Jump to content

Talk:We begin bombing in five minutes

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

May 2006

[edit]

The main wikipedia entry for ronald reagan says: "My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

During a microphone check, unaware that he was being broadcast. (August 11, 1984) "

Was he unaware that he was being broadcast, or was it recorded by sound engineers and then released?

208.13.213.2 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection at the time was that it was a sound check, and not the actual broadcast. But it was such a great sound bite (and spoken in the presence of reporters) that it ended up on the news in short order.
I've had some experience of television broadcasting, and things like this do get said sometimes as sound checks. However, if you're the President of the United States and you're in front of reporters, it's good common sense not to make foolish remarks. You never know when the mikes are actually live...
--Plane nutz 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speech?

[edit]

Should the title of this really be "Five Minutes Speech"? This was more of a quip or joke. I wouldn't consider it a speech. Searching "Five Minutes Speech" on Google doesn't provide many significant results either. How about "Five Minutes Gaffe" or just "We begin bombing in five minutes"?Ando228 18:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release vs. Leak

[edit]

Was this soundbite released by some organization or was it simply leaked in unauthorized manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.128.185.37 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Defcon lowered? Sez who?

[edit]

If any statement ever cried out for "need citation" that's it. Although there was a lot of controversy over the joke, I don't recall that there was any change in the alert level of the U.S. military. Mandsford 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No change in the alert level of the U.S. military, or-so-we-were-told? Not sure the Russians were as relaxed? 2.96.124.23 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although there was concern from some in the US media about the 'joke', why should there have been any change in the US level of alert? For while the article almost seemed to down-play the comment, was not the way Moscow put their nuclear forces on alert key to understanding the true importance of this event? 2.24.196.15 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

[edit]

I've unmerged this, as it breaks a number of incoming (extrawiki) links. [1] Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Maybe it's worth mentioning that this "glitch" was used as a sample many times (e.g. "Tekno Talk (Bombing Mix)" by Moskwa TV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:560:424C:C00:6CA2:99BC:D956:CC77 (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If such is discussed by reliable sources — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable enough? https://www.discogs.com/Moskwa-TV-Tekno-Talk-Bombing-Mix/release/70631 --2A02:560:4240:EC00:2119:93C2:29DB:7444 (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discogs is no bueno as a reliable source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Discogs being unreliable due to "user-generated content", Wikipedia meets the same criteria for being unreliable as well - or does the content of Wikipedia comes out of the thin air? Anyway, here's another unreliable source: Moskwa_TV#Discography --2A02:560:424A:C900:2497:8F7A:C15F:7EB8 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia meets the same criteria for being unreliable as well That's correct, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citing on Wikipedia; the relevant policy is at WP:CIRC. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a popular culture reference, that's already in Wikipedia with a citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Minutes_(Bonzo_Goes_to_Washington_song) Five Minutes (Bonzo Goes to Washington song): "Five Minutes" is a song by Jerry Harrison, Bootsy Collins and producer Daniel Lazerus, and credited to Bonzo Goes to Washington. It was released on the Sleeping Bag Records label in 1984. Bowman, Dave (2001). fa fa fa fa fa fa: The Adventures of Talking Heads in the 20th Century. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 0-7475-4586-3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4TNtUZnM4

Xardox (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhap. I've begun the process of receiving a copy of the book for verification. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

[edit]

When Reagan said "Russia", he meant the USSR. That was common parlance. It makes no sense to interpret his comments as being about the RSFSR.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's common knowledge that the USSR was commonly called "Russia".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary blockquote

[edit]

On 11 August 2019 at 04:21 UTC, Rowsdower45 (talk · contribs) put Reagan's quote inside a {{quote}} saying, "breaking it out as a quote […] plus bolding of the article title". I reverted these edits on 12 August 2019 at 15:41 UTC, saying in a subsequent null edit, "- blockquote IAW MOS:BQ; - additional bolding not directed by the MOS".

