Talk:Welfare queen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Steve Kangas criticism problematic

The circumstances surrounding Kangas's death are hotly debated. Although it was widely reported as cited above, the facts are far from settled. Please take that into account when considering his reliability as a source. The citations in Kangas's article appear to be sound, and even if he were a suicidal Hitler admirer, the facts are the facts. Reagan's disingenousness in circulating the "Welfare Queen" story has been documented by many people other than Kangas. Lastly, sign your posts if you want to be taken seriously. 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Kangas

Isn't this the guy who shot himself in a bathroom with a copy of Mein Kampf in his backpack? I don't think he's a credible source... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.68.36 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Kangas isn't offered as a credible source, but rather as a critic -- one POV, among others. And your objection is ad hominem. -- 71.102.136.107 23:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I appreciate Ariel Gold's comments. But if you don't consider the Associated Press a "verifiable source," then why does this "Welfare Queen" article even exist? Or if you don't consider LEXIS a "verifiable source," then how are you verifying the NY Times article from 1976?

Moreover, the AP articles aren't being used here to prove that these individuals did, in fact, commit welfare fraud. Even if those individuals were innocent, the AP articles are useful: 1) to demonstrate that the "welfare queen" idea had some currency in public debate in the 1970s, and 2) to demonstrate that Reagan didn't just wholesale invent the idea (as some people have accused him of doing).

Bottom line: If you don't think old news stories are verifiable, then delete the entire article. Indeed, if you don't like negative information about a living person, then you need to delete the entire article as well (the article as written already contains lots of accusations about living persons; my addition of AP articles only serves to add more details.)

UPDATE: OK, another user has accused me of vandalism. That just a bogus accusation. If you're going to have an article on "Welfare Queen" at all, it's anti-intellectual to throw out quotations from news articles at the time that put the concept in perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.70.239.153 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.70.239.153 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The information you added had potentially damaging information about individuals, and it was not all sourced. (For example, the paragraph: "The Chicago new media are now referring to Miss Otis as the "new Welfare Queen." The old Welfare Queen, Linda Taylor, was convicted of cheating the state out of more than $9,000, but investigators said her schemes aliases and disguises were so numerous there was no telling how much she actually received." had no source. Quotes were not sourced, such as: ""Apparently they met in a welfare office, and Queen Johnson was surprised at how easy fraud is," said Cosper. "Now they will both be in the same prison."") I understand your intentions are good, and I have not anywhere said that AP is not a reliable source, but when you are making changes like this, all that information must be attributed to a source, to avoid legal issues. Neutrality, verifiability, etc., are all part of the core pillars of Wikipedia. I hope that explains why the section was removed, perhaps you could re-write it a bit, and use the Help:Edit summary when editing? Ariel♥Gold 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

I've been working on the welfare queen article and noticed that the merge tag was added nearly a year ago by a "Retired user". There's been little discussion since that time, and unless people object, I plan on taking the tag down. I'll give it a couple weeks, so voice any concerns if there are any out there. Njfuller (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag removed. Njfuller (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This just seems like a glorified dictionary definition... granted a lot of hard work went into it, but it seems misdirected... this is just a subtopic of welfare and welfare fraud, two articles that are notable and do need work... but are more complicated topics. --Rividian (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda and race elements ignored

This article is laughable in its failure to address the purpose and actual usage of this term. See, e.g., The “Welfare Queen” Experiment: How Viewers React to Images of African-American Mothers on Welfare; the abstract accurately characterizes "welfare queen" as "Reagan’s iconic representation of the African-American welfare experience".

As the article stands, one would never know that someone who uses the term is far more likely to be a white conservative than black or liberal, or why, or that the term is primarily used to apply to areas where poor blacks live, such as "all those New Orleans welfare queens -- it wasn't enough for them to loot during a disaster, now they're trying to get ahold of FEMA funds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.136.107 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'Welfare Queen' does not carry a racial connotatoion. You may believe it does, but this is your opinion and is not fit for the article. Much of your views (for instance, that people who use the phrse are 'white conservatives') are based on your own opinions and, in the case of the cited quote, ironically racial. I respect your opinion, however misguided, but please reason your thoughts out more cleary next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.39.219 (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of the most misguided entries on Wikipedia. Just uninformative in every way. 66.80.144.5 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a large amount of discourse discussing the gendered and racial connotations of the term (Gillian's experiment being one of them). I will be adding a section on associated stereotypes. Any ideas? Njfuller (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

This article should be about the term "Welfare Queen," it's origin and usage, not about the stigmatization of black welfare recipients. Why is Gilens cited? "Welfare queen" never appears in his book. Removing Gilens. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias

This artcile needs a major overhaul to mitigate the partisen opinions presented. Here are several examples of bias:

1) "Sensational reporting on welfare fraud began during the early-1960s." 'Sensational' is a denagratory phrase that implies the reporting is unfair and over-hyped. Proponents of welfare spending certainly beieve this, but calling the reporting of welfare fraud sensational implies that it is inaccurate, and is the opinion of the editor.

