Talk:Ronald Reagan

Evaluation of his presidency

Evaluations of his presidency among historians and the general public place him among the upper tier of American presidents.

Yeah, no. Reagan appears pretty far down the list, and he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history on "people's history" lists outside of evaluations made by right-wing conservatives. He basically destroyed the lives of working Americans, redistributed wealth to the rich, gutted social programs, lied about virtually every scandal his admin participated in while robbing the treasury blind and negotiating with terrorists, all the while demonizing people of color, flooding their communities with drugs, and arresting them on trumped up charges with draconian drug laws. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of OR to me. The polls used to back those statements are RS and linked to in other articles. There is also a bit of irony in you repeating the "flooding their communities with drugs" balderdash....as that is the garbage you defended on the Gary Webb page some years ago and led to a overhaul of that page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This entire biographical entry is a right-wing whitewash of the historical facts, facts which you and other conservative activists have spent years denying by rewriting and hiding the evidence from our readers, most often by deleting it from the main bio and transferring it to daughter articles. Reagan is rated poorly as a president, did more harm to the US in eight years than almost any other leader besides Trump, and is generally regarded as one of the worst US presidents when it comes to the lives of working people, people of color, and the majority of Americans. Reagan is only rated highly by wealthy elites who benefitted from his looting of the US treasury and tax relief for billionaires. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All I am hearing so far is your (worthless) opinion. The polls are here: [1]. There is nothing that backs your POV that Reagan "is generally regarded as one of the worst US presidents". We work with facts here....not your opinion.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

These are historical facts, not opinions, facts you and other conservative activists have spent years deleting from the article. Facts (Lucks 2020) for example, showing Reagan

• has the worst civil rights record of any president since 1920
• opposed civil rights legislation
• was allied with segregationists and white supremacists
• opposed laws prohibiting housing and education discrimination
• targeted POC with the "war on drugs"
• supported apartheid in South Africa

Why are these historical facts about Reagan not mentioned in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. If we are wrong to say that about what polling shows.....you need a RS. As far as why [this or that] isn't in the lead....we've debated some of that on talk before....in fact, even had a few RFCs on it. I would advise you to go through the archives.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing the subject, like you referring to changes in the article about Gary Webb that I wasn't responsible for? That kind of thing? I'm not changing the subject. I'm showing that Reagan isn't widely considered a great president. You are clearly changing the subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No changing the subject as in not giving any RS for what you are claiming. And it raises the disturbing parallels with the Webb article that you defended.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No such incident ever occurred, but I will note, that the DOJ OIG wrote that it was "undisputed that individuals like Meneses and Blandon, who had ties to the Contras or were Contra sympathizers, were convicted of drug trafficking, either in the United States or Central America. There is also undeniable evidence that certain groups associated with the Contras engaged in drug trafficking. The pervasiveness of such activities within the Contra movement and the United States government's knowledge of those activities, however, are still the subject of debate, and it is beyond the scope of the OIG's investigation". You are of course welcome to take your off-topic concerns about this subject to the talk page of allegations of CIA drug trafficking, since you seem to have a personal interest in this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah such a incident did occur. You suggested there we leave out the opinion of a writer because he supposedly had a personal issue with Webb and also that we ignore the results of a Federal investigation. Here you want to ignore RS polls. (And a RFC.) Sorry: not gonna happen. And the DOJ Report blew away almost every premise of Dark Alliance. You just include what you like. Here is what you leave out: "the claims that Blandón and Meneses were responsible for introducing crack cocaine into South Central Los Angeles and spreading the crack epidemic throughout the country were unsupported.....we did not find that their activities were responsible for the crack cocaine epidemic in South Central Los Angeles, much less the rise of crack throughout the nation, or that they were a significant source of support for the Contras." Just goes to show how ill-equipped you are to edit here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are welcome to take your off-topic concerns about this subject to the talk page of allegations of CIA drug trafficking, since you seem to have a personal interest in this subject. You seem to be very, very interested in that subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Coming from a guy who use to camp out on Gary Webb's talk page? lol ok.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the RFC on having South Africa (& AIDS) in the LEAD: [2]. Sorry you don't like the outcome.....but that's how we operate here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No idea how you operate, but Reagan's presidency is not considered good. For example, Reagan

• armed and supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, members which later formed Al Qaeda
• supported brutal regimes and dictators like Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Ferdinand Marcos
• had the most corrupt presidential admin in history with 138 officials investigated, indicted, or convicted of crimes
• tripled the national debt in eight years
• millions of Americans lost their jobs under Reagan
• vetoed a farm credit bill that shutdown thousands of family farms
• changed the tax code causing businesses to fail to the tune of $150 billion
• looted the Social security trust fund
• ignored AIDS and proposed cutting research

This is a very partial list of things Reagan is famous for, yet I can't seem to find them in the lead. This biographical article is a hagiography authored by conservative activists. It is not based on reality. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just shows your laughable bias. (And inattention to the rules here.) I ask for RS on polls and you give me a laundry list of the (usual) talking points. Are we to ignore a RFC here? Well, according to you: yes. You could (by the way) say that stuff about a lot of Presidents. For starters....you know what president was first to back the Mujahideen? I'll give you a hint: his initials were J.C. You think the first President to do business with guys like Marcos or Noriega were Reagan? As far as the overhauling the tax code goes...ever hear of the Tax Reform Act of 1986? It was Reagan's baby and passed the Senate by a heavy majority (including a yea from a guy named Joe Biden). So yeah, we need some RS here. Your personal opinion (obviously) lacks historical perspective.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's true, reality has a liberal bias. Reagan is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history on the basis of his domestic policies and his foreign policies. Claiming that he is polling at the "upper tier" is Newspeak for "Reagan ranks low in comparison to eight others". This article is a conservative wet dream, a hagiography of one of the worst performing presidents other than con man Trump, a racist, B-movie actor who destroyed the fabric of America so billionaires could buy a second yacht. There's no modern historian who can look at Reagan's record and glorify him like conservative activists do on Wikipedia. It's a con job. All of the information I've posted here is supported by reliable sources and is based on data, facts, and evidence, unlike this hoax of an article. This biography is a post-truth farce. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry we work with RS. If you've got a group of RS polls.....fire away. But until then....we run with the RS we got. Just about every poll I cited places RR very high. Out of the 10 public polls cited here: [3], Reagan came in first or second in 8 out of the 10 polls. In other words: your claim that "Reagan is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history" is in complete ruins. You need to go back to the good old days of suggesting we leave out the results of Federal investigations in articles (because you didn't like the results of them).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This article omits reliable sources and presents the history of Reagan in a selective manner, repeatedly violates NPOV, and then asserts it is a neutral biography while conservative activists like yourself act as gatekeepers to the false Reagan myth you've constructed to prop up your failed ideology of conservatism. This should not be a featured article—it doesn't even qualify as a Good Article.