Rowsdower45 seems not to have seen my second edit, because they replaced their edits (and more), saying, "No explanation as to why this was reverted. Restoring the correct version". It was explained, and per that explanation and its links to the MOS, using the {{quote}} template and bolding are not correct. Before I undo that editor again, does anybody have any input? (I'm initiating the discussion because Rowsdower45 us unfamiliar with the BRD cycle.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My dumbness for not seeing it. Instinct is to re-revert when I'm reverted with no explanation, but I somehow overlooked the explanation. Duh. Leaving this alone now, no worries. Rowsdower45 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries! Thanks for replying! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reversion of 17.2-month rollback w/BRD begun for Pizzigs

[edit]

On 6 March 2023 at 00:13 UTC, Pizzigs (talk · contribs) rolled back this article to the version from 28 September 2021 at 00:02 UTC, reverting all edits by ten intervening contributors saying only, reword. Twelve minutes later, they introduced new prose, citing Moskovskij Komsomolets. Seeing no explanation for the 1.44-year reversion of edits, on 6 March 2023 at 15:48 UTC, I rolled back to the 16 November 2022 version of the article while also incorporating the Moskovskij Komsomolets material, saying, rv unexplained reversion to Sep 2021; + source formatting, archival, and consolidation; + {{use mdy dates}} update.

