Talk:Tear down this wall!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comma

I inserted a much needed comma in:

the 40th US president credited by his supporters with winning the Cold War. :) Junes 6 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

I dunno, there are some pretty rabid James K. Polk supporters who credit him with winning the Cold War. — Phil Welch 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of that. James K. Polk was not even alive at the time of the cold war. What the Polk Supporters are saying is factually absurd. CheeseInTea (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea

Criticism

Was there any criticism at the time of Reagan's speech? People concerned that the speech was too hard-line? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.67.92 (talk • contribs) 07:12, November 14, 2005 (UTC)

Grandstanding nonsense. I doubt such a speech would have seen the light of day had a hard-liner been in the Kremlin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.72.148.102 (talk • contribs) 03:50, March 24, 2006 (UTC)

I find this article to be a little unfair to America. The background section makes it seem like all the hostilities and uneasiness were created by America, which just isnt true. In particular, it says that american military build up led to it, but werent the soviets doing the same exact thing? Not to mention the fact that THEY PUT UP THE WALL IN THE FIRST PLACE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to you and Reagan, but the Soviets actually had pretty little to do with the wall. Lars T. (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ORLY?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

YA RLY. Lars T. (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if thats true than I think maybe you should modify the page about the Berlin Wall because it says that the order to construct came straight from Kruschev

Mostly yes, that is true, Kruschev gave a great deal of support to the east german leadership for their plan to put up the wall, he might have "suggested" it as well in several conferences. This comes directly from Kruschev's memoirs where he defends the plan as a way to revitalize the East GErman economy and states that attempts to scale the wall were only "unfortunate, isolated incidents"--99.141.182.121 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

The article certainly needs to explain why State and the NSC were opposed to the speech. Cited sources are definitely needed here. The bit about "credited by his supporters with winning the Cold War" seems to have been removed since the above comment was made, and it's a good thing too. Reagan had about as much to do with winning the Cold War as James K. Polk did. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Colin Powell

Why is Colin Powell's criticism of Reagan's speech relevant? He was neither connected with the State Department, nor National Security Advisor at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGroon (talk • contribs) 07:12, November 16, 2006 (UTC)

He was Deputy NSA at the time, and clearly a rising star in diplomatic/security ranks. One interesting thing is that both Reagan's and JFK's national security/diplomatic brain trusts opposed the lines for which their Berlin speeches are remembered. --Amcalabrese (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

I wonder if the phrase had any inspiration from Pink Floyd's song "The Trial" (1979), which ends with the line "Tear down the wall!". :-) --Itub 10:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"finest in world history"?

"The speech is remembered as one of the finest in world history."

Should this be backed up? Remembered by whom? Remembered when? Amongst which speeches is it remembered?

Some people fail to realize that Ronald Reagan simply was grandstanding, being "Hollywood," taking advantage of a great photo opportunity. There was nothing particulrly noteworthy in his making his comment about the wall when he did. Dismantling the Soviet Union was already in the works, the powers in the Kremlin could see it was failing and had long before planned to take the USSR down. Reagan's privileged position as U.S. President gave him some inside information and allowed him to know their timeframe, so he simply was taking advantage of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by repubsdrivel12.155.13.9 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people fail to realize that haters are gonna hate. A.S. Williams (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This statement appears to be very US centric, from the European point of view Reagan has been a follower trying to catch up with the rapid pace of reforms imposed by Mikhail Gorbachev. If you check the French page and the German page, there is not even a mention of that speech.Sfoucher (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Euro view can be just as skewed and wrong too you know. How the hell could Reagan play catch up with the USSR in terms of reforms? Does someone really need to explain to you how litle sense that makes? Gorby may have been making reforms, but the USA was already much more liberated (I mean, DUH!), to where there was no "catch up" needed. I meam what the hell? What is going on over there? What are they teaching? Holy cow! Jersey John (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gorbachev allowed Berliners to destroy the wall?

Was he in any position to "allow" it, esp. when the leadership of the GDR would have opposed him? Lars T. (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While Gorby wasn't directly in charge of the GDR, it was widely recognized that without Soviet support (political and military) the East German leadership would never be able to hold out in a crisis - an uprising, a general strike or an inner wave of opposition within the party, as in Hungary in 1956. They needed the Soviet/WW Pact backing and once the shake-up and flow of democratic concepts was coming it would be hopeless for them to remain as the only old-style party autocracy in the neighbourhood. Gorbachev knew this and so did many Western politicians at the time, even though few people imagined the wall would come down so soon. Even if MG couldn't directly order the pulling down of the wall.

Btw I saw Reagan's speech on the news the day it happened. My feeling, as I remember it, was it was aimed at tv audiences at home rather than at the onlookers or even Gorbachev. It was a melodramatic gesture, rather than a pledge, and I don't think it made much of an impression in the underground GDR opposition (who could watch it on West German tv, which wasn't scrambled) /Strausszek (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 20, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Quite well written

2. Factually accurate?: Reliable sources well cited in the text.

3. Broad in coverage?: For one phrase, the article contains an extraordinary amount of detail.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Fairly stable.