This article commits three major fallacies associated with Reagan myth-making discussed by author and journalist Will Bunch (2009, Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy):

1. This article attempts to eliminate, whitewash or play down any references to negative things that took place during Reagan's presidency from 1981 to 1989.

2. This article awards Reagan more credit than he deserves for good things that happened while he was president, or asserts things that took place when they didn't.

3. This article whitewashes Reagan's better qualities that no longer fit the modern day conception of the right wing.

This article should be delisted and rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

So is there a poll anywhere in our future? We've heard the I-hate-Reagan diatribe/OR for quite sometime now.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens of polls that directly contradict the framing of this article. Let's start with an arrow to the heart of the Reagan myth. After the Berlin Wall came down and the Cold War was at an end, "a poll published in USA Today just four days after the tumultuous events in Berlin found that 43 percent of Americans gave the credit to the Soviet leader, and only 14 percent named Reagan (it was far more pronounced in Germany, where 70 percent credited Gorbachev and only 2 percent hailed the former U.S. president)." The Reagan myth is a myth for a reason. ("Respondents Say Gorbachev Most Responsible for Wall's Demise," Associated Press, Nov. 13, 1989.) Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That (of course) isn't what I am asking for. I asked for a poll to back your claim that "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history". Needless to say: that's different territory.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean, the American people don't count? Let's find out what they thought about Reagan at the end of his presidency: in 1987, in

...early July of that year, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 62 percent of Americans thought that “things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track.” That was the highest number in the five years since the Post and ABC had been asking the question, a period that overlapped with the double-digit unemployment rates of the president’s first term, and Reagan’s pollster Richard Wirthlin, who’d been asking the "right track, wrong track" question since the Carter years, said at the time that the numbers were comparable with the late 1970s. And the "wrong track" number stayed in positive territory for much of the final third of Reagan’s presidency.

Lets quickly recap: the majority of Americans disagreed with Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1987, and that number didn't change much towards the end. What changed, then? Conservatives mounted a massive propaganda campaign to rewrite the history of Reagan's presidency (Rossinow 1999; Dallek 2009) and what we are seeing here is the fruit of that effort. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So you cite a poll from 1987 (during Iran-Contra) and say all the good polling since then is just right-wing marketing? Ok....thanks again for your opinion....but that doesn't erase those polls.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, here is where Reagan was polling by January 1989 (@ the end):[4].Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

More myth-making. Bunch 2009:

Over the eight years of his presidency, Reagan's average approval rating in the Gallup Poll was 53 percent, placing him squarely among the middle of the pack among just the modern presidents, let alone on any all-time list. Not only is Reagan's cumulative approval rating considerably lower than that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but it also notably trails two other post-World War II presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, neither of whom now have active campaigns to become the fifth face on Mount Rushmore. In fact, three other postwar presidents, Lyndon Johnson, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, had slightly higher approval numbers than Reagan, even though Johnson was essentially run out of office over the Vietnam War, the elder Bush received just 37 percent of the U.S. popular vote when he sought a second term, and Clinton, of course, was impeached while in office. The modern presidents who polled worse than Reagan were Harry Truman, mired in Korea and a slumping economy, and the disastrous three who came right before Reagan—Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter—a fact of good timing that proved a boon to the Reagan legacy. In fact, the Gipper's approval rating was under water for most of his first two years in office and again for much of his second term. Nor was it true what was also widely reported at the time of his death, that "Ronald Reagan was the most popular president ever to leave office," as ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas put it. FDR was more popular right before his death—not surprising with America on the brink of victory in World War II—but also the much-maligned Clinton had better poll numbers leaving office than Reagan...

The majority of voters disagreed with Ronald Reagan on most of the major issues facing America, from the time he took the oath of office until the day he left.

Two academics, Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers, published a remarkable article in The Atlantic in May 1986 called “The Myth of the American Turn to the Right,” which looked at a number of polls taken from the New Deal through the first five years of the Reagan administration. They showed that, if anything, the American public had grown slightly more liberal, that large numbers thought that business should be regulated and supported the kinds of federal programs that the White House wanted to cut or eliminate. The authors showed that while broad Reaganesque appeals against big government and for free markets might resonate with voters, “when it comes to assessing specific government programs or the behavior of actual business enterprises, however, they support government spending in a variety of domestic areas and are profoundly suspicious of big business."