2) "Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and racial connotations." That the phrase is 'stigmatizing' is the opinion of the editor. Regradless of whether studies show the phrase carries racial connotations, 'Welfare Queen' refers to anyone who exploits the system. Reagans's critics have made the term racial, but this is strictly an invention of his critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.39.219 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling the reports sensational is a claim of fact. In this case it's plausible and sourced. Reports of welfare fraud were sensationalized in the media. There are sources for the statement that it's stigmatizing and carries racial connotations, and that studies bear this out. If that reflects negatively on those who make such claims, that's how facts work. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with wikidemon and think that the phrase "the story seems to have been drawn from newspaper reports at the time" should be changed to the more accurate "the story seems to have been based upon newspaper reports at the time, but greatly exaggerated." ~~MBVECO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.34.240 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "America" / "American"

May I suggest as this would just be more precise:

The word "America" refers to the whole continent even though in spoken language people often only mean the United States. If talking about topics related to the US only which of course is just a part of America, one could say "US-America" or just "the US".

McPoel (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

CNN story

Here's a story from CNN that quotes lots of conservatives defending Reagan and other Republicans, and also interviews Kaaryn Gustafson, who researched the origins of Reagan's Welfare Queen anecdote. This is a good WP:RS for a lot of attributed quotes if anyone is worried that this entry contains too many opinions in Wikipedia's voice. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen Return of the 'Welfare Queen' By John Blake, CNN updated 5:32 PM EST, Mon January 23, 2012 --Nbauman (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

Content added from Krugman's op ed should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. It is an obvious attack piece. In fact, we can do better than this. I'm tagging it until a scholarly source can be added. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As Nobel prize laureate, Krugman is obviously an expert in the field of economics. His writings are RS. LK (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He's also a Leftist hack. You people always hide behind the fact that he has a Nobel prize. Thismightbezach (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you people always dig up university professors and Nobel Laureates who drag in facts to discredit Ronald Reagan. --Nbauman (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Krugman, Green and Douglas

...are attempting to rewrite history 30+ years after the fact, by saying that Reagan was grossly exaggerating his discription of Linda Taylor, the Welfare Queen. Not a surprise, as all three fall to the left of the political spectrum and apparently lack integrity. The article I quote is from the Washington Post (not a right-wing rag) and is straight reporting, not an opinion. It is also from 1977, when Linda Taylor's story was making the news.

Assuming the quote of Reagan in the "Welfare Queen Becomes Issue in Reagan Campaign" article and facts presented in "The Chutzpa Queen" article are factually correct, Reagan was accurate with the number of addresses the woman had (30), the amount she was bilking the government for (over $150,000 per year), dead husbands (4), and the fact that she was from Chicago and that she was arrested for welfare fraud (she was later tried and convicted on only a portion of the offenses she was arrested for, as explained in "The Chutzpa Queen.") While Reagan said she had 80 aliases (the article sites at least 26) and 12 Social Security cards (the article sites 3), there is no reason to assume anything sinister in Reagan's overstatement; first, Reagan would have gotten the same mileage from correctly citing the actual figures, and secondly, Reagan apparently understated the extent of her fraud as she also had a Lincoln and a Cadillac (which was seized by the government). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.56.35 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The cited comments by the three critics of Reagan are demonstrably wrong. Should they be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.56.35 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Linda Taylor

slate.com:

In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan villainized a Chicago woman for bilking the government. Her other sins—including possible kidnappings and murders—were far worse.

...

Though Reagan was known to stretch the truth, he did not invent that woman in Chicago. Her name was Linda Taylor, and it was the Chicago Tribune, not the GOP politician, who dubbed her the “welfare queen.” It was the Tribune, too, that lavished attention on Taylor’s jewelry, furs, and Cadillac—all of which were real.

--tickle me 23:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Reagan and the phrase - redux with the Slate article

Levin does claim that Reagan used the term:

In October 1976, Reagan—who had lost that year’s GOP nomination to Gerald Ford—devoted one of his regular radio commentaries to updating the story of the “welfare queen, as she’s now called.” (While I haven’t found any examples of him saying “welfare queen” on the stump in 1976, he did use the term in this radio address.)

So I edited the relevant portion to reflect the source which was already used. Darth Viller (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the audio file here? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html He does not use the term there. Which radio address are you talking about? SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

proof

Did any one find this Welfare queen or was it usual GOP hyperbole. and as for bias i suggest you take a long hard look at the "Unbiased" folk over at FOX news, when you call them out on thier bias then you can do the same here.99.13.118.232 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands and thousands of places on the internet you can go to and bash Republicans, Fox News, and conservatives. This is not one of them. You have a history of polluting discussion pages with your non sequitur mini-rants. Take it elsewhere, please. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

talk:99.13.118.232 Yes, Jet Magazine and one of the Chicago papers found her long before Reagan ever mentioned her. SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reagan and the phrase

