Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Reagan and AIDS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Reagan first acknowledges AIDS, beginning at the 7:12 mark.
Moved to mainspace by Wasianpower (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thanks for writing this article (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Buidhe! Article has been updated with history.com source removed and wording in lede adjusted to make it more clear which part of the article it's referring to. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Kirchick cites the different government reactions as a reason why during the 1980s the rate of HIV infection in the Great Britain was just 10 percent of that in the United States" This sentence may still need work. I can't see the full context or what source he cites, but I looked it up and ran the numbers for 1989, at which point the number of infections was 20 times larger in the US which also has 6x greater population. That does point to a substantial difference but doesn't support Kirchick's argument. I would prefer to cite epidemiologists for claims about the causes of different prevalence rates.
Stand-alone "defense" and "criticism" is typically integrated into one reception section, maybe put the defense last since the criticism section sums up the overall view.
"In 2015, following the release of the short film When AIDS Was Funny, renewed criticism from progressive media ..." I don't see where the sources discuss progressive media. If they are being cited as examples of progressive media, this paragraph likely falls foul of WP:NOR (and UNDUE).
"However, it is controversial whether Reagan himself could be considered homophobic, or if his personal views on homosexuality affected his AIDS response." part 1 is a false dichotomy, part 2 is unprovable (and I'm not seeing anywhere the opposite argument is made). The ultimate controversy/criticism is not about what Reagan believed but what he did, the article should reflect the bulk of the legacy section.
"Timeline of the Reagan administration's AIDS response" If you keep this section everything needs an inline citation. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirchick's source for the one-tenth figure is The Age of Reagan by Wilentz, I don't have access to this book though. The other issues have been addressed. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've gone ahead and changed the 10 percent figure to a more general figure that is still in line with what Kirchick wrote, and also in line with your analysis. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the hook + article probably meet the requirements now but I'm not sure if the video does. (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Very nice page! Thank you for the great work :)

Broc (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC

[edit]

Consider including this image as wp:NFCC (higher resolution versions are available via google images) (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Percy source

[edit]

Discussion on the William Percy source which was removed. I'm also a little unclear on this source, but I included it after I found it referenced throughout many pages on the topic including LGBT history in the United States and LGBT movements. It seems pretty clear based on the William A. Percy article that this was in fact his personal website. I'm fine with this source being gone, it's borderline IMO, but I wanted to start a discussion on it anyway in case it needs to be removed from other pages. I am fairly certain based on a little digging the passage originates from this text: https://www.routledge.com/Before-Stonewall-Activists-for-Gay-and-Lesbian-Rights-in-Historical-Context/Bullough/p/book/9781560231936 though I have thus far been unable to find a copy of the text. I think based on WP:SPS that as long as it is uncontroversial that this is in fact Percy's website, this should be a fine source as he was a respected subject matter expert. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which say this is Percy's website: 1 2
The articles from the website also appear to have been used in published texts: 1 2 3 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't access the text that the article is based on, I would say you shouldn't cite it—inaccessibility is an automatic wp:V failure. Also, you can't assume that another contributor didn't engage in close paraphrasing or failed verification issues. A lot of older websites are now permanently inaccessible even if archived on wayback because of Adobe Flash and other software deprecation. These sources have to be removed because they can no longer be verified by anyone, imv. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passage I wrote in this article was based on the article as archived, here, not based on what other editors had written; so at the very least there's no game of telephone going on between multiple editors. If the article can be verified via archive, would you lean towards it being verifiable? IMO that's not really any different than anywhere else on Wikipedia where dead links are included as a source, but I'm open to other viewpoints here. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch my previous reply, I found a book which discusses Percy's discussion on AIDS and the gay rights movement, which I will cite as a source instead. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I couldn't see any text on the archive site, but if I copy and paste then I can get some text. That's not the same situation as having no way to verify the content. The new source you added is Cambridge scholars publishing, which is effectively a self-publishing outlet. I'm still not sure why it makes sense to highlight Percy's opinion or elevate this fringy website, which if Wikipedia is correct, was established "to publicize those who don’t demonize 'the Eight P’s': promiscuity, public sex, pederasty, pornography, prostitution, paraphernalia, poètes maudits, and “planters” (dead males who made Western Civilization and most others)" It would be better to look for scholarly sources about the hiv-related gay rights movement under Reagan (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source for the "Eight P's" claim? I'm a little confused which website that's referring to, but that's definitely a weird thing to publicize if true. Like I said, I'm not particularly attached to this source or anything but William A. Percy was a notable scholar in the LGBT history field, and IMO I can't really see a reason to throw out his work entirely. Might be better at this point to replace the book with a direct link to the piece though, Cambridge scholars seems sketchy af. Okay I did some more digging Percy definitely advocated for pederasty which is also NOT what I thought it was, I'm just going to go ahead and delete the source. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed title change