Pizzigs has continued to undo the 1.44 years of edits by ten other contributors without explanation, while also duplicating material and reintroducing numerous errors and misformattings that had been repaired by many editors since September 2021. They have also ignored my own edit summaries directing them to the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; so I am again reverting their most recent roll-back, and directing them to this discussion I've begun on their behelf. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've misrepresented my edits. In fact, this edit explains that "minor linguistic changes" introduced on 21 February 2022 were arbitrary and not properly explained. I reverted the wording to the stable version before that. Additionally, I translated several paragraph from the corresponding article in Russian to better explain the domestic reaction in the Soviet Union and the country's weaponization of the joke. As I said, you're free to add any information you consider relevant, but I do not understand your wholesale reversions of the content I have added. Pizzigs (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By and large, the February 2022 edits by Preslethe (talk · contribs) were improvements: introducing concision and translating to the active voice. I did, though, quickly follow-up with some corrections thereto. Just because they were introduced without a proper explanation doesn't mean they weren't seen, analyzed, and vetted. Also, their edit summaries were, though somewhat underwhelming, accurate. However, as I said, they were but one of ten contributing editors you reverted by rolling back over a year's worth of changes and additions. As for the Russian source: yes, you helpfully introduced an apparently-reliable source to the article, and it has not been removed. As mentioned immediately above, I formatted and archived that source, and it remains present in all of my edits, since. I made no wholesale reversions of the content you added. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I introduced a compromise version which keeps all the content you apparently had a problem with me removing, but also retains my edits on domestic reaction in Russia and the 1982 Reagan's joke about Poland. I combined the two paragraphs about the 1982 comments, improved links, removed empty space, and made minor wording changes to improve the article's readability. Pizzigs (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since you've not patrolled the article history for these explanations, and continue to nonetheless revert those editors who made them in the first place (in contravention of WP:BRD), I'll make for you the following thoroughly-explanatory list to accompany this edit of mine.
  • (a) I have replaced the double-spacing after full stops IAW MOS:PUNCTSPACE, as they do not impact the reader, but can be beneficial to editors.
  • (b) "Russia" should not be linked to IAW MOS:OL.
  • (c) "Weekly address of the president of the United States", "Government of the Soviet Union", "Abuse of power", and "Opinion poll" are not proper nouns, and are not capitalized.
  • (d) There is no reason to both revert to the passive voice and be unnecessarily verbose, as done at the sentence beginning with "This sort of levity…"
  • (e) You removed citations to The Guardian and The New York Times and replaced them with one for Time, which doesn't cover the new claims you made in the prose. Furthermore, you removed the specificity of the date, made uncited implications with the phrase "similar remarks", piped Polish People's Republic to appear as "Poland", and removed the very-specific wikilink to most favoured nation.
  • (f) The quote "a bunch of no-good, lousy bums" falls well below the threshold for a blockquote, IAW MOS:BQ.
  • (g) There is no reason to separate the Moskovskij Komsomolets content, which is discussing political ramifications, from the rest of the politically-related reactions.
  • (h) As we have no article for Mikhail Rostovsky, nor any reason for giving their 20-year-old personal recollections any weight, we're going to stick with just their reporting on the Soviet governmental reaction.
  • (i) The English-language word "utilized" has finer and different context than "used", and can be controversial regardless, so the latter is preferred.
  • (j) The spaced em dash is not only accurate to use in running prose over the en dash, but also IAW the Manual of Style.
  • (k) Neither the source nor our article on the subject describe the Harrison work as a protest song.
  • (l) Our article at Perestroika described it as a Soviet political movement, a specification not suggested by the Politico source.
  • (m) There's no specification at the Rachel Maddow source for the national intelligence bodies that were involved, and therefore should not be wikilinked.
  • (n) With regards to "US" or "U.S.", MOS:USA prescribes neither abbreviation, but that articles need to be internally consistent. To maintain consistency with cited contemporary quotations, all abbreviations have been changed to the punctuated version.
In sifting through your many reversions, I also made some small copyedits like MOS:CONFORM & MOS:OL. I'll keep an eye out for any replies here, or further reversions. Cheers. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have the following questions:
  • Could you specify why you changed "U.S. officials nonetheless mollified the Soviet Union and assured…" back to "U.S. officials were compelled to mollify the Soviet Union and assure…" when it is not clear what was the reasoning behind their decision, and hence it is speculative to assume they were "compelled" to do anything.
  • Next, please clarify why you removed mentions that Izvestia, TASS and Pravda were state-controlled? There were no other media in the USSR, so it should be made clear they acted at the government's behest.