They noted a Los Angeles Times poll from 1982 on regulation that showed that Americans favored keeping existing rules instead of Reagan-backed rollbacks on a broad range of issues that included the environment (49 percent to 28 percent), industrial safety (66-18), the teenage minimum wage (58-29), auto emission and safety standards (59-29), federal lands (43-27), and offshore oil drilling (46-29). By 1983, the number of Americans who said they favored even stricter environmental regulations, regardless of cost, had increased to 58 percent. Even after Reagan's landslide in 1984, the authors noted, only 35 percent of Americans favored substantial cuts in social programs to reduce the deficit, and as late as 1986, according to a New York Times-CBS News poll, “fully 66 percent think the Government should spend money now on efforts similar to those of the Great Society programs to help the poor people in the United States." Ferguson and Rogers found polls showed strong public support during the Reagan years for legalized abortion and the ultimately unsuccessful Equal Rights Amendment, and against prayer in schools. Public support for affirmative action was now in the majority in the 1980s and continued to increase. Support for defense spending, which rose briefly during the end of the Carter administration because of the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, had fallen back down by Reagan's second term, and of course an overwhelming majority favored a freeze on nuclear weapons.

So we see, post-truth, conservative myth-making at every level of this biography, from soup to nuts. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of myth making.....Will Bunch? So essentially you are saying the President's poll numbers since his Presidency should be discounted.....and we should only consider the poll numbers while he was president? (We already (by the way), note his slip in the polls during the '82 recession and during Iran-Contra.) Furthermore, we should discount his landslide victory in 1984 because the American people disagreed with him on some issues Bunch cherry picked? Furthermore, even Bunch here seemingly acknowledges Reagan's popularity at the end by bringing in FDR and Clinton. (For comparison.) Sorry, this still sounds like a lot of OR to me. Reagan of course had some turbulent times.....but to claim as you did "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history" when your own sources don't back that? Nah.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You appear not to understand what OR is, even after multiple editors tried to teach you back in 2014. Leopards, spots, eh? Speaking of myth-making, Haynes Johnson notes in Sleepwalking through History (1992) that in the post-Reagan years

Virtually every political poll and grass-roots sampling of public opinion showed people becoming more pessimistic about economic conditions. The Iran-contra affair had reinforced a sense that conditions were in danger of slipping out of control. Reagan's lack of leadership throughout that episode left the public troubled. Polls showed people were looking for a different kind of president to lead America into the nineties, suggesting the public was ready for a leader who would make up for years of neglect in vital areas of education, health care, environment, and quality of public services.

So much for another one of your myths. Reagan did not have massive public approval after leaving office, nor did he have it during office. His policies were never popular, and the American people never supported them. If Reagan was great at anything, it was in spending like a drunken sailor and putting the US into massive debt while neglecting the needs of its people. History is clear on this. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh so now you do remember? Glad to see it. And (again) this laughable claim that Reagan had no support.....he just won 2 landslide elections.....by accident? (Not to mention GHWB knocking off Dukakis running on "stay the course"?) Honestly this is ridiculous (albeit highly amusing). So what is your proposal here? If it's adding "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history" when your own source says he was in "the middle of the pack among just the modern presidents" (while he was President).....I'd say you are the one with the issue here in terms of understanding what OR is. We can't throw out more than a dozen polls because you (and Will Bunch) don't like them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, "The majority of voters disagreed with Ronald Reagan on most of the major issues facing America, from the time he took the oath of office until the day he left." That's a fact. Furthermore, Reagan's economic plan was a lie from day one, just like all the rest of his policies, lies upon lies. Johnson (1992):

...on February 18, 1981, Reagan presented Congress with what proved to be the most wildly inaccurate economic forecast in American history, a program that called for cutting taxes by 30 percent, increasing defense spending by three-quarters of a trillion dollars (a sum that over five years would amount to an increase of $1.46 trillion), and achievement of a balanced budget after three years. The national debt then was just under $1 trillion. Reagan said his plan would cut that deficit to $45 billion after one year, to $23 billion after the second, be balanced at the end of the third, and produce a surplus after that.

Facts matter. This article has no regard for them, apparently. Reagan failed on virtually every level, and whenever conservatives are confronted with these failures, they either ignore them or blame someone other than Reagan. This "cult" of Reagan is evident in this non-critical hagiography which presents a distorted, uneven, glorification of a mythical man that never existed. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Major issues" according to Bunch. So are you going to make a concrete proposal or just spray I-Hate-Reagan all over the place? This isn't a forum.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I cited multiple authors, and I pointed out a dozen problems with the lead section which fails to adhere to NPOV and only shows Reagan and his legacy in a positive light. In response, you repeatedly tried to distract from these points, you attempted to bring up a discussion on a different page from 2014, and you continue to try and change the subject by personalizing this issue. The Reagan legacy was controversial, filled with scandals and corruption, bad policies and even worse appointments, and marred by massive unemployment, a market crash, a recession, terrible hardships for American workers, and the AIDS crisis, which Reagan made worse. None of this appears in the lead in any kind of historical light, and the article itself attempts to whitewash anything negative about Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I personally don' t think you have a case. (In fact, your own sources wreck this "he's widely considered one of the worst US presidents in history" stuff.) This feels more like a rant than any proposal. (I.e. there is no proposed change like a edit request or RFC.) You've also suggested we ignore prior RFCs. But in any case, you are entitled to your opinion....and maybe other editors will weigh in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead does not belong. At all. It's not substantiated by the article it links to; there's no way multiple rankings of 40th place can be considered "among the upper tier". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple rankings of 40th place? Not sure where you see that. And that same notation is in Obama's LEAD.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I had my stupid hat on. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with Viriditas that The Teflon President mishandled the economy and increased the public debt (as seen in History of the United States public debt), any changes to the article should be based on reliable sources. Not on how we feel about Reagan and his groupies. Which changes do you suggest, and based on which sources? Dimadick (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My overarching concern is NPOV, which IMO, this article fails to adhere to in the lead and the body. For example, historian Doug Rossinow reviewed the literature on Reagan (Collins, Troy, Ehrman) in 2007 for the journal American Quarterly (Johns Hopkins University Press). He (and others he cites) made note of the myth-making in the literature about Reagan, and raises many of the missing points that don't appear in this article. Some of the most notable have been described on these talk pages many times, with local consensus overriding our site-wide policies. Mentioning the failure of the Reagan recovery to benefit working people is a good start, but I should note that the lead only accentuates conservative talking points and fails to give a balanced perspective. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot of your own sources don't back what you are saying. In your very first post in this thread you start out by saying Reagan was "considered one of the worst US presidents in history" & that he flooded minority "communities with drugs". Even Bunch doesn't say that (in 'Tear Down This Myth') and no other RS says it either. You present here the view of a handful of people and ignore the fact we cite multiple surveys of historians and the general public that back the POV on Reagan's legacy. You also are basically suggesting we ignore the results of RFCs on some of these issues. So yes, everything you have said (so far) is highly problematic. For the record, I don't have much issue with a short statement (maybe in the legacy section) in noting that Reagan's post-Presidential popularity has been engineered according to Bunch [or whomever]. But I'd make a concrete proposal here first.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think I've heard from you enough now, and I'm looking for other opinions from editors who aren't you. You've repeatedly attempted to derail, distract, and personalize this discussion, so I know where you stand. From here forward, I'll be seeking other opinions and I won't be responding to you because you've been arguing in bad faith the entire time. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith? From somebody whose own sources undermine his own claims? Ok.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"raises many of the missing points that don't appear in this article" Good. Then try summarizing his views in the article. Remember to make changes in the body, not only in the lead. This article needs lots of work to tone down the laudatory language. Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

