This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I fixed "he found two chairs - one for him and front-runner George H.W. Bush, and himself." changing it to "he found two chairs - one for front-runner George H.W. Bush, and himself." The grammar is now correct, but I think the statement may still be inaccurate. My recollection was that Reagan was still ahead in the delegate count although Bush had the momentum having won the last two state's primaries and was favored to win in New Hampshire. I think Bush was favored to win it all at that point, but technically, Reagan was still the "front-runner". I'm going off memory, so I don't want to edit the page without the sources in front of me, I just want to point out the possible error here for someone who has access to the history. 216.9.182.249 (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmbrough Regarding the hatnote you just placed, I'm of two minds whether the material about Reagan and the 1980 primary is excessive. It certainly looks excessive to a casual view - but it describes what is, by far, the incident for which this small local newspaper is known nationally. There's a non-small chance that somebody coming to this article is looking for information about it rather than any other information about the newspaper. I think this is a case where I'd err on the side of caution and leave it, partly because it doesn't seem to exist anywhere else (it's not in Reagan's article, where it would get lost).
I had a long connection with the newspaper so probably shouldn't wade in too much, if I may be a wikipedia purist. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
