Jump to content

Talk:Robert Reich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 45.62.219.78 (talk) at 04:31, 24 August 2018 (→‎Height: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Portrait

I contacted Richard Whitney and asked if this was Reich's official portrait. He responded that it was and gave permission to post the photo.

--evrik 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOL portrait
DOL portrait

Trivia Section

Someone want to tag this article with a trivia section tag? Dawson 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the notable bits into the "biography" section (with citations) and eliminated the trivia section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early History

Someone who knows about such things (I don't) needs to add some information about what he did before becoming Secretary of Labor. I mean, he didn't just spring fully formed from the forehead of Bill Clinton--he had a career prior to that.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age

Exactly how old is this man? Article says he was born in 1945, but the info box says 1946.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This biography from his run for Governor of Mass. says 1946. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


=="We're going to let you die. Remarks by Reich Which Are

Indisputably Very Relevant to the Health Care Debate== Reich said: "We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

One Other Question Re Reich's Bio

When you have somebody born in 1945 or 1946, and you are preparing a biographical sketch of them, you must mention what they did regarding the draft and Vietnam. Now perhaps Reich was too short, or medically impaired, to be drafted, but the topic has to be discussed if a biography is to be considered anything like full and complete. I know this because I was born in 1945 and, after the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 until being drafted in 1968, not much else was on my mind but the draft and Vietnam.

The same was true for young men all across the country, and surely Reich as well. Bill Clinton knew Reich at Oxford, and Clinton was obsessed during those years with the draft and Vietnam, as we all were. So Reich's bio must deal with this or be woefully incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point is covered by the playwright Alan Franks in his article "When America came to Oxford: Bill Clinton, Vietnam and me," in the Times of 15th January 2014, which says he was never drafted because he was two inches short of the required height of five feet, having been born with the genetic condition Fairbanks Disease. He says Reich described being measured at the draft office, after which he was "reassured" that he might yet grow! NRPanikker (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Remarks

1/07/08 During a US Congressional economic recovery meeting, Robert Reich made racially charged statements: Reich said "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to WHITE male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers; I'm just saying there are a lot of other people that have needs as well." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.85.250 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this controversial? He's saying infrastructure spending shouldn't go only to white males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooner016 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said that those jobs should should not go to white males, independent on skill level, professionals were excluded first. Breakdown: that these jobs not: simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals OR to WHITE male construction workers. Controverional because, from that sentence, either minorities are inferior to white males and not able to compete on equal level, either he is an anti-white racist, and wants to discriminate against whites, only because of their ethnicity, thats racism, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.241.17.120 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are misunderstanding Reich's position. He has repeatedly said that he opposes all of the spending going to construction since it leaves out many groups, not that he just doesn't want white people getting jobs. Take for instance the title of his blog post: "The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers " Notice it doesn't say "How to Create Jobs Without Any of Them Going to White Male Construction Workers."
Later in the blog post he says:


Notice that by adding spending on these "green jobs" would not in any way prevent white males from obtaining jobs. Reich's whole point is that There should be other forms of infrastructure spending so that people of other demographic groups are not left out. He never said he wants a provision outlawing white males from being able to obtain jobs or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooner016 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of remarks text

Today, an editor with an apparent conflict of interest deleted the following passage from the article (ref tags escaped):

On January 23, 2009, CNN host Lou Dobbs characterized earlier remarks by Reich as implying "that race would play a large role in determining who would benefit from the economic stimulus package",(ref name="dobbs")"Lou Dobbs Tonight". 2009-01-23. Retrieved 2009-02-17.(/ref) airing video of Reich commenting on the package. In the video, Reich said that he was concerned "...that these jobs not simply go to high school people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well."(ref name="dobbs"/)

The question I have to editors of this article as a whole is twofold. First, is the comment and the media reaction to it relevant to the article? Second, is the presentation above misrepresentative? —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it out myself. We could include 100s of things this person has said and what others have commented on in return. Has this "material" been widely covered by other parties? The editor who removes this references a MMFA citation, which is a biased site, imho, but that is besides the point. Anyways, that is my take. Tom (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pension Protection Act

I've removed a reference to the Pension Protection Act, which was passed by Congress in 2006, 9 years after Reich's tenure as Labor Secretary ended. I could find no evidence of his involvement with it in any reliable sources, although there are several that quote Wikipedia, which of course doesn't cut it.

