Talk:Evil Empire speech

Comment

There have been those who have described the United States as an evil empire; this should be included, but after Reagan's (more prevalent, and original) usage. Also the Rage Against the Machine album should be noted. user:Daniel C. Boyer

"never retracted his description of the former Soviet Union as an "evil empire," despite repeated requests to do so"

In CNN's Cold War series there is footage FULL OF SHITof Reagan in Moscow - a reporter asks if he would still describe the Soviet Union as the evil empire - and he refuses to do so. This could be attirbuted to politeness in the presence of his host, but maybe significant?Mark 22:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Some russian nationalists and communsists called USA "evil empire". 89.254.200.158 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And alot of other countries 50.98.122.61 (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the article graphically

I suggest that a world map be included with all the US-dubbed "evil" countries, past and present, colored in red or in as many colors as necessary. "Evil empire", "axis of evil", "chain of evil", "rogue states", "rogue nations", etc. are all equivalent expressions. 194.117.2.108 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Later Uses Section

The whole section is stupid and useless. Wikipedia is a universal encyclopedia, not the Reader's Digest. Make a new article, if you want, with the funny uses of the expression.JBarreto 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lula

Why is lula listed as anti-american leader? He is not! Well, he is not also a pro-american leader. José San Martin 16:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This expression was never used by any representative of the US government to refer to Chavez, Lula, Castro or Morales (for that matter). This came up because of some highly subjective and expeculative articles by some [American] journalists. I wish I could site sources here, but I don't have any links. I bet if you search on Google you'll be able to find something, though. My opinion is that this should be removed. --Pinnecco 13:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sentence

The following: "Reagan's description of the former Soviet Union was as totalitarian and evil" seems rather POV to me. In my opinion calling Reagan "Totalitarian" and "Evil" is someones own point of view and not NPOV. There should be another way to put this into the article without the attempt to attack a dead person who is not alive now to defend himself.

The sentence is not as clear as it could be, but it's not calling Reagan totalitarian and evil, it's saying that he described the Soviet Union as totalitarian and evil. I'll try to reword the sentence so it's meaning is more clear.<nowiki></nowiki>&mdash;[[User:Thames|thames]] 14:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Evil empire

Please keep biased opinions off Wikipedia. And besides, didn't the English set the precedent for Imperialism?RoboChocobo 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the article about The Evil Empire: 101 Ways etc., then I understand your anger about bias, but as for the English and Imperialism, we certainly advertised it through the British Empire, but we didn't set the precedent for it - compare the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire or the policies of the Roman Empire or the Delian League. 82.36.28.41 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Persia

An article entitled The Evil Empire about the Persian Empire and the exhibition The Forgotten Empire at the British museum was written by Guardian Unlimited's Jonathan Jones. The article gives a history of Greece and Persia and says the exhibition was "misnamed."

The Article --Cyrus Jones 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Conservatives

I removed the line "Non-conservatives claim giving Reagan credit is like giving the cheerleaders credit for winning the game." There are many who believe Reagan should not have been given so much credit. But I think someone can come up with something a little less POV and less silly than that line. There are other problems like that, but that was the worst one.

I was the one who wrote that line, basically because I know conservatives who say that Reagan, essentially singlehandedly, brought down the Soviet Union. These same people say that the Berlin Wall came down solely because Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachov, tear down this wall". (They ignore the fact that almost exactly three years passed between Reagan saying it and the wall coming down.) Jhobson1 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Basing this on a citation to a reputable journalist and journal would help relieve the difficulty here. Ratagonia (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaction section

The use of bin Laden as a key example of a critic of the notion that the evil empire speech was a key element in the downfall of the Soviet Union seems biased to me since their have been mainstream left-wing critics who have questioned the effect of the speech. While his opinion on the subject may be valid for inclusion I think a mainstream left-wing critic should be mentioned first as an example to use with "Others, however, like..." Also, the inclusion of the phrase "Of course, Osama bin Laden forgot to mention the role of the US, Saudi Arabia and their multi-billion military aid to the mujahideen." seems to me to imply that Wikipedia is taking sides on whether bin Laden is right. The words "of course" are a part of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid list. --Cab88 09:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "there have been" is the correct, instead of "their have been". Second, bin Laden is not "left wing", neither "mainstream" nor else. Third, if the expression "of course" makes you unhappy, take it away. Fourth, it seems to me that you don't like the presence of bin Laden in the article, period. Fifth, I think bin Laden has everything to do with the Evil empire article, for many obvious reasons. JBarreto 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know the context of this talk section 16 years ago, but seems that the current reaction section is somewhat conservative -leaning as well. homo momo (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Interesting that a LOT of this article consists of claims that "it has been claimed that...". These should be really easy to cite. Let's get some citations into this puppy!!! Ratagonia (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. I propose that we delete the following sentences unless they can be sourced:

"Critics of the phrase, however, saw it as an escalation of anti-Soviet rhetoric that was further dividing the two superpowers, with potentially serious consequences for global peace, including the risk of nuclear war. Still others saw it as a meaningless piece of political propaganda."

"While his characterization of the Soviet Union was heavily supported by conservatives and Cold War hawks, many others disagreed with its use, prompting a major global controversy and debate over Reagan's use of the phrase."

209.253.120.205 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This bit: "It has also been applied in other contexts – notably, describing the British Empire" sounds very wierd to me. I've never heard this in my life. No citation. And "notably" is such a cop out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.161.250 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Evil Empire

Could it be said that Star Wars ended the cold war and the spread of communism? (see intro, last sentence) 70.255.21.111 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars?