  • I also think the connection should be made between Reagan's remarks on the Soviet-dominated military government of Poland that repressed the Solidarity movement and his attitudes toward the Soviet Union. As such, I'd like to restore content describing the nature of the Polish People's Republic's government. You can restore sources I accidentally deleted, as well as adding the ones that I introduced. If other sources are required, please let me know.
  • Harrison's Five Minutes is a protest song, and it is clear by reading the song's Wikipedia article. In fact, it was written in protest at Reagan's remarks.
  • It is a Wikipedia convention to capitalize names of the categories and article names within links (Category:Anti-Russian sentiment; Weekly address of the president of the United States|his weekly radio address). It can be checked at any other major Wikipedia article, such as the United States (just for instance).
  • "This sort of levity was common for Reagan; he injected his humor into soundchecks, outtakes, and downtime throughout his careers in show business and politics." instead of "This sort of levity was not uncommon for Reagan; he was known to inject his humor into soundchecks, outtakes, and downtime throughout his career in both show business and politics." creates an impression he did thay nearly all the time, while the original wording is more neutral and less accusative.
  • "Over-the-top" is the correct form here (you reverted back to "over the top". See Merriam-Webster.
  • Soviet accusations should be put in quotation marks (as "abuse of the office of the president").
  • The Soviet Union then should not be linked either per MOS:OL, similarly to Russia. Instead, the Soviet government should be, or nothing at all.
  • I propose changing "Mikhail Rostovsky wrote" to "Mikhail Rostovsky recalled" because he was clearly recounting his childhood memories about the political environment within the Soviet state in the 1980s.
  • Permanent normal trade relations is the article specific for the U.S. law and "most favored nation" is the correct American spelling. You reverted it back to the general article "most favoured nation" which is not focused on the United States, in addition to using British English in a U.S.-related article.
Thanks. Pizzigs (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to discuss! (Also, I removed the citations from your examples above since there're no sources here, and they were just creating blank superscripts at the bottom of this page. Please take no offense!)
  • The description of "compelled" likely came from Politico's description of US officials' embarrassment as the cause for doing so. I feel like the "nonetheless" wording implied that they weren't going to in the first place, though. Clearer and more-concise wording is probably: U.S. officials were embarrassed, and assured the Soviet Union that "Reagan's offhand remark did not reflect White House policies or U.S. military intentions."
  • Neither Politico nor the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette make those claims or distinctions.
  • Neither Time, The Guardian, nor The New York Times make those claims, posit those connections, or draw those parallels. To say the connection should be made between Reagan's remarks on the Soviet-dominated military government of Poland that repressed the Solidarity movement and his attitudes toward the Soviet Union is original research without sources that explicitly do so.
  • Neither yours nor my opinions about "Five Minutes" is a reliable source.
  • I haven't seen a codified consensus that requires capitalizing common nouns in links or categories. I have, instead, seen it confuse inexperienced and new editors, as well as those contributors who're less familiar with English and its capitalization norms. As such, not capitalizing common nouns in these specific instances has proven a net benefit with no negatives, and no reasons to do so otherwise.
  • I—and presumably Preslethe (talk · contribs)—don't understand how those two sentences are communicating anything different, but in more words and the passive voice. The use of "common" also jives with the source. However, if you'd prefer something more strict, then perhaps According to Craig Shirley, Reagan had previously injected humor into soundchecks, outtakes, and downtime throughout his career in show business and politics. (Also, the Ozy source needs to be updated to |url-status=dead upon the next edit to the article.)
  • According to wikt:over the top#Usage notes, over the top occurs only following a copula as the object of a sentence, as above, whereas over-the-top is used where the adjective occurs before the word it modifies.
  • That isn't a direct quote of Soviet officials, though, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
  • Good catch, "Soviet Union" also shouldn't be linked.
  • Sure, I've no objections to In 2003, Moskovskij Komsomolets' Mikhail Rostovsky recalled that…
  • The spelling of "most favoured nation" came from the source IAW MOS:PMC and our own article living there. But yes, there's a more-specific US-centric article that discusses that nation's version of the concept, which should also be spelled in the US way. It should still be piped, though, to avoid being anachronistic.
I'm going ahead and making the edits to which neither of us object. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "minor linguistic edit" I'm referring to. In fact, the editor in question constantly uses this edit summary regardless of the changes they introduce. Pizzigs (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't relevant to this discussion. If you feel another editor is being disingenuous with their edit summaries, the proper forum for that would probably be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (that's just my best recollection off the top of my head, but likely a good starting point). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"better source"