[edit]

It has been proposed at the DYK talk section on this article that the title of this article be changed, possibly to "Response of the Ronald Reagan administration to HIV/AIDS". Tagging people involved in that discussion @Bruxton, @AirshipJungleman29, @Andrew Davidson, Hydrangeans as well as Buidhe who has contributed to this article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an improvement but perhaps we should consider following the format of existing pages which include:
  1. Cannabis policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
  2. Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
  3. Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a rename seems unnecessary and like it could potentially imply a different article. Articles about highly influential/powerful people—U. S. presidents and non-presidents alike—and their interactions with notable topics appear throughout the Wikipedia. Examples include (alphabetical by surname or reign/position name):
Additionally, this article goes into details about Reagan personally (such as his acquaintanceship with Rock Hudson, his post-presidential career, and how this plays into Reagan's legacy), that are encyclopedic because they're covered in due, independent, reliable sources—like The New York Times, The Triumph of Nancy Reagan (Simon & Schuster, 2021), Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington (Henry Holt and Company, 2022), the numerous sources in the legacy section—but could be out of scope for an article about the Reagan administration rather than about Reagan the president and post-president. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, this was generally my rationale for titling the article this way in the first place. With the examples provided here I do feel much better about the current title being in line with encyclopedic tone. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In those other cases, the named person was quite involved personally. But this doesn't seem the case with AIDS. For example, the NYT currently recalls how Reagan got personally involved repeatedly in previous Middle East crises. We know that this was personal because he put it in his diary. But for AIDS, "Mentions of AIDS in these diaries are sparse". Andrew🐉(talk) 06:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We might try to match the three titles that Andrew suggested above, otherwise the suggestion buidhe agreed to is an improvement. Bruxton (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Template:United States policy, the common title format for these articles seems to be "[TOPIC] policy of the [PRESIDENT] administration", such as Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. CMD (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Andrew also suggested; I'm still slightly inclined towards leaving it as is, but if we are going move the article this seems more in scope with the article's current content. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More representative lead image

[edit]

It seems that it would be both more specific and more representative of this article's topic to use File:AIDSGATE poster from the Silence=Death Project, 1987.jpg as the lead image rather than the standard presidential portrait. It does the same job as the existing photo - showing what he looked like - while also making a statement on the specific subject of the article. I must say I am elated to find this expansive and well-sourced article after years of less than lip service paid to this important subject on the main Ronald Reagan article. Jaydenwithay (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Unfortunately that image is non-free copyrighted content, so I don't think we can duplicated it to the lede in line with minimal usage. I agree another image could be better suited for the lede though, possibly this one which is used on the main Reagan article, or this image from Reagan's first speech on AIDS. I'm also trying to find a place in the article for this image, which has an interesting contemporary sign criticizing Reagan at the 1987 March, which may also be suited for the lede. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I actually uploaded the first photo you mentioned, and I think it fits well. Jaydenwithay (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh awesome, thank you for the upload! I'll go ahead and make that change then. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan's personal views on homosexuality

[edit]

