Talk:Ronald Reagan in music

Pro-Reagan music???
Every song covered in this article either criticizes Reagan or is clearly anti-Reagan. I am sure that there must be at least some songs that are pro-Reagan, especially after his presidency. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes! Find and add! Morganfitzp (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done what I can to add this section. Pro-Reagan music is a bit harder to track down. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * More has come out on this. See the end of the hardcore punk section. Morganfitzp (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Too few references
There appears to be too much independent research in this article. For example, in what way is Reagan referred to in "The Old Man Down the Road?" Some source material might provide more than just the assertion. That whole section contains what appears to be someone's own research into the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.102.133 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:71.178.102.133. I've added a couple of refs for Fogerty's song. Where else are you seeing what appears to be original research in need of references? Morganfitzp (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

NFCC violations
Aside from the problems described above, which persist, this article is riddled with NFCC violations -- both procedural, in terms of virtually complete failure to provide appropriate article-specific NFCC use rationales, and substantive, in that you don't need a an image of an album cover when the relevant content can be adequately conveyed by text alone. Stating that Reagan's image appeared on the cover is sufficient. This is elementary. Also, it's unacceptable to simply present extensive quotes of copyrighted lyrics. Rather than quoting lyrics, reliable secondary sources -- not an editor's interpretation of the lyrics -- must be cited. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo, please assume good faith from your fellow editors. One could, instead of just deleting entire paragraphs of text, tag things and write a friendly note, like, "Hey, this section on hip-hop could use some more references," or, "Clearly a lot of thought went into this part about the 1960s, but this is where it could be tightened up." If one treats fellow editors' work "like dirt" than that editor may feel "treated like dirt" on the other end. Our goal here is to move an article from start-class toward becoming a good article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, what are some things you can do toward that end?  Morganfitzp (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The NFCC violations almost certainly can't be fixed, and by policy are to be removed on sight; that's why removing NFCC violations is an exemption from 3RR limits. The OR (original research) problems may or may not be fixable, but consensus practice is generally to remove such unsourced statements on sight. Attributing opinions to living persons without sources, or based on one's own interpretation of primary sources, also violates BLP policy. The problem was raised above, months ago, and very little action was taken. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * References added, 100 to date. Visual representations have been replaced by the section on record sleeves. Enjoy. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Good article?
I fixed a misspelled word in this article, and I also had some issues for which I added tags. I was surprised that this article has a "Good article" tag, and I looked back and saw that Legobot added this tag on 28 August 2017. I don't know enough about how such a tag is added, especially by a bot. I think that this "Good article" tag should be deleted, but I hesitated to do so without fully understanding the background. (At least it wasn't a person that identified this as a good article.) Any guidance would be appreciated. Jkgree (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * See the GA review section above to see what the GA reviewer asked me to do. It's easy for redundant Wikilinks to occur when multiple editors are adding to and moving things around in an article over a period of time. If see instances of overlinking, you can redundant links yourself. As for the article's length, what do you think should be cut or reduced? Morganfitzp (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

1987-1989
In Roger Waters second studio Radio K.A.O.S. album track No. 3 entitled "Me or Him, there are 4 political commentaries regarding Reagan;

1. Do you really think Iranian terrorists would have taken Americans hostage if Ronald Reagan were president?

2. Do you really think the Russians would have invaded Afghanistan if Ronald Reagan were president?

3. Do you really think third-rate military dictators would laugh at America and burn our flag in contempt if Ronald Reagan were president?

4. We as a group do most importantly want to beseech President Reagan and our fellow Americans to refrain from any form of military or violent means as an attempt, no matter how noble or heroic, to secure our freedom.

Perhaps the more-experienced senior editors here can offer their opinion on the worthiness of including this song in the 1987-1989 section?

24.53.51.129 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)