[edit]

On 28 June 2023 at 15:59 UTC Reflecktor (talk · contribs) added an undated {{better source needed}} with no explanation. Without being provided a reason, I double-checked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but The Rachel Maddow Show isn't listed, and the listing for MSNBC says There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Now, that page does say that Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces, but there's no sourced prose at our article describing the Maddow show as a talk show. Furthermore, in comparing our article with an actual check of the source, we're only using the content that Maddow (the host) is themselves summarizing from another reliable source: NBC Nightly News—about which we don't have enough context to individually cite accurately. As such, among other edits, I reverted the tagging 22 minutes later. Reflecktor returned 149 minutes later and re-added the tag, saying, The Rachel Maddow Show isn't the greatest source.

I have, on Reflecktor's behalf, begun this discussion as they should have IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. They're saying that the current source "isn't the greatest", without explaining what that means. It's not precluded by WP:RSP, its parent network is certainly suitable, the source isn't a talk show (per WP:RSOPINION), and ultimately it's really just one reliable source summarizing another. If anybody can explain what specifically is problematic about this source in this article, I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks, all. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rachel Maddow Show article describes it as "an American liberal news and opinion television program". Reflecktor (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? Is that your entire response to the above? The inclusion of "and opinion" doesn't automagically strip the program of its qualification as a reliable source. Are you alleging that this equals a talk show, or are you simply not evaluating this specific source on its individual merits? Did you actually read either the source itself or the entirety of what I wrote above? What, dare I ask, is your position on NBC Nightly News as a reliable source? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how an opinion show could be used as a reliable source for a history article. This is in line with WP:NEWSORG which states - "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"
As for NBC Nightly, news agencies would preferably not be cited in favour of scholarly sources. To quote the above referenced policy again - "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". Reflecktor (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how an opinion show could be used as a reliable source Firstly, it's apparently a news and opinion program, not solely the latter. This is in line with WP:NEWSORG which states… Yes, I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations: (a) We aren't using any commentary, opinion, or editorializing to source this article. (b) That content guideline (not policy) is recommending scholarly sources for academic topics, not deprecating news reports. Instead, we're using Maddow's summary of contemporary NBC Nightly News reports to cite facts reported, none of which needs to be replaced with a better source (though certainly could be supplemented by such in the future if a contributor were so inclined); you're saying that source is unacceptable, and it isn't by any of the project-wide consensuses you've listed. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't using any commentary, opinion, or editorializing to source this article Well the source itself is such a thing, as it's own article states ("opinion television program"). Reflecktor (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intentionally ignore the "news and" part of that sentence in our article. More importantly, have you actually read the source? Maddow is both news and opinion, which doesn't make it an unreliable source, but which requires care in citing—which has been done. Maddow is merely excerpting and summarizing NBC Nightly which is unquestionably reliable. A better source (while always accepted from contributors) is not needed, and obviously neither of these sources have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. [They're plainly not] expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. It's wrong to say they are. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maddow is merely excerpting and summarizing NBC Nightly which is unquestionably reliable. In that case it makes much more sense to cite that source instead of the Maddow one, but again, scholarly sources would be ideal for an article like this, per the above.
but which requires care in citing—which has been done Discerning between news and opinion would be WP:OR. Unless some reliable source could verify it is news and not opinion, in which case it would make more sense to just cite that source instead of wasting time. Reflecktor (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I originally said on 29 June, if we knew the specifics of that NBC Nightly broadcast, we would cite it directly. Instead, we can cite Maddow and its reliable summary thereof, neither of which is deprecated. Furthermore, this isn't an academic topic which would benefit from a preference of scholarly sources; if that were truly your boggle against using Maddow & NBC Nightly, you would have tagged 10/10 sources in the article. As for [d]iscerning between news and opinion, that suffices to answer whether you've actually read the source.
Ultimately, unless you can point to explicit deprecation of Maddow and NBC Nightly as sources, then they don't patently have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. [And they're plainly not] expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Failing to meet that bar which you yourself have set, we must remove the {{better source needed}}. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this isn't an academic topic which would benefit from a preference of scholarly sources History is an academic disipline.
if that were truly your boggle Please avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS.
that suffices to answer whether you've actually read the source This doesn't in any helpful way address this.
then they don't patently "have a poor reputation...." I think you're misreading that policy. This is just one subsection, it doesn't say unreliable sources are only this, just that this is one type of unreliable source. Reflecktor (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new position for me to need to say: I've not issued an attack, personal or otherwise. In this instance, my describing your opposition to one of ten equally-suitable news sources as a 'boggle' is being used synonymously with 'conundrum', 'issue', or 'point of contention'.
The inappropriate tag you've added specifically links to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, which describes such sources as those that have a poor reputation… Since neither Maddow nor NBC News qualifies as a questionable source under your own definition, you or I must remove the tag (again, unless you can point to consensus deprecation of those sources as questionable). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the Maddow Show is an opinion show it's fair to say that it "lacks meaningful editorial oversight". Reflecktor (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may say so, but WP:RSP doesn't agree (since Maddow isn't a talk show). We have no reason the suspect Maddow of faking up the NBC Nightly excerpt, and since NBC Nightly plainly doesn't meet the description of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, I've removed the tag. If you'd prefer another equally-informative source in its place, I truly want you to feel welcome to add such (I'd be happy to help you add and format it). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a talk show for that to be the case. Reflecktor (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astually there are better sources. E.g. dewiki cites the article "Pentagon confirms Soviets were on war alert". I agree that the tag must stay. It is not breakiong news, when only news sources have the facts. This story is old enough to be covered by scholars. Since it triggered Soviet responce, it is not just a gaffe trivia. - Altenmann >talk 00:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this tag is not equivalent to WP:RS issue. Encyclopedia does need better sources. - Altenmann >talk 00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This tag is literally saying the Maddow and NBC Nightly News sources have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. [These sources are] expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. When that patently isn't the case, I have a problem with the tagging. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may be better sources. Some sources might go into more detail, some sources bight have poingiant quotes, some sources might do everything the Maddow source does—but better. That doesn't make the Maddow source bad. A better source is always beneficial to every article, but we don't tag every sentence in every article. In this instance, a better source isn't "needed". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit attribution