I just added the lead rewrite tag due to the failure of the lead section to summarize the main, core points of the article. Notable mentions should include the assassination attempt, the air traffic controllers' strike, response to the AIDS epidemic and apartheid, among others, and most importantly, critical appraisal of his policies and roles, which are completely lacking from the lead, as it only accentuates positive information and neglects to include anything negative about him. This is not how our best sources characterize Reagan, and I've argued that this lead engages in Reagan myth-making by ignoring the NPOV which should briefly summarize the most notable positions about his impact and legacy. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Issues

• became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism.
  • Bunch 2009 and others argue that many of the modern qualities characterized by Reagan, particularly his penchant for compromise, are not found in today's modern conservatism espoused by the Republican Party. I should also note that there is zero mention of Reagan's known ability to compromise with the other side in this article. This is part of the problem: this article "whitewashes Reagan's better qualities that no longer fit the modern day conception of the right wing", according to Bunch 2009. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• At 69 years, 349 days of age at the time of his first inauguration, Reagan was the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, a distinction he held until 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated at age 70 years, 220 days.
  • This is wasted, trivial text that takes up necessary real estate in the lead. Yes, it works as a parenthetical footnote, but aside from noting that Reagan was the oldest at the time, the rest is trivia. We need to devote the lead to summarizing the main points of the body, not to repeating trivial data about years and days. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Over his two terms, the economy saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4% and an average real GDP annual growth of 3.6%. Reagan enacted cuts in domestic discretionary spending, cut taxes, and increased military spending, which contributed to increased federal debt overall.
  • Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years to several trillion. Again, this is a glaring NPOV problem that Bunch 2009 describes as "attempts to eliminate, whitewash or play down any references to negative things that took place during Reagan's presidency from 1981 to 1989." Notice that the lead documents the numbers when it refers to positive things, but avoids using numbers when it refers to negative things about Reagan. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seeing this discussion and the template on the page, I have noted another issue. The lead doesn't mention that Reagan contested for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 (at least tried in 1968) or 1976. It just writes "In November 1979, Reagan announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 1980 presidential election.", which makes it appear as Reagan won the nomination in his first attempt, which wasn't the case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Viriditas, I agree that the article, as written, does a very poor job of comprehensively reflecting available scholarship on Reagan. That said, I'm not optimistic about the prospects for improvement, for reasons I think are probably obvious to you from your experience above. By way of background, a year or so ago I brought up the subject of Reagan and race—after all, entire books have been written on the subject, but it's taboo here. You can see what ensued; basically I was told by the editors who frequent this talkpage that there's nothing racist about mocking Black people as "monkeys". So yeah, that's where we are. I decided I needed a shower after participating at this talkpage and that I wasn't dealing with these people anymore, but good luck to you. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted above: We've had a RFC on the AIDS epidemic and apartheid being in the LEAD. It didn't make it: [5]Rja13ww33 (talk)

That's not how RFCs work. One, a local discussion doesn't supersede our site-wide policies, and two, a single RFC isn't binding on future edits or discussions, as consensus does and often will change. As I've previously said, I'm not interested in discussing anything with you because you've indicated in previous discussions that you are engaging in bad faith, so please allow space for other voices. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if you want to talk to me or not. This has to be noted for the record. This RFC was just 1.5 years ago. This is (the usual) Viriditas making up the rules as he sees fit. The RFC can't be thrown out because you don't like the outcome.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RFCs on local talk pages don't have any kind of binding policy-like impact on future edits or future consensus. You are welcome to discuss the process elsewhere and learn how it works, but again, you are distracting from the topic at hand and arguing in bad faith to avoid the subject under discussion. Please make room for other constructive voices now. Your voice has been heard. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but nothing has changed on these subjects since April of last year....other than Viriditas showed up and didn't like it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Re: became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism.: Seems like you want a re-write according to Will Bunch. And you still aren't proposing what should be said in it's place. If Reagan isn't one of the founders of the modern conservative movement.....who is?Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Re: Over his two terms, the economy saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4%... : I take no issue with noting the fact the National Debt nearly tripled on his watch in the LEAD. I would propose augmenting what is currently said by saying:"....which contributed to increased federal debt overall. The National Debt nearly tripled during Reagan's Presidency." (Or something like that.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years to several trillion. " History of the United States public debt has relative data and sources:

• • During Jimmy Carter's term, the national debt increased by 288 billion dollars.
  • During Reagan's first term, the national debt increased by 823 billion dollars.
  • During Reagan's second term, the national debt increased by 1,050 billion dollars.

