Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 2

Article Length

The article is extremely long compared to other president articles. Every single year of his presidency shouldn't be described, or should just be split into a new article, Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Also, there are a lot of dead links that need to be archived or checked. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well that is because this is a very good article, and the other articles are not. I don't think a split is necessarily needed, but it can be proposed. Dead links are a valid issue that should be addressed. IWI (chat) 03:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the main contributor, TDKR Chicago 101. IWI (chat) 03:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Matthewishere0 Seeing that its a VGA of course it's going to be long, especially if its about a two term president during a historic time period in America. In fact, I feel that creating a Presidency article would not be notable but would drastically reduce the article's information capacity and might even downgrade the article's VGA status. The article was expanded per comments/feedback given when the article was nominated for GA and later VGA. It's okay if article's here are long especially if they are well sourced, not a lot or complex wording/red links and obviously relates to the article. I think splitting it is unnecessary seeing that readers are reading a page about a U.S. President it'd be nice that they read something about their time in office. Perhaps the question should be: should other presidential articles be appropriately expanded. I've also checked the sources and I've replaced all deadlinks with reliable active links. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: I agree on the part that readers should see about his time in office, however it should be a summarized section with only the most important events and not year by year descriptions. Thats why I requested that there should be an article named Presidency of Ronald Reagan, which is currently a redirect, just how there is Presidency of Donald Trump. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Matthewishere0: Yet this is a VGA which means of course its going to be long. It would be different if the article was long filled with complex sentences/red links. This article is long, but it is appropriate as it has well sourced information and most importantly it is filled with simple sentences for our readers. As previously stated the article was expanded per feedback given when the article was nominated for GA and VGA. By splitting the article it will not only reduce the purpose of this article but will risk demoting the article which is unproductive. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Why would removing some information matter? Length doesn't really matter, even if you summarize his presidency it will still end up long. Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Matthewishere0: Length does matter when it comes to VGA. As Auntof6 told you in Wikipedia:Proposed Very Good Articles “ Being too long is not a problem for any article here, as long as the language is simple. Indeed, one of the criteria for very good articles is that they be comprehensive, and that can require an article to be longer than our average. Just because we have many short articles here doesn't mean that we want articles to be short”. It is a requirement for VGA articles to be comprehensive and like I’ve told you before the article was expanded per feedback given. Maybe you should step back awhile until you have an understanding at how articles work like what @Only: advised. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @TDKR Chicago 101: Well if you want to keep it long at least make sure the language is simple. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please point out instances of complex language to help guide any necessary simplification of language. Only (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, all articles should ideally fall within I believe the parameters are 80k-120k of prose ideally, even VGAs. This articles is probably right at the upper limit where a split could be considered. I don't necessarily think its warranted at this point as this article is right around the threshold where a split is needed. I think both sides of this discussion have merits. A well written summary of his presidency and then a see main template to the other page with this more intricate detail would not detract from this being a VGA. Getting much longer than this, however, would. Comprehensive doesn't mean its ok to be overly detailed, it just means that significant chunks aren't completely missing. So yeah in my opinion it doesn't need to be split yet but it is a something that will likely need to be considered if it gets any more detailed in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not an experienced editor on Simple Wikipedia but this page stands at 8,280 words. For comparison, at the time of this comment, the English version stands at 9,172 words, so I think this article warrants a split. Wow (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a 'very good article', it needs to be comprehensive. Supposing that it currently meets that criterion, the only option there is is to move longer sections into articles of their own, and only leave a summary in this article (with a reference to the newly created article). As I currently see it, the length/size is currently not the most pressing problem to solve. Eptalon (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Section: Visit to USS Constellation (CV-64)

Is this really significant enough to have a whole section roughly equivalent in length to the AIDS epidemic and wars? Also, not from a secondary source. Seems like undue weight on this and should be removed for balance. --Gotanda (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done (removed). 2001:2020:4307:C2BA:4840:1CDE:9FEC:8DDE (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Marriages