The article appears to be somewhat contradictory on Reagan's personal views (or tolerance of) homosexuality. Early on in the article, in the "Pre-presidential views on homosexuality", it makes him out to be a fairly tolerant person on this subject. Later on though, in a section called "Reagan's personal views", the gears change. One statement that really jumped out at me was "Reagan was also known to frequently make homophobic jokes, or mockingly act in an effeminate way to get a laugh.", sourced to a article in The Atlantic. This goes against what most RS has to say on this subject. To quote from 2 of the most notable biographies on RR:

“Reagan was more tolerant than many in his generation. His daughter Patti Davis (who dropped her father’s last name in favor of her mother’s) later said that he had spoken matter-of-factly about Rock Hudson’s homosexuality, which had been a open secret in Hollywood for years. And she said that Reagan and Nancy had left her and Ron in the care of a lesbian couple while they vacationed in Hawaii.” [From: ‘Reagan: The Life’, by H.W. Brands, p. 655]

“Reagan thought homosexuality “a sad thing” but he had no antipathy towards gays and lesbians. He was capable of compassion for AIDS victims, and he did not share the bigoted belief that the disease was a wrathful God’s punishment for homosexual conduct” [From: ‘President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime’, by: Lou Cannon, p. 735]

Even a lot of the books critical of Reagan don't accuse him of homophobia.

