Talk:Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan
 | A fact from Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 August 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Suggestions for improvement
edit- I'd exclude debates unless a good reason to include them can be provided in the lead of the list. They aren't really speeches in the classic meaning of the word, after all. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think this could be adequately fixed with a page name move to "Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan" (that may be your intent already) expanding the scope. Ryan Vesey 07:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed.– Lionel (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- you might consider adding to the table a column for speechwriter, if known. For instance, Peggy Noonan (Pont du Hoc speech), Ben Elliott, Peter Robinson ("Tear down this wall" speech), etc. [1][2] Binksternet (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- There can and probably should be an article just on Ronald Reagan's oratorical style. Have you got your eye on a featured topic? Ryan Vesey 05:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
"Reagan leveraged his experience as a radio announcer and actor to become the "The Great Communicator." He used empathy to connect to his audience." - says who? References please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- The source is here. It is sourced further down in the article so it doesn't need to be sourced in the lead. Ryan Vesey 21:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Biased list
editThe sentence in the lead ""Tear down this wall!" is considered to be one of history's top 10 greatest speeches" needs qualifying. The reference is not given, but I presume it refers to the Time poll mentioned later on. This is hardly a representative poll of the greatest speeches in history as 8 out of 10 are by Americans. Such bias cannot not allow the statement to stand as a NPOV fact in the article. It needs qualifying to state that it is one of the greatest American speeches. Really, you can't use as a cite a skewed poll - it is laughable to suggest (as Time seriously does) that only Winston Churchill and Socrates out of all the speeches in recorded history are worth a mention alongside all these illustrious Americans. 86.133.208.88 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Time magazine will always be a reliable source and we specifically note that the ranking came from there. Should you provide another reliable source that says otherwise, we could comment on that as well. Ryan Vesey 16:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a reliable source, sure, I'm not arguing that - but it is clearly not neutral. How can 8 out of 10 of the greatest speeches of all time, from anywhere in the world, in all of recorded history, be by Americans, other than in a biased American poll? It's a nonsense and it's a nonsense to use it as a supporting reference without the caveat that it is a biased poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.208.88 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is non-neutral to say the poll is biased without anything to support your argument. Perhaps you can find a reliable source to say that Reagan's speech isn't among that list rather than basing your statement on your own point of view. Ryan Vesey 16:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh come on!!! Use your common sense. I know Americans think the US is the be all and end all, but seriously?' 80% of the greatest speeches ever given are by Americans? It is so patently obviously biased I can't believe I am having to have this conversation with you.
- This is the perfect example of why Americans are thought of as arrogant by the rest of the world. Seriously, this is a Catch-22/1984 tpye editing situation here, where people are telling me unless I can find a source to show that a clearly-biased source is biased, it isn't! Haven't you people ever used your common sense?
- It would be akin to someone being given a "Person of the Year" award and us not including it because that award didn't factor in someone you think should have won who lives in.. I don't know... Croatia. Or that an Academy Award is an invalid mention in an article because it didn't take independent films from Afghanistan into account. When a major media organization makes such a proclamation about someone, it is notable, whether you agree with it or not. Trusilver 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your last edit is an acceptable one in my opinion. Ryan Vesey 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am in agreement. Trusilver 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And then when I point out the NPOV/bias in the article, my edits are removed as NPOV! Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.208.88 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)