The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
This article was copy edited by Bodnotbod, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 17 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as: [[Talk:Ronald Reagan#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n] To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
01. There is a consensus to call Ronald Reagan an American politician instead of an American statesman, in the first sentence of the lead section. (RfC December 2016)
02. Obsolete
There is a consensus against adding the proposed text to the Honoring German war dead at Bitburg, Germany section: In fact, some of Waffen-SS soldiers buried at Bitburg had been members of the 2nd SS Panzer Division, nicknamed "Das Reich," which had committed war crimes, although it has been estimated that none of the individual soldiers buried at Bitburg personally participated. (RfC April 2018) Since July 2020, the section no longer appears in the article.
03. There is a consensus to exclude Reagan's successful push for the United States Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention. (RfC July 2018)
04. There is a consensus to include in the Iran-Contra affair section, a very brief mention of the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras. (RfC September 2019)
05. There is a consensus to add a subsection about Reagan addressing apartheid and a general consensus on the subsection's wording. (October 2019)
06. Superseded by #10
There is no consensus to include in the lead section, a clause in the sentence on Reagan's first term stating that during the said term, he largely ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis. (RfC April 2020)
07. There is no consensus to include in the lead section, a sentence, immediately preceding the ones on the Soviet Union, stating Reagan resisting calls for stringent sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and vetoed a sanctions bill but was overridden by Congress. (RfC April 2020)
08. Disputed
Beginning in July 2019, there was a discussion about the integration of Reagan's remarks in a 1971 audio recording with Richard Nixon in the narrative of the body, but the closure and outcome is disputed. A similar discussion beginning in June 2020 was archived without closure or a clear consensus. Furthermore, there was not enough discussion on specific wordings or placements for a consensus to emerge on those matters. (February 2020, RfC June 2020)
010. Supersedes #6. There is a consensus to include in the lead section, a clause about Reagan's response to the AIDS epidemic. There is no consensus to include a full sentence there, including Reagan also headed a delayed governmental response to the AIDS epidemic during his tenure. (RfC May 2023)
This change is pretty much rewriting the first sentence. As stated by other editors, I think it's made clear that Reagan was an American politician by stating that he was the president of the United States. Векочел (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to remove "American politician" here, since by saying that he was the president of the United States, we also establish that he was American, and that he was a politician.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the first sentence in the lead be rewritten: (red to be removed; green to add) "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who served as the 40th president of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989"? Векочел (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Modified the RfC question to show the suggested change. SWinxy (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Other presidents have their intro similar to this one (see Obama's and Clinton's). Point #1 of the Current Consensus (see above) says there is a consensus to call him a "American politician....in the first sentence of the lead section". Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, arguments of the form "there are other articles that do it this other way" are not conclusive. There are more than 40 articles about U.S. presidents, and many of them begin in a way comparable to what is proposed here.
The Current Consensus argument was whether to use "politician" or "statesman". The proposed rewrite doesn't use either one. Not using either one was not one of the alternatives discussed in the earlier (2016) RfC. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was to use "American politician", the fact that not using either one was not a alternative discussed is irrelevant. The fact remains: the current consensus calls for "American politician".Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposed rewrite. It eliminates unnecessary duplicative crud; that is, given that the sentence must have "president of the United States" in it, it doesn't need to also have "American politician" in it. The proposed rewrite also eliminates "actor". I am in favor of mentioning Reagan's background as an actor in the first paragraph, because it was (and still is) a major component of his notability. But that's perhaps for the next sentence; the first sentence should be constructed as described in MOS:FIRSTBIO, and it should be constrained from itemizing all the notable things about the subject, as mentioned in MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also agree with the proposed rewrite. Him being an actor is indeed a key reason for his notability, but it does not have to be included in the very first sentence. The proposed edit is more concise, less repetitive and gets straight to the point, in regard to his principal reason for notability. Svenska356 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: I think the existing sentence provides context without complicating. Having the two notability components - politician and actor - does not overload as described in MOS:LEADCLUTTER and it also provides sufficient context and explains why the person is notable as described in MOS:FIRSTBIO. For a non-American new to American politics it is interesting to know that Reagan was a politician and actor, just as it would be interesting to know Trump is a politician and businessman (now) while in 2016 he was a businesspersson turned president! Rigorousmortal (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mention of Reagan's career as an actor can be added to the introductory paragraph, such as: Prior to his presidency, he was a career actor.