Ergo, I think there are some changes in order here.....but I wanted to post here first (considering how contentious this topic has been over the years) to discuss it first....if anyone cares to.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not (by the way) suggesting we delete The Atlantic piece since it is RS. (Although I am not sure if this should be attributed as a opinion piece: I am not sure if it is or not. See [1] for its comments on The Atlantic.) It may be a case of one RS says this, and others say that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not an opinion piece, it's an excerpt from Tumulty's book The Triumph of Nancy Reagan. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources which make this claim that Reagan would make these jokes, see also Kirchik's Gay Washington -- these are claims about individuals actions which may be perceived as homophobic, not necessarily his entire view on homosexuality. Someone can make a homophobic joke and not be a wholesale homophobe. There's not really any denying he said those things, they are very well discussed in the literature. I honestly don't think there's any contradiction here, what the article is discussing are individual instances of things he did, vs. whether he was homophobic (see also the Legacy section for more discussion on that), as two different but related subjects. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Kirchik's book, but if you do want to capture "his entire view on homosexuality"....would you take any issue with me including a mention from the references I quote above?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, IMO the Cannon quote is the one which fits the article best. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll drop something in over the next day or so. I really don't want to drop in a lengthy quote.....just something that notes his biographers POV. (Maybe one of those quotes as a footnote.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds good. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jaydenwithay, could you expand on your objections to including info from Reagan's biographers in his personal beliefs? 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason to exclude this. To have a section that discusses Reagan's personal views on homosexuality that excludes the viewpoints of Reagan's biographers (including his most noted one [Cannon] and a very notable historian [Brands]) is ridiculous.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my language, but I'm not sure Lou Cannon, one of Reagan's most devoted, slobbering hagiographers, is a neutral or objective source as it relates to the subject. The claim that he was "capable" of compassion also isn't really relevant when the topic at hand is whether he actually showed that compassion (spoiler alert: he did not). Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than you....I am not sure I have heard anyone call Cannon's books on Reagan "hagiographies". On the contrary, they are frequently cited by highly regarded historians. The New York Times review of the reference cited called it "the best study of that enigmatic presidency". His other books on Reagan have (also) been well received. This isn't just RS, it is the top of the heap RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think some of the language used to describe Cannon was excessive, on the substance of assessing Cannon's perspective on Reagan, I agree that his biographies of Reagan have a very strong POV in which he casts Reagan very glowingly. Furthermore, Cannon's claim that Reagan didn't consider AIDS a punishment sent by the Christian God straightforwardly contradicts Tumulty's The Triumph of Nancy Reagan, cited earlier in the section to say that Reagan said he did muse that AIDS was just that. This seems to be one case in which Cannon's POV has misguided him from coming to grips with the totality of his subject's attitude toward gay people. And I can't help but think that the pitying perspective on AIDS and gay life that Cannon seems proud of Reagan for holding is, while not vindictive, rather paternalistic and as such homophobic for being belittling, even if not berating.
I'm also not sure H. W. Brands's assessment of Reagan in Reagan: The Life is being represented quite rightly. Immediately after the paragraph where Brands says Reagan was more tolerant than many in his generation (which was also an unattributed quotation in the article prose), Brands goes on to clarify, Yet Reagan headed a party that included powerful groups appalled by homosexuality to whom he catered, if not pandered.
I've gone ahead and made some adjustments to more completely reflect Brands's assessment of Reagan, and to try to make it so the content is more smoothly integrated with the rest of the section. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever anyone's opinion of Cannon is: he is (without question) RS. His works on Reagan are cited (nearly endlessly) in other RSs by heavyweight historians. I will restore that quote by Cannon....but I take no issue with the changes with regards to Brands.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even generally reliable sources make mistakes sometimes, and that's what seems to have happened with Cannon's description of Reagan's views on gay people. As evidence of Cannon's claim about what Reagan thought of gay people, Cannon states that Reagan did not share the bigoted belief that the disease was a wrathful God’s punishment for homosexual conduct. However, we know from Edmund Morris, as cited by Karen Tumulty, that Cannon is mistaken. Reagan said to Morris, maybe the Lord brought down this plague (Tumulty, 620). Cannon is cited elsewhere in the article, and at this time I see no reason to rush to remove such. But this sentence cited to Cannon is based on bad evidence debunked by another reliable source. As such, please revert your edit. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a more direct citation of Tumulty's claim, see also Morris's Dutch p. 458. Agree that a lot of older sources which are otherwise RS contain misleading or incorrect info, in part just because not all information was available at the time -- for example, may sources even as recently as the early 2010s say that Reagan's first mention of AIDS was in 1986 with the creation of the Koop report rather than '85. There is some relevant scholarly discussion on this topic as well, see Brier's Reagan and AIDS, in which she argues that Reagan's biographers did an inadequate job covering his AIDS response.
Some info from biographers does have a place here, and it seems @Hydrangeans has as usual done a great job finding an accurate and balanced way to include it. Agree based on her arguments that the Cannon quote should probably not be included. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where RSs conflict, we should present all of them. (I.e. so and so said [X] & so and so said [Y].) In reality, there have been more questions about Edmund Morris's works on Reagan than there have been on Cannon's. Morris's Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan faced heavy criticism. (Including quite a dust up on the Today Show between Katie Couric & Morris.) But you won't see me delete the Morris book because it is RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression was that criticism of Morris's biography centers on the unorthodox inclusion in the book of a fictional autobiography of a character named after Edmund Morris, not on the book's factual depiction of Reagan.
In any case, having gotten to revisit Lou Cannon's book and read the specific portion covering Reagan's attitude on AIDS, I think Cannon's perspective is a little subtler than all three of us may have realized. On page 736, Cannon goes on to say that despite his capacity for compassion and opportunity to demonstrate leadership, Reagan was distanced from the AIDS crisis and was content to play the role of an exceptionally passive president. I think this could slot well into the last paragraph, about inattention in his diaries, lending that last paragraph a theme of the slowness to give serious attention to the matter despite having a chance to make a difference. I hope it's alright that I've tried weaving the Cannon material throughout the section. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me. I went ahead and moved the Hutton quote to the end, I think that helps it flow better since it kind of builds off what Brands was saying. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that; that works well. The paragraph reports that Reagan played to homophobic political elements and then follows to some comments he made about policy to enact (or rather, not enact) affecting gay people. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can live with the changes....compromise is the name of the game here. Although I do have to say that the criticism of Morris's book went beyond just his unorthodox method of introducing fictional characters....he put words in people's mouth (including Reagan) via fictional conversations. But I don't have much interest in altering that part of the article, so I'll cut it off there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS&oldid=1243027542"