I did find the following blurb:

Money, Volume 24, Issue 9, September 1, 1995, Column: MONEY NEWSLINE. HOW HEALTHY IS YOUR PENSION PLAN? HERE'S HOW YOU CAN GET THE FACTS. Author: KELLY D. SMITH Page: 25:

"Under the Retirement Protection Act passed by Congress last year..."

This is clearly not the same thing as the Pension Protection Act, either in name or date. The article also doesn't cite any involvement by Reich in passage of that act, which is not to say he wasn't involved; after all, he was. We don't have an article on that act, either; whether or not he was involved, and whether or not it was notable to start with, should be determined before adding info back in this article.  Frank  |  talk  15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on redistribution of wealth

Either he's lying, has done a complete 180 in his views on redistribution of wealth, or doesn't know what his own position is. Robert Reich wrote this in 2004 in an article entitled What Ownership Society [1]:

Face it: The Republican "Ownership Society" is hokum. Ownership of America is now more concentrated than since the days of the Robber Barons of the 19th century. The richest 1 percent of America owns more than the the bottom 90 percent put together.

There are only two ways to reverse this trend, neither of which the Bush administration will support. The first is to enact a progressive tax on wealth—say, one-tenth of 1 percent per year, on those who own the most. Right now, the only wealth that's taxed is real property. The property tax is often regressive because poor and working-class families tend to cluster in their own communities, which means they pay through their noses for schools and local services.

A fairer system would tax total wealth, and it would be administered nationally. Revenues could be distributed to communities on the basis of population—enabling poor communities to have good schools and better services. If George Bush suggests this Thursday night, I’ll eat my spinach.

Either he's for it or against it. Which is it? To me, his words clearly smack of a desire to see the government redistribute wealth, not just income. IMO, the article should reflect that. Bowenj10 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should his medical condition/height be included in the article?

There have been a few reverts back and forth on this issue. Personally, I would argue it should because being tall is seen as an advantage for politicians. Here's an article talking about the implications it has for his political career [2]. Looking at other politician's articles, medical issues are usually discussed (an extreme example is Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Accidents and medical issues), but I can see how someone would argue they should not be (privacy? just not important?). Thoughts? --Banana (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this Wikipedia article just because I noted his height when watching http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-18-2012/exclusive---robert-reich-extended-interview-pt--1 . I think it's relevant. Maybe not to his career and life, but this is one of the things people quickly note about him and as such is something that fits for Wikipedia to answer. I must say I found the article mentioned above very informative. A quote like "Reich was born with Fairbanks disease, a rare congenital disorder that can stunt growth." would enhance the Wikipedia-article in my view.--217.115.62.130 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be included. I found this article [3] which gives 4 ft 10.5 in (1.49 m) and other interesting items that might ought to be included. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable Rob Reich's

There is another Rob Reich (at Stanford University) who is an eminent publisher. Should we include a disambig.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.223.59 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moved this to the bottom) I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on him. --Banana (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of last name

Does anyone know why he insists so scrupulously on his last name being pronounced 'rish' (long 'i')? Historian932 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I could guess.

question about adherence to union views

today, I put back an assertion that Reich, although he professes to be pro union, has , in effect, crossed picket lines, the ultimate no no for a union guy (although the afl cio crossed PATCO...). Maybe this is not well sourced, but I think if someone is going to protray themselves as this big time liberal, a failure to adhere to well recognized standards of behaviour for pro union people is worthy of mention. I don't think this is slander or libel or whatever, as I have a source. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits, your addition did not adhere to the standards for reliable sourcing or biographies of living persons. Also note that these talk pages are not a forum for discussing your views of the subject. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard professor

There seems to be some dispute(1,2) by an anon IP(129.83.31.2129.83.31.1) about whether Reich was a professor at Harvard. He/she provided a couple references(1989 NYT), but they are prior to the references I have found(Chicago Tribune, 1992, Boston Herald 1992, Boston Herald 1993, etc. As a matter of fact, a Google news search finds over 3,700 results when searching for Robert Reich Harvard professor. So I have restored the content with proper sourcing. Dave Dial (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now see more recent