Векочел (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (called by bot) for reasons already mentioned by Rigorousmortal and Ssilvers: present sentence provides context without complicating, alternative is worse. I would like people to check the troublesome edit history of the proponent of this RfC. I am troubled with his/her edits removing content without explanation, introducing mistakes and in particular not replying to other editors warnings. IMO this RfC is unnecessary and a waste of energy.Wuerzele (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another unneccessary, if not totally wrong, proposal. The presidents, kings, etc, are the notable people, not Wikipedians who manage to get the beginnings of those articles changed more-or-less just to get some imagined credit/notability for changing them. I oppose any and all unneccessay changes. Many of them smack primarily of a lack of respect for the previous work of others. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; his status as an actor is still a major part of his bio (in part because it led into his presidency) and therefore belongs in the first sentence. Also, "politician" is the normal way to describe people notable for political careers; I don't see any real argument for removing it. And overall the "actor and politician" wording just reads more smoothly; it's not true that trimming words always makes things better. The proposed alternative feels choppy and incomplete. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reagan's notability as an actor deserves a whole sentence. An independent clause tacked on to the first sentence would be OK. Something like Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th president of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989; earlier, he had played starring roles in films is what I have in mind. Just throwing the word "actor" in there, as we are currently doing, has several problems. It doesn't say whether Reagan was in film or on the stage; it doesn't say that he played leading roles, it doesn't say that he was a star. Readers can't learn much from that. It doesn't do justice to Reagan's notability. As a rule of thumb, if something is really notable, it needs to be presented as if it were notable. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think readability is suffering with this sentence, also this is a lead section just introducing he was an actor. His acting career in detail is covered elsewhere. Onikaburgers (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I think the current version "was an American politician and actor who served as" is better than the rewrite. Reagan was also well-known for being an actor before he was a politician, and I think that fact should be prominent in the lede. GretLomborg (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose I don't necessarily think the rewrite is bad, but it's not much of an improvement. I don't see any problems with the current first sentence in the lead. He was also well known as the governor of California, not just the president, so "politician" is an apt general description. And as has been noted by others, his acting career was a prominent part of his notability. In fact, it made his presidency itself all the more notable. Even Doc Brown couldn't help but exclaim "Ronald Reagan? The actor!?" when Marty tells him who the president is in 1985. Kerdooskistalk20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose present wording provides context. His status as an actor is still a major part of his bio (in part because it led into his presidency) and therefore belongs in the first sentence. Also, "politician" is the normal way to describe people notable for political careers … overall the "actor and politician" wording just reads more smoothly … The proposed alternative feels choppy and incomplete. per Aquillion. Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMOS:FIRSTBIO defines context as location or nationality for the activities that made the person notable. In both the present wording and the proposed wording, "United States" is the context. No additional context is needed.
MOS:FIRSTBIO also requires noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for. "president of the United States" is the noteworthy position. Since this is a political position, it is repetitive and superfluous to additionally specify "politician". This is true even if the president had no formal political career before becoming president, e.g. Zachary Taylor.
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell.
This is the gospel of serious writing, and published books, magazines, even encyclopedias do not throw in extra, duplicative, words, as we are throwing in "American politician". Some Wikipedia editors claim that this practice makes the text "flow more smoothly" or "read more easily", but one must consider it from the point of view of the actual reader, not the editor. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Standard sentence structure for the former president's leading section while providing important context of his acting career making him an actor-politician. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That would be assuming that the POTUS has to be wholly American, with no dual nationalities. It would also be assuming that is it common knowledge that you have to be a natural-born citizen to hold the office, which I imagine is not the case in many English-speaking territories. It may seem trivial, but it still provides important context for many readers. Not to mention that it completely disregards political notability elsewhere. MB243705:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reference to "natural-born"? "American" does not imply that. Likewise, "American" does not imply "wholly American, with no dual nationalities." The end of the line is, "American" does not teach the reader anything that he does not learn from "president of the United States".
I am not sure what you are trying to say about "political notability elsewhere". But, inasmuch as the presidency is a political position, "politician" does not teach the reader anything that he does not learn from "president of the United States". If you think the same reasoning applies to the first sentences of articles about other countries' heads of state, then I agree. In the examples given by MOS:FIRSTBIO, two (Cleopatra and François Mitterrand) were heads of state of other countries. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Precedent leans towards the current version, and I also think that his acting career is important enough for the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