[edit]

I'm on the road, editing on unusual devices, and apparently didn't notice I'd been logged out. This edit was me, and I apologize for not catching the problem before saving. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Shirley was a conservative activist

[edit]

I removed the quote from Craig Shirley about how Reagan was perfect and the Dumb-o-crats couldn't touch him or whatever he said. This doesn't belong in the article. First off, Shirley is identified as a "historian," which appears to be completely false. Shirley's wikipedia article says he has an undergraduate degree in history and says nothing else about study in the field. Second, and more importantly, the article does not mention that Shirley was a literal Reagan shill. He was an RNC staffer and communications director for a pro-Reagan PAC. The guy's literal job was to shill for Reagan. We should keep propaganda out of Wikipedia articles, not put in it in in a misleading way. I'm removing it again. Croctotheface (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have reason to assume Shirley's analyses of Reagan here or in his books are outright lies, his Wikipedia article suggests he's a suitable source for this article on Reagan. We've included an in-text attribution for readers IAW WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT, but to deprecate Shirley entirely would need more (and that discussion better held at WP:RSN). Thanks, though, for starting discussion IAW WP:BRD. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather confident that Wikipedia's editorial standards are higher than "include anything that is not an outright lie." Shirley's opinion is clearly opinion, and it's clearly designed to promote Reagan because his entire career is tied to being a political flak for Reagan. It's clearly undue weight to an opinion designed to make Reagan look good and Democrats look bad. I'm a little troubled by the fact that you seem to believe you unilaterally get to decide what goes in this article. Perhaps a third opinion is in order. Croctotheface (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's editorial standards are higher than 'include anything that is not an outright lie.' That's why my reply also explained that our own article on Shirley suggests he's a reliable source on Reagan. Shirley's opinion is clearly opinion First of all, the prose doesn't obfuscate this; secondly, we cite and attribute the opinions of relevant people all across the encyclopedia. I don't see undue weight present in the single sentence (attributed and sourced to somebody whose own article suggests he's nigh an expect on the subject matter), and neither have the other 34–43 contibutors since it was added to the article, but I'm also never going to dissuade seeking out further support for that position if you think consensus would support it. I'm a little troubled by the fact that you seem to believe you unilaterally get to decide what goes in this article. I'm similarly flummoxed that you think I'm the sole author of Wikipedia:Editing policy, or that you assume I'm attempting ownership of the article. I will, however, point out that the additions included with this edit aren't supported by the citation to which you attributed them. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the uncited additions IAW WP:V. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that it would be helpful to get a third opinion, or invoke some other form of dispute resolution process, over whether to either (a) remove Shirley's opinion for not being illuminating of the issue, since it is predictably pro-Regan and anti-Democratic party, given that Shirley has dedicated his entire life advocating for conservative politics, the Republican party, and Ronald Reagan, or (b) failing that, accurately identify Shirley in some way that informs readers that his entire life has been dedicated to advocating for conservative politics, the Republican party, and Ronald Reagan? Croctotheface (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"has dedicated his entire life advocating for conservative politics, the Republican party, and Ronald Reagan" We are using a propagandist as a source? Shirley's writings are far from reliable or relevant to the topic. Dimadick (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oxy and our own article suggest Shirley is a sufficient subject-matter expert on the topic. Do you have a reliable source that says Shirley's analysis of this hot-mic incident is specifically out of line? Or is there a site-wide (or topic-wide) prohibition on mentioning Shirley's analysis of everything? I haven't personally seen that consensus decision, but if you can point me to such, I'll obviously defer. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(a) It looks like Ozy determined Shirley's was a salient commentary on this particular event, not us (which would be original research if we had). I suppose you could ask (at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) whether Ozy is an appropriate reliable source or if there should be a site- or topic-wide prohibition about mentioning any and all relevant commentary by Shirley. (b) As connected to this specific observation about this hot mic, Ozy merely identified Shirley as "historian and author of the forthcoming book Reagan Rising". Neither that description, our own article on the man, nor your own description, identify him as someone whose input on this event isn't relevant. You have your opinion about this person, but even if your opinion were the words of gods, that doesn't automatically deprecate his informed commentary on this specific event.
I assume you've reinitiated this discussion as a result of this edit of mine. As I said in the edit summary, I removed that prose because you cited it to Oxy, which doesn't support the claims you made. You can't just add prose to an article like that. Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you keep mentioning allegedly missing sourcing, how about this one that refers to Shirley as a "Republican flak"? Would you prefer to put that phrase in the article, citing this article? https://observer.com/1999/06/a-republican-flacks-stealth-attack-on-hillary/ Croctotheface (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that article by The New York Observer would be subject to WP:RSOPINION whether used here or at the Shirley article. Secondly, reading that article doesn't make him irrelevant nor unsuitable for citing his opinion (again IAW RSOPINION) on this event. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing the 'Joke' ?