Reagan is regularly cited as the originator of the phrase. Do the cited NYT articles or any other source show that he ever actually uttered it? I wish I had time to check... Ellsworth (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The cited article does not even say Reagan used the term. If there is a cite for him actually saying it, someone should include it. The article cited says "Four decades later, Reagan’s soliloquies on welfare fraud are often remembered as shameless demagoguery. Many accounts report that Reagan coined the term “welfare queen,” and that this woman in Chicago was a fictional character." No place does the article claim Reagan actually said "welfare queen" in any speech. The audio in the article is quoted accurately on this page, and "welfare queen" is not quoted there either. my bad, forgot to sign SteveJEsposito (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits by user Mserard313. Firstly, his primary sources are links to other Wikipedia pages, which cannot be sources unto themselves. He provides links to things that mention Welfare Queen in alleged links to Reagan speeches, but never produces a quote by Reagan actually using the term. Additionally, he cites a NYT Paul Krugman article with a link to a page that does not exist. Also, the Mserard313 no longer exists so the editor cannot be engaged before reverting.SteveJEsposito (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Mention in press

I added the {{press}} template regarding an article in The Washington Post, but am uncertain if this is appropriate since the article is from the 'Opinion' section. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:409E:D8B8:A84:FC61 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate. I came here to mention the discussion in the underlying court opinion, but linking to the Volokh write-up is probably better. Rebbing 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Hi! I hope to expand on the information already in the sections. I think that there could be more sections about intersectionality within this topic (about the intersection of class, gender, and race) and how it relates to welfare attitudes and policies regarding poverty. I also would like to explore the idea of adding a section on how the idea of a “welfare queen” affects reproductive justice and equity. I also have references I am planning to use listed on my user page if interested. Thank you. Heatherkong (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. But if you think there might be objections.....you may want to propose it here first. (Or whatever you think is best.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Will keep that in mind thank you! Heatherkong (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I have updated my Sandbox to reflect my planned edits for this page. I will begin adding paragraphs on my Sandbox that I will eventually transfer over to this mainspace later on. Let me know your thoughts or if there is anything of interest to this page that I may have missed. Thank you. Heatherkong (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In one of your recent edits you call it "a derogatory and racist term". I know it is certainly considered racism by many.....but to flat out call it that is not NPOV. I think it would be better to say something like "a derogatory term that is considered racist by some/many".Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Great job – your edits added a lot of context and recency to the article! I would suggest expanding the section on movements for welfare reform and adding more scholarly sources. Jkolli (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your edits add a lot of context. I would carefully go though and make sure that you're remaining neutral as well as using words that aren't overly academic - make sure to cite your sources, and when citing a claim someone else has made, to make sure that information is clear! Otherwise great job - your edits add a lot of context and are super relevant. Ebweav (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments! The article is very well filled out and has a super solid base. There were a couple of sentences here or there that I think could use some citations (perhaps just citing the source you are already using more regularly) to ensure NPOV. One thing you might want to consider is adding information on criticisms of welfare to reflect the debate that led to the welfare queen stereotype in the first place--as well as, of course, arguments in favor of welfare. This is also only if you feel like that is within the scope of the article (maybe the Origins section) MBJAnderson (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs more careful sourcing on Reagan era

The myth that Reagan constantly bashed "welfare queens" is pretty prominent in this article. There is a claim that Reagan "constantly made reference" to "welfare queens" during his 1980 campaign, but the cited source only discusses the 1976 primary. Even that is wrong - if you go to the primary sources (the archives of his public appearances ) the only time Reagan ever used the term "welfare queen" was at a press conference in December 1981, over a year after he had already been elected. In that case he was referring specifically to Taylor - the welfare queen, who was in fact a real person - not to welfare recipients in general. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayaavela. Peer reviewers: Consast, Bb1822.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Still needs to fix the claims/citations about Reagan 1976

The article doesn't seem to understand the difference among:

• Reagan's 1976 references to Linda Taylor, a real person, who did in fact become notorious for well-documented abuse of the welfare system
• Reagan's use of the term "welfare queen" (which he used exactly once, in 1981, when he was already president)
• Actual cuts to "welfare" aka the AFDC program, which never occurred under Reagan (the amount budgeted on AFDC went up every single year of his presidency)

The myth that "Reagan became president by railing against welfare queens" is totally unsupportable by any actual evidence, especially if we're required to stop dancing among three different meanings of the term and simply ask direct, factual questions such as "is there any documented use of Reagan using the term 'welfare queen' before he was elected" and "did welfare spending decline under Reagan" to which the answer to both is verifiably "no." Right now there's a very weak citation to a CNN op/ed that doesn't even say what the cited passage claims it does, holding up a huge house of straw. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This reads like a very passionate opinion piece rather than a fact-based article. 2600:1700:4940:DAF0:CD58:6A16:F7EE:5111 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This reads like a very passionate opinion piece rather than a fact-based article.

Ethnoracial capitalization

Before I make the changes, I wanted to check whether, given the context, the MoS would prefer Black over black. J. E. Foster-Tucker (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)