• • "The public debt relative to GDP reached a post-World War II low of 24.6% in 1974. In that year, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 reformed the budget process to allow Congress to challenge the president's budget more easily, and, as a consequence, deficits became increasingly difficult to control. National debt held by the public increased from its postwar low of 24.6% of GDP in 1974 to 26.2% in 1980."
  • "Debt held by the public relative to GDP rose rapidly again in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic policies lowered tax rates (Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, although bills passed in 1982 and 1984 later partially reversed those tax cuts.) and increased military spending, while congressional Democrats blocked cuts to social programs. As a result, debt as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 40.9% in 1988, and it continued to rise during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, reaching 48.3% of GDP in 1992."
  • " David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett attributed the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast"." Dimadick (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • This biased Viriditas (talk) editor is obsessed with Reagan to an unhealthy level. Can someone close this discussion so he cannot have the ability to edit the Reagan article. I am an bystander just wanting to add my opinion. ThanksRja13ww33 (talk) for your inputs! 2600:1700:D090:3250:DC1F:8440:DB7E:BA5D (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Second-most lopsided win?

DrKay, I agree that the article is rather long, but your removal leaves content in the lead that is now not supported by the body. As it happens, the content in the lead has the same verification issue, so that's the reason for your removal, then the lead needs trimming too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Decline in the lead

The lead currently contains Reagan began his presidency during the decline of the Soviet Union, which ultimately collapsed nearly three years after he left office. Though it doesn’t really fit in place/somewhat awkward sounding I have no objections, the material is obviously relevant. It is news to me that observers agree Reagan took office after the decline of the Soviet Union was under way-it may very have been, that certainly is believable but I honestly don’t know and would be interested to see where this claim came from. The sentence is not cited and after searching through the body of the article multiple times I have been unable to find any mention of Soviet decline beginning before Reagan came into office. If anything the article gives the impression that the opposite is the case. Can anyone direct me as to where this is referenced and sourced in the body? OgamD218 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@OgamD218: I see that you have removed the sentence. It was indeed a poorly placed statement, awkwardly appended to the sentences before it. As there is no mention of the decline of the Soviet Union decline beginning before Reagan came into office in the article, and as the article gives the impression that the opposite was the case, I concur with its removal. Regarding the statement, I would note that the Dissolution of the Soviet Union article makes no mention of the decline of the USSR beginning before Reagan became POTUS. Drdpw (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I take no issue from it's removal (as it isn't sourced in the article as you said). (Most likely it was a calculated attempt to separate Reagan from the dissolution of the USSR.) But it is generally agreed that the USSR was having economic issues (at minimum) by the 1970's. To cite one RS: Strobe Talbott wrote a series of articles for Time (IIRC) right around the early 80's, documenting some of their internal issues. But collapse (virtually) no one saw (including Talbott). In fact (as someone old enough to remember the debate on RR's military build-up), I don't recall any prominent Democrat saying the expansion of the armed forces in the 1980's was unnecessary as the USSR was about to collapse. All the criticism came from angles such as $500 hammers, equipment (M-1s, F-14s, etc) that doesn't work (ask Saddam if they worked), deficit spending, and so on. Since then a debate has gone on about RR's role (if any) in its demise. (With the Reaganites saying he single-handedly brought them down, and others saying he had nothing to do with it.) I'm really neither here nor there on that.....but just wanted to give you some background on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know when the Soviet Union started declining. We do have an article on the Era of Stagnation, when the country's economy stagnated in the 1970s and 1980s. :

• "The majority of scholars set the starting year for economic stagnation at 1975, although some claim that it began as early as the 1960s. Industrial growth rates declined during the 1970s as heavy industry and the arms industry were prioritized while Soviet consumer goods were neglected. The value of all consumer goods manufactured in 1972 in retail prices was about 118 billion rubles. " Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, but I remember the first signs of the USSR coming apart, was when George H. W. Bush was US president. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: @Drdpw: @GoodDay: I was able to find sources broadly in agreement that the USSR was not so much in outright decline but experienced a period of protracted economic stagflation from 1975-85. While I can see a connection, economic stagnation is not the same thing as a depression/recession nor is it facially correlative to an entity such as the USSR, a dictatorship and superpower, being in "decline" considering in 1981 the Soviet Union was stable, their satellites were still rigidly in line, they'd finally reached nuclear parity with the US. In addition, conventional military spending, determined by the need to match the US+Allies and an area that had long held back the Soviet economy, was finally under control after the Politburo/KGB concluded further increases were no longer needed. This situation can be illustrated in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which was initially successful). Soviet power was arguably increasing at the time Reagan came into office, expanding in Asia and even Latin America. Simultaneously, the rivals of the USSR were arguably the ones falling back or in decline (I will refrain from getting into all of the relevant Geo-Political issues of the mid to late 1970s, many of which are covered in the article). Indeed, the West, including the US, experienced on and off stagflation throughout the 1970s, intensifying in 1978-9 and ultimately resulting in a recession from 1980-1982. It must be noted that the Soviet Union's decade of stagflation was interrupted by a period of prosperity from 1979 until 1981, Reagan's first year in office. OgamD218 (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Indeed, the West, including the US, experienced on and off stagflation throughout the 1970s, intensifying in 1978-9 and ultimately resulting in a recession from 1980-1982." The stagflation of the 1970s is covered in the article on the 1973–1975 recession. The United States had a rapid increase in unemployment, "The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 2.3 million jobs were lost during the recession; at the time, this was a post-war record." Then some years of relative growth in the economy, followed by the early 1980s recession in the United States (1980-1982). Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Cherry picking and selective POV in lead