1997 Boston Globe reference indicating Reich was a lecturer at Harvard, and for background see Krugman's book "Peddling Prosperity", p. 249 on Reich's isolation from Harvard colleagues who declined to grant him the title. Random google hits will also include, for instance, this very wiki article and all those erroneously using this current wiki reference. 129.83.31.1 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those preclude Reich from being a professor. The overwhelming amount of reliable sources have stated he was a professor at Harvard. Also, Google news, archives and recent, do not point to Wikipedia. They point to news articles, especially in the archives. Dave Dial (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do preclude such: a lecturer is not a professor; the titles have clear differences in the academic world, even if common media sources often confuse the two (as you are here). The Krugman reference specifically states Reich was denied the title of professor. One can not hand wave at a Google hit count as some kind of assessment of reliable sources. Good grief, UN reports have even been found to rely on Wiki references. 129.83.31.2 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true, nor how Wikipedia works. You should read the links I have directed you to, starting with the reliable sources link, then to verify, weight and biographies of living persons. So if the vast majority of reliable sources state Reich was a professor at Harvard(and they do), we report that Reich was a professor at Harvard. If you wanted to include contradicting sources in the article, we would have to take into consideration if you have reliable sources(which it seems to do), but also consider undue weight and the fact this is a biography of a living person. Is there a source somewhere indicating that Reich never received tenure at Harvard, or just he was denied tenure by some faculty he had conflicts with in the 1980's? Those type of questions would go into whether or not to add a sentence or so about this particular period in Reich's life. Right now, I would say it's not notable enough for inclusion, with weight against it. Plus, please thread your comments with semi-colons. Dave Dial (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See your first source, Chicago Tribune, 1992, second column:

...In 1981 he went to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he continues to teach enormously popular seminars and publish books - seven so far - but, curiously, has never won tenure...

Highlights mine. This was written as you know in 1992 when Reich was appointed to the Clinton administration.

And..? The source also states as fact

"Reich is a prolific and provocative Harvard professor whom Clinton names recently to manage economic policy on his transition team."

So there doesn't seem to be any contradiction of the fact that Reich was a professor at Harvard. And again, the tid-bit you are referring to seems like undue weight. Dave Dial (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is apparently using the term professor, lower case, as many sources do in an informal manner to refer to Reich which is unfortunate is it confuses the matter. In the United States Professor, upper case, implies tenure, as your post above about tenure indicates you already know. I've provided multiple sources indicating Reich never achieved that status at Harvard, this last stating exactly what you demanded was required for a change in the article.
"..stating exactly what you demanded was required for a change in the article". What? You should re-read my posts. If you can understand the difference between a Professor and a professor, then you don't believe what you just wrote. I never stated any one condition must be met, and then your edit you made was ok. Not even close. Also, this very article uses the lower case "p" when describing Reich's former status at Harvard. Dave Dial (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware the article currently uses 'p'rofessor. The point is the term is ambiguous as best and not as accurate as 'lecturer' and describing Reich's actual post at Harvard. Absent that correction, I suggest a reference to the fact that he did not have tenure at Harvard is appropriate.

For what it's worth, it is incorrect to say that "professor" implies tenure. What it implies is tenure-track — that is, a position capable of being granted tenure. Typically there are two parallel tracks: lecturers, who have no possibility of being granted tenure; or the sequence of assistant professor, associate professor, full professor. (I realize this comment is a bit late, but perhaps it will help if someone tries to unwind the above.) jhawkinson (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Robert Reich is an economist, or even purports to be, please add citations

The lead refers to Reich as a "political economist." ("Political economy" is an older term for what we now call "economics".) In fact Reich's academic background is in the Law. He has no advanced degree in economics, and I can't find that he even claims to be an economist (or a political economist).

As the article correctly reports, Reich's major academic training is in the Law. He has "a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. From 1973 to 1974 he served as law clerk to Judge Frank M. Coffin, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and from 1974 to 1976 was Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, Robert Bork." That started a distinguished career in government and academia. It's clear he's focused on labor throughout his career, and has written and opined on economic subjects, as we all do.