6. Images?: The one image included is excellent.

Off to the Ronald Reagan featured topic we go… If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I literally listed this about a half hour ago on the GAN page, if that. Thanks for the quick pass! Happyme22 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Already?! All I did was go over to play some Fantasy-Impromptu and I come back to find another GA. Thanks! bibliomaniac15 05:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New Image of President Ronald Reagan being presented a now obsolete checkpoint sign

President Ronald Reagan is presented a now obsolete checkpoint sign at Tempelhof Airport in Berlin Germany on Sep 14 1990.

President Reagan was presented obsolete checkpoint sign about leaving the American section of Berlin while at Tempelhof Airport in Berlin Germany on Sep 14 1990. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image or file is in the public domain. Thought it maybe a good addition to the article. (Halgin (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)).

I'm not sure what the relevance of it is. Yes, it is an interesting photo, but why and where? Happyme22 (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also unsure why this would belong in this article. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Talks to the legacy of the speech. The sign was used at Checkpoint like Checkpoint Charlie when leaving West Berlin. When the Berlin wall was taken down the checkpoint sign became obsolete. Presenting it to Ronald Reagan talk to legacy of the speech in helping to tear down the Berlin wall.(Halgin (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)).

That is a clarification. My problem with the image is that Reagan isn't well-visible and only in the background. I'm willing to give it a shot, but let's see what other users think. Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's too shadowy, and Reagan isn't very clear. I don't think it would be of very much illustrative use. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Video with this speech

This site: [[1]] has a video with this Ronald Reagan's speech.Agre22 (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

I have uploaded the video and will add it to the article.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 08:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage does not equate with importance

There's an assumption in the last paragraph of the article that somehow the amount of media coverage is the same as something's importance. That's patently untrue, as the media is concerned with selling copy, not with historical or encyclopedic worth. And there are things the media knows almost nothing about that are exceptionally important, because those events happened behind closed doors. Equally, the media is capable of making a huge fuss for days about something that is barely remembered ten years later, and which has little encyclopedic value, for example a TV star's romance with another star.

Those who were adult Americans at the time remember this speech very well. Even among non-supporters of Reagan, it was like lightning. Daring. We wondered what in the world he was trying to accomplish. To trivialize this galvanizing speech as getting "relatively little coverage from the media", then to go on by saying the communists were also unimpressed, assigns an undue weight to media attention, and is misleading. Note that same Time article used as a source for the comment about little media attention starts, "The four most famous words of Ronald Reagan's Presidency almost were never uttered."

I'm altering the article slightly to remove WP:BIAS of the importance of media coverage. 98.210.160.166 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Mischtmail But let me add that the response to the speech in Germany differed quite significantly to that which you report about the USA at the time. The response in West Berlin was, to say the least, muted. IT would be helpful for there to be a greater balance in the perspectives offered here.

Coatracks and soapboxes

Mischtmail has been adding content on how irrelevant the speech was, how unpopular Reagan was, and how severe the West German police's operations were. There are several problems with his additions. Firstly, they largely are unreferenced original research. Secondly, at least parts of that content are utterly irrelevant to the subject of this article, which is not about Thirdly, reliably sourced content that disagrees with Mischtmail's preferred tale was removed in the process. For these reasons I have reverted his changes. Huon (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mischtmail responding to Huon: actually the references provided are from The Atlantic and der Tagesspiegel. The latter is one of Berlin's daily papers. I can certainly provide additional sources, since a description of the extreme measures that were taken on that day to shut down a big portion of the city belong on this page. The point is the following: the German perspective on this speach is missing here. There simply is no consensus as Huon would have it - or indeed the text in its previous form would have had it - about the significance of this speech. I am an academic based in GErmany, so although I am sadly not very experienced in your protocols here on this site, I am indeed keen on providing sources and am simply having trouble with the quotation function. I would be really happy if you would point me in the right direction. I think that my addition to this text can hardly be termed "vandalism". If you have a contribution to make about formatting, by all means please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischtmail (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Der Tagesspiegel and The Atlantic clearly are reliable sources, but they are misused here. For example, "A 2012 article in the Atlantic points out many of the reasons for the tendency for American media to focus on the significance of this particular speech" - that's simply not true. The article discusses the significance of the speech in a historical context (and the conclusion is that Reagan's impact on the fall of the GDR and the USSR is exaggerated by the modern American right), but it doesn't say anything about why this particular speech is a subject of media focus. The Tagesspiegel is less severely misrepresented, but also does not confirm what it's cited for. Phrases such as "It is, in this light, important to note that..." or "The possibility thus cannot be excluded..." are editorializing, not encyclopedic, and the claim that the GDR and the USSE "are both thought to have met their ends largely for economic reasons" is not supported by The Atlantic, which in fact says, "Historians still dispute, and likely will for many years, the extent to which the Soviet Union collapsed due to pressures from the U.S. or from within." Huon (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

These are valid concerns, but they can be addressed without blanket reverts. Similarly, Mischtmail might want to consider making changes step by step, explaining each step here on the talk page.

I have removed editorializing passages and amended the passage cited to Der Tagesspiegel to things that this source actually says. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tear down this wall!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720051623/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/commonwealth/programView.php?programID=3282 to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/commonwealth/programView.php?programID=3282

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)