The lead says that Reagan advocated for tax cuts, but doesn’t say that he specifically advocated for billionaires and corporations. The lead also says that Reagan lowered taxes, but doesn’t say he lowered it for the richest Americans while raising taxes for the bottom 80% of earners. Once again, we see the fruits of continued POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of POV pushing....Reagan (in fact) pushed across the board tax cuts. And by 1989, the average (total) Federal tax rate was lower (or equal to) than what it was for every income quintile in 1981:[6]Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited demonstrates my point: Reagan raised taxes on the lowest earners and lowered taxes on the highest earners. This point is also supported by our best secondary secondary sources on the subject (listed many up above, but you can add Rossinow [2015] and Mayer [2016] to the list). In other words, Reagan’s policies (which were really given to him by the Heritage Foundation and authored on behalf of billionaires), did not benefit the working class, or the majority of Americans, and his tax cuts primarily were designed to help the 1% of the ruling class, who in fact, helped bring him to power. The lead, as it currently stands, makes it seem like his tax cuts benefitted everyone, when in fact they did not and were never intended to do so, which is why the Reagan administration is responsible for the beginning of massive income inequality in the US, and the transfer of wealth from the public to the private sector. The lead fails to indicate any of this, which is why the POV tag was added. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The source actually says the exact opposite. Effective Federal tax rates (eventually) fell across all quintiles (as I said). Only the lowest stayed about the same and that was because of a bi-partisan effort to fix social security. Nothing there (or anything else you've cited) backs your original assertion that taxes went up for the "bottom 80%".Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Added lead rewrite tag back in. This has not been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on most of this debate, but we cannot use raw stats to justify this sentence; that is original research. If the scholarly sources say Reagan raised taxes for lower income household, we cannot say he lowered taxes for everybody. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the text in the article body does not support the lead at all. There's a paragraph referring to the 1986 tax act, which did in fact reduces taxes on everybody; but there were very many other tax changes made by Reagan (see later sentence about raising taxes 11 times), and nowhere does the body say Reagan reduced taxes overall. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well first off the lead says he "advocated" tax cuts (more on that in a second) without saying who was to get the cuts. (It also says he "cut taxes" without saying on who.) But further points: net Federal taxes went up and down all over the place due to the various bills passed (first to give a overall break, then to fight the (resulting) rising debt, then to fix SS and so on), so we should get multiple RS that give the complete picture over his whole term. And secondly, the original claim was: RR "specifically advocated [tax cuts] for billionaires and corporations". Per RS, that is false. Reagan always advocated in terms of across the board: [7]Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not referring to his advocacy, I'm referring to the fact that the body does not say he cut taxes overall, and the lead does (without a source). This is a verifiability problem, and a neutrality problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You may not be referring to his advocacy....but the lead does. The way it is phrased (I didn't put it in) is likely to side step the very argument that is being made as to who actually got a tax cut. (And which tax.) It is a complex issue and probably phrased that way as to not be cumbersome for the lead.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're reading a different piece of the lead. I'm talking about the sentence that reads "Reagan enacted cuts in domestic discretionary spending, cut taxes, and increased military spending, which contributed to a tripling of the federal debt." In the absence of further detail, the only reasonable way to read this is that he cut taxes overall during his presidency, which is not currently supported by the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I am talking about a different part of the lead, but in the case of the "cut taxes"....we can probably best match what is in the main body by talking about the (across the board) income tax cuts, but also point out the increases (of other tax types, i.e. payroll, etc)....and the net effect was [whatever according to RS].Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you do agree we need RS summarizing the entirety of Reagan's tax policy in the body (not just the 1986 cuts) and to reflect this in the lead? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure.....as long as we don't ignore what came after the '86 Act and rounded out his second term.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Historian Doug Rossinow writes extensively about Reagan’s contribution to income inequality through his policies which were designed to benefit the rich, a very small percentage of Americans, while also fleecing the public. This is not mentioned in the lead.

Furthermore, we still have these outstanding issues with the lead, which fails to note that Reagan

• has the worst civil rights record of any president since 1920
• opposed civil rights legislation
• was allied with segregationists and white supremacists
• opposed laws prohibiting housing and education discrimination
• targeted POC with the "war on drugs"
• supported apartheid in South Africa
• armed and supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, members which later formed Al Qaeda
• supported brutal regimes and dictators like Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Ferdinand Marcos
• had the most corrupt presidential admin in history with 138 officials investigated, indicted, or convicted of crimes
• tripled the national debt in eight years. “By the time Reagan left office [the debt] had almost tripled in nominal terms, and in percent of GDP it had gone from 33.4 percent to 51.9 percent. At the end of his term, the debt stood at $2.6 trillion, with a substantial portion of it contributed by Reagan’s own policies” (Prasad 2012)
• millions of Americans lost their jobs under Reagan
• vetoed a farm credit bill that shutdown thousands of family farms
• changed the tax code causing businesses to fail to the tune of $150 billion
• looted the Social security trust fund
• ignored AIDS and proposed cutting research
• lowered taxes for the richest Americans while raising taxes for the bottom 80% of earners
• largest military procurement scandal in US history
• diverted $2 billion in funds from low-income housing to Republican insiders
• ignored inconvenient facts
• disdain for truth and disregard for law
• politics of white backlash against racial advancements
• called a “racist pure and simple” by Archbishop Tutu
• responsible for decline in federal grants to cities and total failure of urban policy leading to new underclass, unemployment, and worsening poverty
• “Reaganomics” was a disaster for the majority of Americans. According to Kevin Phillips corporate executives and investors were the primary beneficiaries, not the public
• current reputation due not to facts and evidence about his presidency, but due to conservative revisionism and mythologizing. For example, the economy produced more jobs in the 1970s and the 1990s than in the 1980s under Reagan (Rossinow 2015; Longley et al. 2015)