[edit]

Is it not making light of the comment to call it a 'joke'? Given that the remark caused such concern in Moscow that the Govt put its forces on alert, should not the word joke or joking be replaced by Comment/s or remark/s? 2.24.196.48 (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't our place, one way or another, to decide whether it's a joke. The reliable sources all describe it as such, and we cite their reporting and analysis. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN issues

[edit]

Since Fourthords first edited this article on October 30, 2018 (Happy Halloween eve!), he has made 42 of the 137 total edits (30.65%). His pattern of editing in recent years is more or less to revert to the "last stable version" that was the way he wanted it. For instance, here is a link comparing a March 6, 2023 version of this article, last edited by Fourthords, to the current version of the article. There are minimal changes to the article text. A look at the edit history shows a distinct pattern of Fourthords reverting changes made by users back to the text as he had it. There is not a meaningful attempt to engage with other editors or to incorporate their additions. Given my interactions with Fourthords above, it's rather clear that he is not approaching this article collaboratively. Croctotheface (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the article history. Since I first edited here, 42 of the 133 edits (32%) edits have been mine, leaving 91 edits that were not. Let's first look at those edits:
Wikipedia:Ownership of content says, …other editors can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. I've done my best to always explain which policies, guidelines, and manuals by which I'm editing (the "good reason" mentioned), and I can certainly elaborate further for you—I have zero objection to discussing any of these edits by myself or others. That policy page further says,

Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship. Stewardship or shepherding of an article or group of related articles may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or in a cause or organization related to it. […]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.

Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. All editors must follow the official policy about discussing disputes and avoid edit warring.

Per all of the above, I don't see OWNership issues, and am always happy to keep discussing things here. Be aware, though, you're also welcome to avail yourself of the resources at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (as recommended by the OWN policy). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US military controversy?

[edit]

Category:United States military controversies was recently added to the page, yet the article currently makes no mention of the US military, whatsoever. Was there meant to be additional sourced material added, or was this categorization made in error? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes&oldid=1260790698"