But his only education in economics, as far as I can tell, was his stint as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford (alongside Bill Clinton), where he was in the "Philosophy, Politics and Economics" program, a distinguished undergraduate/post-graduate program that sounds fascinating, but is more comparable to a liberal arts major or perhaps a triple major. He does not have a degree of any sort in economics.

Moreover I have not been able to find any place where Reich himself refers to himself as an economist or a political economist.

Here is his bio on robertreich.org:

"ROBERT B. REICH is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock, “The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "Saving Capitalism." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, INEQUALITY FOR ALL."

One might argue that his participation in the Oxford program made him a "political economist." This might likely be an attempt to distinguish a political economist from an economist. This is a novel definition of the former term (although I see it has crept into our article on that subject).

FWIW, here's a Google ngram on "political economy" vs. "economics": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=political+economy%2Ceconomics%2C+political+economics&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpolitical%20economy%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ceconomics%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpolitical%20economics%3B%2Cc0


...and here's an ngram on "political economist" vs "economist": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=economist%2C+political+economist&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ceconomist%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpolitical%20economist%3B%2Cc0

As you can see, "political economist" tracks with "political economy", and both track downward as the simpler "economist" and "economics" took their place.

Thus we probably shouldn't call Reich an economist unless he has a degree in the subject or at least calls himself an economist. And we shouldn't call him a "political economist" unless we adopt a new definition of that term that hasn't shown up on Google ngrams yet. (And that, I believe, would amount to original research.)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Reich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
It is obvious if you watch Robert Reich's entire testimony or read a transcript, rather than taking the quote out of context, that he was talking about equal opportunity, as opposed to saying something racist. Here is the full quote in context:

"Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."

hardly controversial. Moreover: (1) these remarks were made on Jan. 9, over a month prior to the passage of the stimulus legislation; and (2) nothing in the legislation proposed by President Obama or in the legislation ultimately passed by Congress contains a race-based restriction (see full bill here: http://www.recovery.gov/).

Accordingly, this testimony should be removed from the "controversial remarks" section.

Thubb421 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war re Milo Berkeley visit

The following para:

"In February 2017, Reich published a conspiracy theory purporting that left-wing violence at UC Berkeley against Donald Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos was a right-wing false flag for Trump to strip universities of federal funding. This idea was described as "phantasmagorical" by The Washington Post.[34]"

Has been added repeatedly by a user, User_talk:Valentina Cardoso. The statement is (1) a bad-faith reading of Mr. Reich's claim, (2) in hideous violation of NPOV, (3) not a notable event in Mr. Reich's career. If the article wasn't protected I would correct it myself (as other anon IP readers have tried to do).

Looking at the user's contribution history, they are bent on editing conservative viewpoints into Wikipedia, and not actually providing any encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not your soapbox.

71.114.37.58 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@71.114.37.58: For now, I have restored it but I reduced it to what he said, which is that he wouldn't rule out that theory. This is different from originating or outright endorsing it. However, overall, I think we need to think of WP:NOTNEWS in general with his article and recent events are not really things we should be adding unless they're very pivotal (such as awards). @Valentina Cardoso: Please comment here, or I will undo my restoration of your content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be included at all. It was a minor remark and nothing he's followed up on. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have an issue that Reich or his employer is editing this article? Valentina Cardoso (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC) [4][reply]

At least they acknowledge it. I haven't read what the IP changed, but certainly Robert Reich doesn't have the right to determine what is or is not in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[5] "Which raises the possibility that Yiannopoulos and Brietbart were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding...Hmmm. Connect these dots: [six points]...I don’t want to add to the conspiratorial musings of so many about this very conspiratorial administration, but it strikes me there may be something worrying going on here. I wouldn’t bet against it".

Yeah, so after he spoke to the local news, and Breitbart reacted, he wrote (i.e. published) an article in which he didn't change his opinion. Stop painting it as an off-the-cuff remark in the heat of the moment that was spun into oblivion by Breitbart Valentina Cardoso (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thoughtcrime ! thoughtcrime ! ooh ! ooh ! Give him to the Dominicans, they'll get to the bottom of this quickly ! You people ... 116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Reich. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Height

Multiple sources list Robert Reich's height (4 ft 10). For example: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1049185/ This is relevant information for this article, and yet it is removed every time someone attempts to add it. Why is that? 45.62.219.78 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Reich&oldid=856286943"