Talk:Ronald Reagan#rfc 60C2A70

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739037668}}

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)

• 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)
• :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)
• ::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)
• 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. {{pb

}} 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• :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)
• Oppose. The sentence is better as is, serving to more completely describe the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• :I am disappointed to see this level of blatant ad hominem argumentation in response to what I perceive as a well-intentioned RfC. Have we forgotten WP:Assume good faith? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 {{tq|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)
• :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)
• Support for consistency with the ledes of all other deceased former US presidents, including the late Jimmy Carter. Like Carter's humanitarian career, Reagan's acting career is covered elsewhere in the lead section. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Not any more, apparently: Special:Diff/1268066636 (see also Special: Diff/1267741178). Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. Kerdooskistalk 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose present wording provides context. {{TQ|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)
• Comment MOS: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.
• Oppose. He was notable, in our terms, as an actor before he was a politician, and remains notable as an actor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:FIRSTBIO also requires {{tq|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.

:The basic advice from Strunk & White is: {{blockquote|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)

: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)

: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. MB2437 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::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)

• 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)

:Oppose: Acting career is significant enough to be included in the lead. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose Acting career is significant enough

:AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Bruce. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Ronald Reagan|answered=yes}}

change the vice president link to link to George H.W. Bush HoneyHive20122012 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{not done}} – Absent a compelling reason for why, we will not be using that alternative spacing here in this article. Drdpw (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan served as its president a total of seven terms. In the Wikipedia article, it states he was only elected twice. This could cause some confusion for readers wanting to know his background in entertainment. Here's the link to the SAG description of his service: [https://www.sagaftra.org/ronald-reagan] Criddic (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The other day I attempted to streamline the first sentence of the lead to just "Ronald Reagan was the 40th president of the United States..." instead of how it is right now mentioning his career as an actor and politician as well. I expected this to get reverted (which it did) per #Current consensus but interpreted that to discourage calling Reagan a stateman. This also follows the precedent of most of Reagan's predecessors who are most notable for being presidents (excluding Carter being a humanitarian and the Founding Fathers being the Founding Fathers) and is encouraged by MOS:FIRSTBIO. So I wanted to see thoughts on whether if the change should be made or not. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Have you looked at the most recent discussion on this topic, #RfC on introduction? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Oh I'm stupid Lazesusdasiru (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)