Talk:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

LBJ

"The state funeral was also the first since that of LBJ in 1973." Did Nixon have a state funeral?

The answer is no. Nixon, who presided over the LBJ funeral, did not have a state funeral, acting on his family's wishes. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Images replaced

I've replaced all but two images. Except for those two, they're all images with the following tag. -- SNIyer12^(talk) 00:40, 6 December, 2005 (UTC)

Dropped quotations

Since the Carson and Noonan quotations were dropped from the article, I dropped the citation references out too. Here they are:

#{{note|carson}} Tom Carson, "Death of a salesman: Ronald Reagan, 1911–2004". The Village Voice, June 7, 2004. Retrieved May 11, 2005. #{{note|Noonan}} Peggy Noonan, "Thanks From a Grateful Country". The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004. Retrieved September 10, 2005.

Ellsworth 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I do seem to recall that there was some confusion the day of Reagan's death on the part of the news services - people were confused as to whether Reagan had died or if his health had just taken a turn for the worse.
JesseG 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Americans woke up, they learned that Reagan's health had taken a turn for worse and that death may be near. As the day wore on, it became evident that Reagan would pass away before the day came to a close and yes, he passed away before the day's end. SNIyer12 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul Martin

Please do NOT say that Paul Martin is former prime minister in Canada. Martin was prime minister when Reagan died. This article MUST reflect June 5 to 11, 2004. The same goes with Gerhard Schröder as chancellor of Germany. -- SNIyer12 ^(talk) 01:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to say something like "Paul Martin" (who at the time was Canadian prime minister). What it MUST not do is give the appearance that he is still the prime minister. This is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper article, it is not written in a vacuum and is not preserved forever as a time capsule. Information must be accurate and up to date. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it so it says "then prime minister". Also did it with Tony Blair. Yes, Tony is currently the prime minister, but the problem with saying "current" is that whenever he leaves office, you then have to go back and change all of the "currents" to "then". Easier this way. And it's not inaccurate. He was the PM then. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done that with most world leaders, but not all. For example, with Hamid Karzai, I said that he was acting president in Afghanistan at that time, because he is now the president there. -- SNIyer12, ^(talk), 15:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, that has been done with all world leaders. -- SNIyer12, ^(talk), 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wag comment

"One wag suggested that the former first lady desired to climb in beside the corpse."-Inappropriate and unreferenced. I propose to delete it shortly, if that's ok with everone.

Editing I did

SNIyer12, we do not need more than one picture of Reagan lying in state. Its just...not necessary. Show people paying respects AND it just lying in state are really the same picture twice. So I removed one. And I integrated the security section into the rest of the article. Again, including comments from Cheney and others on how sad it is that we have to do this during 9/11 is a newspaper-type report and that isn't what this is. It's commentary. Just not needed. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Image removed

This image that was removed [1] was not of a phone truck showing security. I clearly stated about the security measures taken during the funeral, saying that it actually was a police officer with a bomb-sniffing dog and both of them combing the crowds. SNIyer12, ^(talk) 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't matter that much. We've removed some of the security stuff over and over and over again. We just don't quotes from Ashcroft about how sad it was that they needed security and all of that. It's just extra. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NSSE

Please vote here if you want information about the state funeral being designated an NSSE removed.

After I added that similar information at 2002 Winter Olympics, another user had inquired about it on that article's talk page, as to whether it was federal agencies were responsible for security. I don't want to see that confusion on this talk page. -- SNIyer12 ^(talk) 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see mentioning it in passing. What I object to is how we used to have quotes in the article about how terrible it was that it had to be made an NSSE and the like. I don't see the point in doing that. This isn't an article about terrorism or NSSE. But I have no problem with mentioning that it was an NSSE. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed info that the Secret Service is in charge of security during NSSE's, acting on the discussion at Talk:2002 Winter Olympics. -- SNIyer12 ^(talk) 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Commanding Officer (CO) of the USS Ronald Reagan

I noted that this had previously been a part of the article and was subsequently removed because it was "already mentioned in the USS Ronald Reagan article." Not good enough. People reading just about the funeral wouldn't know that they had to go to a tangent article just to find out that the captain presenting the flag was the commander of the USS RR, a fact that is more than pertinent to the events surrounding the memorial service. It is not trivia; he was asked by Nancy to do this honor specifically because the ship bore the name of her husband--very germaine to the article at hand and it deserves to be mentioned both here and in the USS RR article to serve difference audiences of readers. ScreaminEagle 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

"On June 11, 2004, Thatcher delivered a moving tribute via videotape to former United States President Ronald Reagan at his state funeral at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C." // from the article Margaret Thatcher

So, I don't really understand? Did Thatcher attend the funeral or did she send a videotape? Dr.Poison 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher did attend the funeral. She gave her eulogy via videotape because doctors advised her not to speak in public after suffering a series of strokes. SNIyer12 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wording

The rule is...if the person had the position and still does, you simply say "United States Senate Chaplain". If they were at the time of the funeral but aren't anymore, you would say "then current United States Senate Chaplain". You don't need to say "was then and still is" or "was the chaplain then and still has that position". No need to use 6 words when you can say the same thing in 2...or 0. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So uh

Why does this have its own article? 65.118.187.102 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --ScreaminEagle 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable outside of Ronald Reagan. 65.118.187.102 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It IS in Ronald Reagan. What's the problem? --GunnarRene 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he/she means it wasn't a notable enough event to have its own article and should only be mentioned in passing in the main Ronald Reagan article (correct me if I'm wrong). The logic of that is somewhat silly though. The state funeral of this particular president is a little different than your typical funeral for your Great-Aunt Toosey. Not only did it receive worldwide attention and interest in and of itself, but it was attended by hundreds of world renowed individuals including heads of state, former heads of state, and celebrities, and not just because Reagan was one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century. Additionally, this is the first state funeral held in our nation's capital since Johnson's 30 years ago. State funerals are not just big productions that people around the world tune into and focus on for weeks and even months afterwards, they are also part of the country's heritage. This is the first state funeral that has received that much worldwide attention in our country's history, including that of Jack Kennedy (incidentally, his state funeral has its own article, too--should that be merged as well because it wasn't "notable"?). Presidential state funerals, especially for presidents who have made major contributions to the country, are history-making events and deserve individual attention.

And if you want one more reason, the article on Ronald Reagan is already long enough to choke a camel; adding all the information that is in this article into that article would make it unbelievably and unnecessarily long, which is contrary to Wikipedia's goal, especially when there is enough information and interest in a subject to warrant its own article. Suggesting this information be merged into the main article is like suggesting that the entire article on the Attack on Pearl Harbor be merged into the article on WWII. And then we can merge WWII into the history of the 20th Century. And then we can merge that into the history of the planet until all of Wikipedia is one giant article about the Universe. The very point of Wikipedia is to provide information on enough topics that people would find useful and interesting. Considering that two years after the fact a Google search on "Ronald Reagan funeral" brings up more than 600,000 articles suggests this is something that more than 4 people find valuable and interesting. Good? --ScreaminEagle 22:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)