This sentence, "They had a third child, Christine Reagan, but she was stillborn." does not make sense as it is self-contradictory and there is no mention in the cited reference. --Gotanda (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And, if fixed up, this section should really be Marriage and families or similar and moved to the life section. --Gotanda (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Labor

Removed, "In August 2017, Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta honored Reagan at the Labor Hall of Honor as the 2017 edition to the monument." Primary source, not secondary. In the context of Reagan's long-running anti-labor stance, this would need some explanation for inclusion. --Gotanda (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

These statements are not supported by the cited reference.

• Brady later recovered, but was paralyzed.
• Thomas Delahanty in the back, also paralyzing him
• Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy in the chest. McCarthy took a bullet for Reagan.
• No one was killed during the event.

Also, language "Two other bullets shot officer," bullets do not shoot people.

Needs clean up. --Gotanda (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Iran arrangements before Iran-Contra

Before the Iran-Contra Scandal (which here treats Reagan very gently) there was the interference during the election. See [1]. This adds context to Iran-Contra and is politically significant. Needs to be covered for completeness and balance. --Gotanda (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ashbrook not a reliable source

Reagan personally opened this ideologically driven center. An op-ed, not even a news article, from this source is inherently biased. Replaced with cn

Steven Hayward (December 1999). "Welfare Reform: Another Win For The Gipper". Ashbrook.org. Retrieved January 10, 2014.

--Gotanda (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Inaugural address

This is an extraordinary claim: "In his inaugural address (which Reagan himself wrote)" Added a citation needed tag. EnWP has contradictory entries that it was Reagan or Ken Khachigian. --Gotanda (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

School prayer and "force"

As written, the article now reads, "People who did not support this said it is not right for any government force to be included in schools." which is clearly over broad and is not in the cited article. --Gotanda (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Legacy OR

This, "Those who do admire Reagan are sometimes called Reagan coalitionists." has no source. The link goes to an unsourced article. Simple is the top web search result I get for this term and I get nothing on a news search except text copied from Simple. Do not think this term is or was ever used. Reagan coalition is a real thing, but not coalitionists. --Gotanda (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Coalitionists" is not standard English, and should not be used without a source.

Early Life: Sources needed

None of this, "He was fired for not mentioning the show's sponsors. Reagan was soon re-hired. Station executives could not find anyone as capable as Reagan to re-create baseball games." is not supported or even mentioned by either cited reference. It makes Reagan look more talented and more principled than he was. One of the refs goes the other way and describes Reagan's so-called "inventiveness" as shown in his false accounts of game events as the key to his political success.

Refs "Former president was sports announcer". ESPN. June 5, 2004. Retrieved June 4, 2020. "THE REAGAN PLAY-BY-PLAY STILL PLAYS". The New York Times. March 31, 1985. --Gotanda (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Changed the statements out (& sourced them) since they were false. Everything I saw while searching for references states that he left the job himself to start acting. Could not find anything about executives not being able to find anyone like Reagan for the job, so I took it out - if anyone has sourcing for that, that would be good. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for removing those. I thought they should go, but as it is a VGA, went to Talk first. They are pretty typical of the whole article which is overwhelmingly positive with little balance. He was an important political leader, but hardly a saint. --Gotanda (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Acting career

• This needs work, "In 1941, experts voted him the fifth most popular star from the younger generation in Hollywood." according to the cited article it was theater owners not experts and it was based on box office.

