware of it, given the cleaning operation that has been done on Reagan's image over the last three decades or so. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment What cleansing operation? The man is still blamed for the negative effects of his financial policies. To quote the article on his Presidency: "Critics contend that Reagan's economic policies resulted in rising budget deficits,[1] a wider gap in wealth, and an increase in homelessness.[2] Liberals especially disapproved of Reagan's simultaneous tax cuts for the wealthy and benefit cuts for the poor.[3] " Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    Dimadick, Reagan is absolutely elevated to sainthood! The negative facts are usually simply not mentioned. And that our article tries to include both positive and negative is to our credit. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure how anyone can say it was a important part of the scandal. I recall it being virtually nonexistent (outside of the occasional article(s) in places like The Nation and the Kerry committee findings which were in the back of most newspapers). It wasn't until The San Jose Mercury News allegations that this became what it is now (in the minds of many).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The more information the better. (Posted by GyaradosInTheSea on Monday, July 1, 2019 at 8:48 P.M.)
  • No The current level of detail devoted to the Iran-Contra Affair is appropriate. The section provides a good overview of what happened, notes that it became an important political scandal that badly damaged Reagan's standing with the public, covers the subsequent investigations, and briefly discusses the international response. Nothing further is needed on this page. Further coverage can and is given at presidency of Ronald Reagan, Reagan administration scandals, and Iran–Contra affair. I know it can be hard to determine exactly what should and shouldn't be included in a given article, but we need to be cognizant of Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:INDISCRIMINATE or we'll end up with a huge article that contains random information *cough*, rather than an article that provides a fairly concise, comprehensive summary of the subject. Orser67 (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Add a very brief mention to the last paragraph such as:"Many Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, calling him an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses and drug trafficking, while others say ..." (addition bolded). Jschnur (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) Covered thoroughly elsewhere, only minor ties to the article subject. CThomas3 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes To the best of my knowledge, being such related content(s)/matters in the article can make the page to be more informative/helpful for the readers; especially by paying heed that it is a related famous significant issue. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously. It is one of the most notable parts of his presidency and should be described to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The closer of this RfC should take into account that the editor Rja13ww33 has brazenly engaged in canvassing for this RfC[14][15][16] (solely alerting editors who were likely to vote one way in this RfC), and the editors Rjensen and Drdpw only voted in the RfC after being alerted by Rja13ww33. I have on occasion been alerted about RfCs and on-going content disputes, but I always abstain from participating if there's even a hint of impropriety and canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
If you actually read the section....every editor I alerted had already expressed an opinion on this subject (except for one) and I wanted them to record it formally.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cannon (2001), p. 128
  2. ^ Dreier, Peter (2011-02-04). "Reagan's Real Legacy". The Nation. Retrieved 2018-04-07.
  3. ^ Patterson, p. 158

Discussion

US Concedes Contras Linked to Drugs, But Denies Leadership Involved, Associated Press, April 17, 1986.
' . . . The drug allegations have clearly hurt Reagan’s efforts to win more aid to the rebels, partly because the president has repeatedly denounced Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government for its alleged role in drug trafficking. . . '
' . . . The report to [Representative Charles] Stenholm was promised by President Reagan personally while lobbying congressmen last week for support of his $100 million Contra aid package. . . '

