Talk:The Reagans

Copyedit

I think my copyedit will do--I mostly removed a redundant sentence. One real question, and one less serious one. The real one is, who are the scriptwriters? Are they out homosexuals? (Or is this the old anti-Hollywood gay-baiting.)

Less seriously, if I claimed that any movie or television program starring someone who is married to a GOP donor was inherently biased, I'd be justly laughed down. Why does anyone think the equivalent attack on Brolin is reasonable?Vicki Rosenzweig 02:56, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here's an AP story on the current controversy: [1] It has some information that could be incorporated in this article. About casting Brolin, the story says it this way: "Casting James Brolin, husband of outspoken liberal Barbra Streisand, as Reagan is a deliberately provocative move, [critics] contend." The wording in this article at least needs to be fixed, if not removed entirely. -- Minesweeper 07:20, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Ed: I think you've un-NPOVed it. Is the Drudge Report really a sensible source to quote? From a UK perspective I find the whole argument completely bizarre. If they have got someone with AIDS in the family does that really make them biased? The whole thing seems excessively defensive. Secretlondon 16:31, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Since 2 people have questioned my neutrality (I just read the talk page for the first time this very minute), I will stop editing The Reagans for a while. --[Ed]

Dropped Link

I dropped this link:

Ronald Reagan: a target for Hollywood? - Jim Rutenberg, New York Times (balanced)

It no longer goes to the article: normal practice for newspaper websites is to move articles to paid archives after a certain amount of time. Ellsworth 23:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added Link

And I added this link (for the second time). Hopefully, nobody has anything against that.

Clinton and Reagan and TV movies by Brent Bozell

Added links (again)

I have (re)added the following links, one of them for the third time (this is getting tiring):

Would the person responsible for dropping these links (one of them for the second time) be kind enough to tell us exactly why he or she is constantly doing so? ˜˜˜˜

Hi, I'm not the person responsible for dropping the aforementioned links in the past, but I am going to remove them now. The ABC's untrue path link is dead, so I am removing it. As for the "Clinton and Reagan and TV Movies" article, a conservative op-ed simply doesn't belong here. - donmanguno

Time?

The article says it's a four-hour miniseries. The DVD I got from Netflix says it's three hours long. Which is it? --Micahbrwn 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one of Reagan's daughters deleted from A Controversial LIne Excised

The sentence contradicts itself

one of Reagan's daughters, no family members, or close friends ... were consulted

I think the sentence meant

none of Reagaon's ...

Since family covers daughters I replaced it with

no family member or close friend ... was consulted

NYCDA 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping it again

I deleted the link again... I see no reason why a link to a Right wing opinion column that simply claims "Liberals are Hypocrites" has anything to do with this article. If anyone has an objection and a reason for inclusion, I will not object SirChuckB (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koop statement not a Koop statement?

From this section:

The screenwriters admitted that there was no evidence that Reagan ever said this; however, in The C. Everett Koop papers at National Institutes of Health, Koop stated that AIDS "predominantly affected people--homosexuals and intravenous drug users--who, in the view of President Reagan and his domestic policy advisers, brought the disease upon themselves by engaging in immoral conduct, and who were in greater need of moral reform than of new health information or policies."[5]

The linked web page is the source of the quoted statement, not Koop himself. This is easily verifiable by anyone who follows the link and finds that the same statement refers to Koop in the third person. Unless Koop did this regularly, this is editorializing by a website and certainly a wrongly attributed quote.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Reagans. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408090005/https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/Views/Exhibit/narrative/aids.html to https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/Views/Exhibit/narrative/aids.html

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) 14:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]