• Ref for fan mail is an incorrect link. "Truth exposed on writer of Reagan letters". Journal Standard. Retrieved June 4, 2020 https://www.journalstandard.com/story/lifestyle/2008/07/06/master-gardeners-invite-little-hands/63917996007/

• This is misleading, "He was fired in 1962." and the source is far from reliable. It is an extended, biased, political rant by Reagan's son. Reagan was not fired. The program was canceled. GE Theater was critical to Reagan's political re-orientation and rise. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/history-free-market-fundamentalism-on-the-media

Needs work. --Gotanda (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Entrance into politics

Ref does not support "last" here, "The last time Reagan supported a Democrat was when Helen Gahagan Douglas ran for the United States Senate." Ref goes on to say that Reagan encouraged Eisenhower to run "as a democrat" after 1950. Again, making specific and broad claims not justified by the refs. --Gotanda (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Reference: The Famous People

Besides being a less than great reference, https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/ronald-reagan-69.php, just does not support many of the statements it is used as a reference for.

• Reagan enjoyed acting (implied but not stated). (Comment: doesn't need to be said. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC))
• Reagan ran briefly for president in 1968. He was not nominated by the Republican Party at the 1968 Republican National Convention, and Richard Nixon was nominated. (no mention)
• Reagan gained popularity from it (no mention of popularity increase, "Entering the political limelight" is different)
• Reagan said he would run against President Gerald Ford to become the Republican Party's candidate for president. (no mention of Ford or 76 campaign)
• Monday, March 30, 1981 (date not in ref, following 69th day is mentioned, but why relevant or important? The CNN article is cited for 69th day mix up?)
• He believed in supply-side economics, which was also called Reaganomics and Voodoo economics (by people who didn't like it) during his term (Not in ref, but we do have a page on it).
• While he was president, inflation went from 14% to 4%. He vetoed 78 bills. (Neither in ref, but note that putting up a bill is often just a tactic in Congress. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC))
• Reagan was once again nominated for president at the 1984 Republican National Convention. (Not in ref, but can be assumed)
• In foreign policy, Reagan ended detente (the policy of being friendly to the Soviet Union) by ordering the largest peacetime military buildup in American history. (Ref does not mention "detente" never mind that being friendly is not what it meant or record build up, just increase in military spending)
• Reagan saw the change in the direction of the Soviet leadership with Mikhail Gorbachev. (Not in ref and what does this even mean? Everyone alive "saw" it. Comment: Many readers were not alive then, and it does need saying. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC))
• Reagan was optimistic and made jokes at speeches. (Not in ref)

These eleven claims or statements need new references. --Gotanda (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cultural portrayal

These are likely true, but not supported by the refs, "Seth MacFarlane voiced Reagan in American Dad! and on Family Guy for special episodes."

Refs in question (are fan wikis even acceptable sources?) "Ronald Reagan". American Dad! Wiki.com. Retrieved October 19, 2016. "Ronald Reagan". Family Guy Wiki.com. Retrieved October 19, 2016.

Also, is that much Cultural portrayal really needed when some political events are glossed over? --Gotanda (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the majority (or all) of the Cultural portrayal can go into a spinoff article (not sure that I will contribute in that regard).--The Seth MacFarlane voice-thingy should not be lost from wikipedia, in my opinion.--However, if the rest of the article is not okay, then a spinoff-stub seems like a wise move. 2001:2020:4347:EFBB:BD4C:B462:E42B:2AC8 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Demotion (VGA): that idea might be okay

I took me about ten seconds to find - roughly one hundre words into the article: "He was also known as the "Teflon president" because any criticism or scandals against him never stuck or affected his popularity."--That teflon stuff, does maybe not belong in an encyclopedia article about "the great communicator" (Reagan)--Note: there was a teflon Don, a crime boss, or mafia-family boss; "Teflon" relating to the name about that man - that is quite possibly encyclopedic. 2001:2020:4347:EFBB:31DA:9690:2C67:C407 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It belongs in the article for balance. "The Great Communicator" is not neutral. The term was and is widely used in the news media about Reagan and was perhaps one of the few things that did "stick" to him. --Gotanda (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Great Communicator" is not neutral, much in the same way "teflon" (about Reagon), is non-neutral.--It might belong in the article, as much as "teflon" might belong.--The article about Reagan is not balanced, as far as I have heard. 2001:2020:4307:C2BA:4840:1CDE:9FEC:8DDE (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved to talk page

The article still has many problems. The following text is (arguably) weak, and does maybe not belong in an encyclopedia (if the text and/or sources are not improved).--For now, this text is some of the first stuff, which I think should be put on ice, for now.

