Talk:We begin bombing in five minutes

message: 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)
thread_title: Speech?

message: 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)
thread_title: Release vs. Leak

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Defcon lowered?  Sez who?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If such is discussed by reliable sources  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  16:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Discogs is no bueno as a reliable source.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:    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)

text: Mayhap.  I've begun the process of receiving a copy of the book for verification.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

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

message: On 11 August 2019 at 04:21 UTC,  put Reagan's quote inside a  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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Okay, no worries!  Thanks for replying!  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: unnecessary blockquote

message: 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)
thread_title: edit attribution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:    That's why my reply also explained that our own article on Shirley suggests he's a reliable source on Reagan.    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 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)

text:  I've removed the uncited additions IAW WP:V.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Craig Shirley was a conservative activist