Sure looks like the ol' Gipper is investing himself personally in the issue. One more reason to include it in our article.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean by that. Yes Reagan accused the Sandinistas of trafficking in drugs....while the Contras were doing the same. But this is hardly worth mentioning for the reasons I stated. But lets cut to the chase: the people who have wanted to do this in the past (even a watered down version) are doing so in a calculated attempt to try to connect the crack "explosion" to the Reagan admin and the Contras. And I'm sure you'll deny that is your intent (and it may very well not be your intent).....but that is what it is (plain and simple). This is no more worth noting in the Reagan bio than Air America is in Nixon & LBJ's bio (and it isn't). About the closest it gets is Ollie North probably being aware that some of the people he was hiring were likely mixed up in the drug trade....which is meaningless. If he turned them in.....then what? Crack/cocaine would be gone? Of course not. 3 Federal investigations established that the numbers of Contras involved were insignificant to the trade. (The Medellin cartel employed 750,000 while the entire Contra movement had about 25,000 people. And I'd like to add that even a lot of the advocates of this have carried on about the grand total of 50 pilots, traffickers, etc the CIA supposedly paid.) This whole thing was a normal byproduct of funding a rebel group in the third world on a active drug route.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, you're saying that because of other people who have caused problems in the past ? ? This is pretty much the worse attitude I've heard in some time! In fact, I think there's an old saying, "Never let the fact that they're doing it wrong prevent you from doing it right," or something to this effect. We should strive to be down-the-middle with references, regardless of what other people are doing.
And ideally, since you and I are among the most active, I'd like us to agree on a general approach and a short summary and pull 2/3's of other participants along with us. This may or may not be possible, but I'd like to try. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to try too. But I can't imagine why any "down-the-middle", knowledgeable person would want to include this in a president's bio.(Especially considering the fact they try to keep these trim.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
No, that's not how this works; it's not about you (or even a few "most active" editors) "pulling" others along, it's about listening to what other editors say in response to your question. It appears to me, given that you're desiring to plow ahead with "a general approach and a short summary" of drug trafficking activities in spite of the fact that a consensus to add such has not developed, that you are not listening. Drdpw (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Drdpw, I am listening, even if the word "tangential" has been used often enough that it might well be a mantra.
And yes, with participants split about 50-50 between yes and no, it does seem to me that something succinct and middle-of-the-road might well achieve two-thirds support.
And if you were to say, well, truth is not always in the middle, I'd very much agree. For example, in the 1700s, germ theory was not a majority position, but it sure turned out to be true. And I bet we could come up with a hundred similar examples.
Okay, another way would be if each of us tried to get one or two solid, fact-based references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Since there is nowhere near a consensus (at this time) for inclusion.....I don't know why those of us who oppose this idea would need to "to get one or two solid, fact-based references" to include something that we feel has no place here. You've gotten more than "just a few folks chatting around the office water cooler" (as you put it) to weigh in on this.....and it's more than just us water cooler folks who disagree with this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm counting 10 yes, 8 no, two leaning against ("Leaning against," and "inclined to say no"), and if we count as in the middle "Perhaps" and "One sentence at most," then we almost have a dead heat! And I know consensus means (most of all!) that we should keep working. So, yes, I welcome fresh ideas.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If there is no consensus to include....I don't know exactly what we (especially those of us who oppose this addition) should keep working towards. I think it warrants no mention at all in this article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
------------------------
CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent [UK], 7 Nov. 1998:
' . . . The CIA response was direct: "Would appreciate Station advising [DEA] not to make any inquiries to anyone re Hangar no. 4 at Ilopango [El Salvador] . . " . . . '
' . . . Three days later, he [CIA station chief] called Mr Castillo over to his office, and pulled $45,000 from his desk drawer. "`I've got money left over from my budget," he said. `Take this for your anti-narcotics group. Go buy them some cars'." . . . '
Notice that it's corruption on the cheap, which I understand in the real world is often how it works. And much of the time, the person still feels guilty enough, and compromised enough, not to follow up. And/or they correctly perceive that it's risk to them without enough potential upside of improving the situation and/or correctly perceive that they don't have colleagues likely enough to skillfully stand in solidarity with them. But in this case, the DEA agent did later go public. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
How you phrase things seems like you have an axe to grind. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If you read the DOJ/CIA report, they get into the allegations here. (And (I think) raise several important questions about Mr. Castillo's story.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to add: this illustrates one of the problems with this. It's absolutely rife with misinformation and innuendo. It's going to be difficult to drop anything in with brevity and accuracy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, you very welcome to include a good journalistic account of the report (which might be the same report which the Independent article talks about). And you say you think this raises important questions about Mr. Castillo's story. Now, I know you're savvy enough not to say we should therefore dismiss the whole topic. But many people do. Many people seem to have a mental map in which a whistleblower is so perfectionist (and even Billy Graham-like!), that if he or she ends up having human foibles afterall, they will kick at and dismiss the entire topic.
As citizens, we should know that being a whistleblower is really difficult. Having support from family is crucial. In particular, it's recommended that a person ask their spouse ahead of time, and not merely tell them after the fact.
CIA turned a deliberate blind eye to Contras' drug smuggling, Independent [UK], 7 Nov. 1998. This article focuses on the CIA's own internal report. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Especially given that this “rife with misinformation and innuendo” information, which is already covered in other articles, is only tangentially related to Reagan, making it not noteworthy in this biographical article. Drdpw (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
DIYeditor, on the question of whether I have an "ax to grind" . . . well, I don't like official corruption. And I'm guessing that you don't like it either, right? And to me, it's obvious we should include the Contra-drug angle, but it's also obvious not everyone feels that way! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
And if it had a direct tie (rather than a tenuous one) to the subject of this bio......I'd want to include it too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
If a topic is "rife with misinformation and innuendo," that's an argument to do it right! (rather than an argument to not do it at all) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It's done right elsewhere on wiki. No need to do it here (IMHO).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please revert the word 'demented' (Revision as of 17:59, 27 September 2019) back to 'sweeping' in the second paragraph. That is, please change:

"Soon after taking office as president, Reagan began implementing demented new political and economic initiatives. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics", advocated tax rate reduction to spur economic growth, economic deregulation, and reduction in government spending."

So that it again reads:

"Soon after taking office as president, Reagan began implementing sweeping new political and economic initiatives. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics", advocated tax rate reduction to spur economic growth, economic deregulation, and reduction in government spending."

71.126.164.235 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Reverted –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan/Archive_20&oldid=931104857"