• "Those who do admire Reagan are sometimes called Reagan coalitionists.
• Reagan was optimistic and made jokes at speeches.--Justification for move: those are characteristics that are a dime a dozen for Hollywood actors that have become politicians. 2001:2020:4347:EFBB:BC83:C597:3B9A:1918 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reagan was known as the "Teflon president" because any criticism or scandals against him never stuck or affected his popularity."--Justification to move: Would not expect that from Encyclopedia Britannica for one thousand years 399 years; It is maybe not a significant part of his legacy. 2001:2020:4347:EFBB:BC83:C597:3B9A:1918 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Move to talk page (while waiting a spin-off article about his Legacy)

• "In 2019, a 1971 audio recording of a conversation between Reagan and President Nixon was released in which Reagan called Africans diplomats at the United Nations "monkeys".".--Justification for move: Wiki-notability might seem unclear.--The text reminds me of the phrase, "Grasping at straws".--The text about the recording, proves little in my eyes. (However, I have not checked what the source says, even though the text seems to be saying that Reagan was a person with (deep?) flaws, or something like that.--Patti Davis seems to be linked to an editorial (an opinion piece), that was printed around 50 years after 1971.--I am leaning towards a weak Delete (from this main article). 2001:2020:4307:C2BA:3904:586B:112B:BFC (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

2001:2020:4307:C2BA:3904:586B:112B:BFC (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Reagan's racism is very well documented. This is one of the few passages in the article which is critical of Reagan and is needed for context (welfare queens) and balance. Replaced and additional refs added. The decades long delay is how history works. Things come to light. Presidential library tried to conceal it at first. --Gotanda (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Coming to light? Well, the wiki-text about the recording is hardly illuminating. (The wiki-text might want to say: His daughter said/wrote in a newspaper editorial that ... . The wiki-text might also say that the recording was done in the White House, or at a midnight coctail party in a Reagan residence, or whatever the case.)--If someone cares - then please check out to see what the main (English-wiki) article about Reagan, is saying. (And please report back to this talk page, if possible.)--The way our wiki-text is now, then I am fine with anyone removing that text about the recording (as long as one words the justification, adequately).--For now the wiki-text about the recording, seems to not be encyclopedic (but maybe it will get there, someday). Good luck! 2001:2020:4307:C2BA:2CA5:5A98:644F:81BA (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Name-calling (putting labels on Reagan)

There seems to be a need to go thru this article, while going thru the English-wiki article - section by section.--The "teflon" thingy, seems to be a nothing-burger.--The teflon thingy is mentioned, but there are other more famous phrases that are (and were) used about Reagan.--I will try to get to that, by the time I have gone thru the two articles side by side, section by section.--Christmas 2024 is my target date. 2001:2020:4307:C2BA:9B5:B77F:DE09:131A (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If i or anyone, offers this "monkey"-regarding text to other Wikipedia-versions ...

As long as our article has the following "monkey"-regarding text (with no further context), one might want to share with other wikipedias, stuff-with-little-context that Simple-wiki seems to be holding onto (with arguably little criticism, apart from c. one unregistered user).--Suggestion: anyone (else) should (also try to) remove the text from the article, with any reasonable explanation.--English-wiki's article uses the word "racism", three times. The English-wiki article does not at all, make any hints about racism.--Do I think that any of the larger wikipedias will want to keep this "monkey"-regarding text? Well, the text ain't good enough for our article, but there is no guarantee that the text can never be helpful, for other larger wikipedia-projects; That is my diplomatic reply - without being frank.