Will this be remedied soon? Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You've posted this stuff before......and it's been addressed. For example the apartheid & AIDS deal was addressed with a RFC. Saying millions of "millions of Americans" lost their job under Reagan is also addressed via the given unemployment rate.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"tripled the national debt in eight years." Entirely unsurprising. He cut tax rates, while increasing military spending. When you spend more than you earn, you go in debt. Anyway, the article on the History of the United States public debt already covers that. :

• Jimmy Carter's single term added 288 billion dollars to the public debt.
• Reagan's first term added 823 billion dollars to the public debt.
• Reagan's second term added 1,050 billion dollars to the public debt.
• George H. W. Bush's single term added 1,483 billion dollars to the public debt. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We give the total debt added during his term in the article. (In raw dollar amounts.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I take no issue with saying (in the lead) the debt tripled on his watch.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DR v FAR

• PLEASE STOP playing politics with a featured article. The presumption is that this article is high quality. Instead of tag bombing, please use WP:FAR if you think it has serious problems. You will get the bottom of it that way. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "The presumption is that this article is high quality." I do not share that presumption. It offers a rather rosy picture of a president who had a largely negative effect on the American economy and on civil rights legislation. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The fact that the article does not make him out to be unadulterated evil does not mean it "offers a rosy picture". Which is not to say that improvements via reliably sourced additions are not welcome, but "This article doesn't make this person seem as evil as I think they are" does not mean it is biased in the other direction. --Jayron32 15:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Jayron, Please don't mischaracterize or exaggerate the stated views of other editors. It is not constructive and it's the sort of behavior that destroys collaborative discussion toward article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The claim that it paints him as excessively "rosy" is an exaggerated claim itself. It presents a rather dispassionate view of him, and does not praise or condemn; which is exactly the tone I would expect of a Wikipedia article. But I take your point, and apologize for my rudeness. It was unbecoming and I should not have done so. As I said originally, however, "Which is not to say that improvements via reliably sourced additions are not welcome", a statement I stand behind. This article should be improved with additional reliably sourced content. All articles, including featured articles, can use such improvements. --Jayron32 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's a personal opinion, for better or for worse. But thanks for your strtikethrough. I agree, we should be ready and able to improve any artilce with well-sourced amendments. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, WP:FAR is not dispute resolution. I see lots of claims made above that don’t include sources, so it seems that a well-formed RFC is the way to go here. If the editors making certain claims lay out high-quality reliable sources that have not been included. Reagan has been gone for a number of years, and high-quality sources are available. FAR will not address the issues raised here, nor will stripping an article of its star resolve the differences; those are resolved by focusing discussion on sources rather than hyperbole and drama, and by engaging dispute resolution such as RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out we've had (fairly recent) RFCs on some of these issues....including the AIDS & apartheid deal being in the LEAD: [8]Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you may need to take additional steps in the WP:DR process. My point is that stripping an article of its star does not resolve disputes. The purpose of FAR is only to determine if an article meets WP:WIAFA (although we’re happy when improvements happen during FAR), and if an article with an unclear picture of POV (or who is or is not POV pushing) comes to FAR, it will probably just sit there for months while the editors continue to not avail themselves of the appropriate steps in dispute resolution. Walls of text with narry a source may be a starting place for re-focusing the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"focusing discussion on sources" Viriditas already suggested additional sources and related text back in September. His suggestions are located in the "Evaluation of his presidency" section, along with quotations from "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy" (2009) by Will Bunch. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am here to opine on how FAR is used, and not to get involved in this dispute. But, if that is the case, the questions one would ask would be things like: where are sources that may or may not say something different, how has the quality of these sources (all of them) been rated or viewed, where is the consensus on what sources are the highest quality for use in this article, what is the proposed text to reflect (all of) those sources, and where is the RFC on that text?? (Please don’t feel you have to answer those questions for my benefit, as I’m only here to explain the difference between article assessment —which is what FAR is part of— and DR, which includes the steps y’all should be looking at.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The notion we should re-build this article according to Will Bunch's book is absurd considering the sources already in the article. (Including a number of highly notable historians and RR biographers.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, am I right that maintenance tags are for serious article deficiencies, and that if this article needed a {{POV}} tag, then surely it would also need to go to WP:FAR? Given that this article has passed WP:FAC, what is the point for anyone to post walls of citation-less text to say the article has serious problems? The allegation seems exceptional and should be backed with significant evidence, no? If this is a content dispute, then shouldn't WP:DR be used instead of plastering the article with maintenance tags, which in this case would be a needless defacement of Wikipedia's best content? (Somebody pointed out that Reagan tripled the debt, which is cited in the article, and I made that change to the lead, because "tripling" was an improvement over the vague "increased" that was there before. If little nip and tuck edits like this are needed, just make them. Don't use maintenance tags to shame the article.) Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We are actually using Steven F. Hayward as a source, a Reagan supporter who credits Reagan with "important insight" on the Soviet Union's internal weaknesses and vocally agrees with many of Reagan's policies:

• "He praised Reagan for trying to reduce the size of the federal government, cutting certain social welfare programs, moving other programs to state control, expanding the U.S. military, advocating Constitutional originalism, and making disarmament pledges with the Soviet Union."
• So we get to quote a biographer who thinks that increasing military spending was not a mistake, and does not mention the side-effects of Reagan's welfare reform. The main article on the topic instead mentions that "In 1981, President Ronald Reagan cut Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) spending" The program was specifically aimed to offer "financial assistance to children whose families had low or no income.", and was thought to support unwed motherhood and single-parent families. (By the way, Bill Clinton was even worse than Reagan in his "welfare reform". His solution was to abolish the program.) Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We quote all sorts of people in the article....including Paul Krugman (who is certainly no fan of Reagan's). Sounds like you want to leave out the Hayward(s) but keep the Krugman(s). But in any case, we also cite noted RR biographers like Lou Cannon and Richard Reeves.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I could only find a single sentence sourced to Krugman, and it concerns a tax increase in 1982. "According to Paul Krugman, "Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of GDP, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase." " Do we have any comments on economic policies by economic historians? Dimadick (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, This article passed FAC in 2006, when it was judged to be some of Wikipedia's best content; and was kept at an FAR in 2009. Those processes imply it shouldn't be far off of FA quality, but they don't guarantee it either. Standards have changed; large parts of the version that passed FAC were unsourced. The article has changed: version that passed FAC was about 8000 words long; the current version is 16,000 words, implying that a considerable portion of this was never reviewed at FAC or FAR. Perhaps most critically, source material may have changed. There has been considerable relevant scholarship published since 2006 that should be included (I have not reviewed in detail if it has been). All of which goes to say that dispute resolution and FA status are at least somewhat independent; long-lasting disputes ought to go to DR or be solved via RfCs, but concerns about content that are backed by sources ought to lead to an FAR regardless of what happens at DR. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm not getting involved in the dispute. Which means, I'm not opining on whether a POV tag has been justified (in the one small section I'm reading, it was not). Yes, if it is a content dispute, the best way to proceed is via DR, since stripping a star at FAR will a) take forever, and b) not resolve the dispute. I'm seeing lots of finger pointing and hand waving discussion in this one section, with very little discussion of sourcing. And the first step should be to list the possible sources and discuss which are highest quality, which are underrepresented, which are in breach of due weight, and so on. If these things aren't done first, and DR is not followed, FAR will not be a very useful step. For example, Vanamonde mentions scholarship that is not represented; discussion would be more productive if it started from that point (as in, here's a list of scholarship we should all consider and discuss). The threading in here is a mess, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could we please follow SandyGeorgia’s good advice? Can we please make a list of the best quality sources used in the article and a second list indicating sources that may be aren’t so high-quality that maybe don’t need to be used and perhaps a third list of new or high-quality sources that the article might benefit from. After we have that we might decide whether this article needs some revision or whether maybe it needs a complete review of its featured article status. Rather than disputing bits and pieces, I think a systematic evaluation would be beneficial. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Good advice. Do a complete reboot, stop shooting at each other, and start focusing strictly on which sources are the highest quality and should be represented here. A methodical approach via sourcing usually works. In a political (and I suppose others, too) article, it is too easy to think that running to FAR to strip the star "will show them" as in "I win, I win". But nobody wins anything by stripping the star if it means content isn't fixed. If the interest is in providing a neutral article to our readership, that is achieved by focusing on sources while leaving behind personalization and long diatribes that aren't "actionable". And if that is done, and the star still needs to be stripped, a much more effective argument (this recent scholarship has not been used, or this source is misrepresented, or that source is overrepresented) can be made at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  This, I agree with 100%. Content quality is central; everything else, FA status included, is secondary, and we should start by focusing on the content. If content issues are raised, and not addressed, only then should we consider an FAR; but the FAR doesn't fix the content issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Why is the section covering the budget deficit in the same paragraph with Black Monday (1987)? The deficit was unrelated to the stock market crash, which was instead attributed to the effects of a trade deficit. "unexpectedly high trade deficit figures announced by the United States Department of Commerce on October 14 had a negative impact on the value of the US dollar while pushing interest rates upward and stock prices downward." Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem was solved by pressing the "enter" key with the cursor in the correct location. Such minor formatting issues needn't generate a dedicated discussion section on an already bloated talk page. --Jayron32 17:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Economic policy labels

We have articles on both Supply side economics and Trickle-down economics. Both terms were widely used to describe the Reagan policies, but in this article the latter term is attributed only to Reagan's critics. In our article on Trickle-down, there's a quote from Arthur Laffer calling Reagan's policies Trickle-down rather than Supply-side. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The latter term is specifically defined as pejorative, and that it is used by critics. It is unclear whether you wish to remove the term "supply side" or "trickle-down" from the article, but both terms appear to be being used appropriately as the article currently stands. --Jayron32 17:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually read the articles? Supply-side economics was an emergent ideological school in the 1970s which argued that "high tax rate progressive income tax systems and United States monetary policy" had failed, and lower tax rates would stimulate growth. Trickle-down economics was originally a criticism of the economic policies of Herbert Hoover, arguing that they were "economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen". We quote a former ally of Reagan in stating that he promised one thing, and practiced the other one.:

• "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean, where the Trickle-down economics article states Major examples of Republicans supporting what critics call "trickle-down economics" include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[8] and where the Ronald Reagan article states "Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect reaching the poor.[189]" Those uses seem to align perfectly. Again, as I said above, you haven't identified the nature of the problem. What text do you want to see changed in this article? It's entirely unclear what you believe should be done. --Jayron32 18:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest any changes concerning the differences between Supply side economics and Trickle-down economics. I was responding to SPECIFICO, and trying to explain why trickle-down economics is only used by Reagan's critics, not his supporters. Dimadick (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining. --Jayron32 18:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Edit: I have removed some comments I made earlier because they were rude and uncalled for, and do not advance the discussion in a productive manner. I apologize both to SPECIFICO who was the recipient of the rudeness, and to anyone that had to read them. I have no excuse, only apology, to offer. SPECIFICO did not deserve that, and I should not have done so. I am sorry. --Jayron32 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understood from his text, he wants us to describe Reagan's economic policies as Trickle-down economics because Arthur Laffer has used the term. Note that Laffer was one of the founders for the Supply side economics school of thought, but his political views often influence what he says. He served in the Economic Policy Advisory Board of Reagan throughout his term in office, he vocally supported the fiscally conservative Bill Clinton in both of his terms, and lauded Donald Trump administration's economic policies, wrongly predicting that they would "raise growth rates to as much as 6% and not increase budget deficits". He was in the news during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that Trump could improve the economy through "halting coronavirus rescue relief spending". Somehow, I don't think Laffer qualifies as an objective source. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)