This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
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)
I've unmerged this, as it breaks a number of incoming (extrawiki) links. [1] Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia meets the same criteria for being unreliable as wellThat'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)
Here's a popular culture reference, that's already in Wikipedia with a citation: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
without a proper explanationdoesn'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 contentyou added. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
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 Unionis original research without sources that explicitly do so.
|url-status=dead
upon the next edit to the article.)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.
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)
I'm not sure how an opinion show could be used as a reliable sourceFirstly, 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)
We aren't using any commentary, opinion, or editorializing to source this articleWell the source itself is such a thing, as it's own article states ("opinion television program"). Reflecktor ( talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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 doneDiscerning 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)
[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)
Furthermore, this isn't an academic topic which would benefit from a preference of scholarly sourcesHistory is an academic disipline.
if that were truly your bogglePlease avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS.
that suffices to answer whether you've actually read the sourceThis 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 opinionFirst 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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
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)
I've unmerged this, as it breaks a number of incoming (extrawiki) links. [1] Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia meets the same criteria for being unreliable as wellThat'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)
Here's a popular culture reference, that's already in Wikipedia with a citation: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
without a proper explanationdoesn'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 contentyou added. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
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 Unionis original research without sources that explicitly do so.
|url-status=dead
upon the next edit to the article.)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.
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)
I'm not sure how an opinion show could be used as a reliable sourceFirstly, 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)
We aren't using any commentary, opinion, or editorializing to source this articleWell the source itself is such a thing, as it's own article states ("opinion television program"). Reflecktor ( talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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 doneDiscerning 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)
[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)
Furthermore, this isn't an academic topic which would benefit from a preference of scholarly sourcesHistory is an academic disipline.
if that were truly your bogglePlease avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS.
that suffices to answer whether you've actually read the sourceThis 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 opinionFirst 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)