• "In 2019, a 1971 audio recording of a conversation between Reagan and President Nixon was released in which Reagan called African diplomats at the United Nations "monkeys". " 2001:2020:8333:D8D6:D168:523:CAE:BEA7 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

2001:2020:8333:D8D6:D168:523:CAE:BEA7 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Complex quotes

Many of the quotes that are in the article are not simple at all. Just taking the 'Evil Empire' quotation:

"In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

Anybody have an idea of what to do with these? Maybe paraphrasing them into regular prose would be better. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Consistent issue. Overuse of quotes or then mangling the meaning in simplification has been a problem. The quote needs to be explained and put into context. It's just thrown in there without any description of its meaning, impact, or history. Just a thing he said. --Gotanda (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

History repeats itself, as it did in central Europe for several centuries: "the aggressive impulses of an evil empire" could have been written yesterday. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There are three options we have to simplify a complex quote:

1. use indirect speech, perhaps paraphrasing, and using simpler/clearer terms.
2. Leave the quote, but shorten it
3. leave the quote, but replace a complex word/phrase with a simpler one in [brackets].

But yes, fewer quotes and more text of our own is definitely a better option. Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability in the top section

We need more sources in the top section. While this may resolve WP:OR and the "needs more citations" template , it can maybe still have to be there, if there still are any sections without citations. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 23:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Automatic archival set up..

Hello, just wanted to let you know: I set up automatic archival. Threads without comments will stay 45 days;a parameter we can certainly change in the future. The idea is ot not hinder work, but allow "threads that are no longer of interest" to be moved to the archives. Eptalon (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Please change that back or extend the 45 days because this will have the effect of removing sections which are not addressed but need to be. --Gotanda (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

what timeframe do you suggest? Eptalon (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ideally off and manual archiving if needed. Not sure what the issue is in keeping these. Each topic is well-organized and discrete, I hope. But, if automatic it has to at least go well beyond the Demotion discussion and decision. V/GA promotion demotions tend not to move at the speed they are described as. --Gotanda (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I will again remove automatic archival, as it is no longer needed. In all likelyhood, this article will lose its status, a day from now.... Eptalon (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

New sections on Political Positions

An editor has now come in with some very complex sections on political positions. Many of them are not neutral. They are complex in vocabulary and sentence structure. They appear to be equally poorly sourced. The first reference I checked on "free market" was incorrect. Not sure if these should be removed to userspace for work (but IP editor anyway) or just removed. The article could use better descriptions of Reagan's positions, but this does not help retain or restore VGA. If anything the new additions reinforce the case for demotion. --Gotanda (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was largely copy-paste from EnWP. Deleted. But a simplified, NPOV version of some of it would be useful for maintaining VGA or GA. --Gotanda (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Article demoted...

Hello all,

Some people believed that this article is full of issues that need to be addressed. These issues are outlined in the sections above. As a consequence, I have demoted the article, from the status of "very good article", to regular article. This was done after months of discussion. When you feel the article mets the criteria again, feel free to re-nominate it for good article or very good article. Eptalon (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm just noticing what happened to this article and I agree that this article has too many problems. The only way this can be addressed is to start over. I think I'll just copy the content from the English version and then try to simplify the language here. Wow (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please coordinate your actions with the other people interested in contributing. This article has grown over many revisions. Simply throwing everything away and starting over is likely not what other editors want. Eptalon (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I it's better not to completely start over. The concepts can be complex as well as the words. It's more important to clearly explain the main points than to mention everything. Also, I think it would be better not to include too much of the POV stuff from enwiki about what some people have referred to him as, and instead focus on his career. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The intro is too complex now, for sure. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes. I think it was better before and the new article is too complex. If anyone wants to revert this, I will leave the article alone from now on. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I simplified part the new (now reverted) article and was going to continue simplifying but had to take care of some other things. Still, this article needs to be rewritten. --Wow (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I returned the intro back to your version. It looks like that's the part you simplified. @Wow: Lights and freedom (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)