Is there actually any evidence that the fall of the 'galactic empire' in star wars influenced the use of the 'Evil Empire' phrase? If not, I wonder why on earth such a meaningless pop culture reference has been included in this article? It doesn't strike me as notable at all that a film depicting the fall of an empire was released the same year Reagan used the 'evil empire' phrase. --Seraosha (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The confusion may lie in the fact that, wasn't the Strategic Defense Initiative (commonly known as Star Wars) also unveiled in 1983? Also the proposal bears some slight resemblance to the protective shield around the Second Death Star in Return of the Jedi; of course that movie wasn't released until about three months after this speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.212.81.20 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Evil Empire: 101 ways England ruined the world

That book cannot be regarded in any way shape or form a scholarly work, It is full of lies, half-truths and opinion (apparently, my country has to pay £31 Trillion in apology for Coldplay, they may not be very good but that doesn't make us evil or warrant the bankrupting of our nation) the article currently says "lists many major crimes committed by the British Empire" this makes it sound like a work by a real historian (which Steven Grasse is not, He's just a businessman trying to make money from his Anglophobia) unless anyone objects I'm changing it to "alledged crimes"-Ted Fox 06:40 21 March 2008 (GMT)

• reverted your editorial comments there. Is there a review of this book which can be cited as a source? The word is "alleged". Ratagonia (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• [1] This link to a Daily Mail article should do as a source, On Youtube a crony of Grasse has uploaded several radio interviews and film clips, In one of the radio interviews Grasse apparently becomes pyschotic demanding that a caller apologise for what Britain has done, on another a real historian tore all his aurguments apart. Evil Empire is an open and shut case, I've got a copy of it right here and there are chapters with titles like "They are secretly Pagans", It is clearly not real history (even if a few uneducated people believe it to be) and should not be treated as neutrally as a book by a professional historian (Such as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)-Ted Fox 22:23 23 March 2008 (GMT)

• I'm surprised Grasse has gotten the book published in the first place. I've read it myself, and for a "history" book, it is severely lacking in sources. Any sensible historian would have a bibliography. All this book is is the rantings of a demented xenophobe. Crablogger (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First Source (Frank Warner)

Is there another source for this article? It is a good article, but being sourced to a blog is not so good. Looks like it is not available in the archives of the original newspaper, which would be best. If not, it would be best to find similar information in another source, if possible. Probably some Reagan book has the same material - perhaps a Reagan fan could cite it out of their library. Ratagonia (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

LotR reference

I once read that Reagan's speechwriter made Evil empire an allusion to Mordor (for which Yuri Andropov allegedly banned LotR, already signed to publication). Any reliable sources? --Brand спойт 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bin laden as a source?

Bizarre- why is bin laden provided as a prominent source regarding the cause of the fall of the soviet union?--Kiyarrllston 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

why not? he was a beneficiary of the US support for the taliban. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bin Laden received no support from the US, and the US never supported the Taliban.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bin Laden received support from the Taliban, who are the mujahedin that were supported by the US in the conflict of Afghanistan against Russia. ♆ CUSH ♆

Bin Laden received support from some part of X and another part of X received support from USA, does not make Bin Laden an expert on USA. Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and the US did not not support the Afghan Arabs. Bin Laden is in agreement with reliable academic sources, terrorism experts, and US government sources on that point. Indeed, there is reason to believe the US was actively seeking to undermine the extremists at the same time. For example, it is widely believed that the 1989 assassination of Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, one of bin Laden's closest associates at the time, was arranged by American intelligence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

wow

So it looks like in the past couple days this article has been mangled by ideologues, their cited references confirming this. Wikipeidia is supposed to by unbiased, guys! "The evil left wing economics of far left soviet socialist communists economics is inherently evil" is not unbiased. Going to attempt to tidy it back, I'll look for a previous edit to revert it to. Remember to have a legitimate source for information you add, not some libertarian institute that is obviously going to say "socialism is bad". Look at what I change it to if you want an example of an unbiased observation. --Lerikson (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, which means that both sides--all sides--of a position are included and none are erased. If you find alternative RS please ADD them. Any editor who rejects all ideas coming from "some libertarian institute" will get reverted quickly for violating the NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

is it appropriate to place this phrase in a political context?

this phrase ;evil empire; originated in george lucas' star wars movies and it is now said to have been used by ronald reagen to describe the soviet union (which may or may not be true, that he said that)-- but it is more appropriate to link this to star wars' rather than the history of socialism and the soviet union. this must be re-written. Rasko99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

The article specifically states that it talks about the use of the phrase by Ronald Reagan so I believe that it is OK. alexanderao (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Evil empire → Evil Empire speech
• Evil empire (disambiguation) → Evil Empire

– Per WP:ASTONISH, people looking for the concept of an evil empire will stumble upon this specific speech. I think that Evil empire should redirect to the disambiguation at Evil Empire for now, but later on there could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article about the concept of evil empires (politically, business, etc.) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• NB that Evil Empire (album) is an important encyclopedic topic as well. —  AjaxSmack  02:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving the speech to a disambiguated title and the disambiguation page to this title. The speech may have produced the phrase, but the term itself is ambiguous. bd2412 T 02:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per BD2412 and the nominator. The article is about the "evil empire" as a speech/rhetorical devise and by far the most significant use was the "Evil Empire" speech. This is also how many sources about it refer to it.[2][3][4]. I would prefer Evil empire speech per MOS:CAPS and the fact that the sources don't consistently capitalize it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing comment: I'm not convinced that I have the capitalisation quite right, but think we can probably fix that boldly. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.