Talk:Nancy Reagan/Archive 1

Just say no

The article seems to downplay or not fully cover the effect the mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses and the "teaching of not knowing about something" have had.

"Although the bill was criticized by some, ..."

If someone has the time, please expand on this or make some links.

Thanks.

Date of birth

From: User:65.73.0.137

There is a lot of accuracy that Nancy Reagan was born in 1923. I've seen it said to be 1891, but 1923 is more relevant.

The White House lists her birthdate as 1921 in their biography of her. Do you have a source that lists 1923? Gentgeen 19:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Among many other sources, the World Almanac has it as 1923.

links, please. IMDB, the Reagan Foundation, and the White House all list 1921. Perhaps whichever World Almanac you're reading is wrong. Gentgeen 19:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Her real birth date is July 6, 1921. Somewhere along the way, probably in her youth, it became 1923. Nancy used to play along with that, until the truth became obvious.

I agree. A lot of sites have said 1921, and the World Almanac, in my experience, has been a year or two years off on a lot of famous peoples' birthdates. I will go with 1921 as the accurate birthdate. If need be, add a small note that Nancy wished to have people know that she was born in 1923 instead, but not in lieu of her real birthdate. Mike H 18:30, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have multiple editions of the World Almanac and they have corrected their entry for Nancy Reagan. In the 2003 edition (ISBN 0886878829), she was born in 1923. In the 2004 edition (ISBN 0886879108), she was born in 1921. Chris N. 01:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Nancy lied about her age. The World Almanac list is often wrong because entertainers/personalities often like to be younger or older than their real age...131.96.70.164 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Communist List

"She had met Ronald Reagan in 1951, when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and an actress with the same name had appeared on the communist list"

What is the significance of a similar name appearing on the communist list ? The sentence ends there abruptly, nothing more is written, where as I would have expected something. There is surely something to it. Jay 09:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair question, Jay. Back then, Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) actors/actresses were generally blacklisted if their name was on the communist "blacklist." This meant they couldn't work in their craft. Considering the anti-communist ballyhoo/hysteria of the times after World War II - keep in mind that Senator Joseph McCarthy and Congressman Richard Nixon were in office and were determined to root out communists in American life, perhaps especially notable ones in the motion picture industry, and McCarthy was dogged in this effort - having your good name sullied as a communist was akin to today's credit card or identity theft. It had to be stopped in Nancy's case, and Ronald Reagan did a credible job. Nice story on how to meet your future wife, eh?

See the Wikipedia article on McCarthyism for more detail. For now, I've added to the article info on your concerns, plus a minor edit. 209.221.221.93 04:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

Thanks for the additions. Very helpful. Jay 05:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Glad to help. 209.221.222.92 20:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

---

Last Movie

I'm finding on the IMDb database info on a 1958 film credited to Nancy Davis called Crash Landing. I've already checked the official White House biography, and it isn't listed there. Perhaps an oversight the WH biographer made? If so, Crash Landing appears to be her last serious film as an actress, not Hellcats of the Navy.

Also, some mention on her work with disabled children while California First Lady would be great. I do remember that. 209.221.222.92 20:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

---

More on date of birth

The White House's very own website says that she was born in 1921

See [1]

Now, this could theoretically be wrong, but in which case you had better have a damn good reference for this. Morwen - Talk 19:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Unless User:Marcus2 can provide a real source (and please give the ISBN number of any books you reference), we can't list information here that is proven by all other available sources to be false. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:16, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, after some extensive googling, it appears that she did in fact publicly list her birthday as 1923, but it was actually 1921. I think that we should then have the 1923 date somewhere in the article, but with a note that it is not factual. According to this site [2], she lists that date in her autobiography "Nancy", although I cannot confirm this as the text is not searchable online. Is there any precedent for this? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:43, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's her birthday today, and the news sources have all cited Nancy Reagan's age as 83, making her born in 1921. Mike H 23:59, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, her birthday is definitely 1921, but I think we should still acknowledge that she misrepresented her birthday as 1923, particularly in her autobiography. I'm also not crazy about the current notation (the double parentheses is particularly annoying (don't you think?)). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:59, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I am particularly skeptical about Nancy Reagan in particular, but I considered it remotely plausible enough not to summarily exclude. Philwelch 21:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Later Life edits

There is a lot of data being presented without citation, and with some NPOV issues. I think a lot of it needs to be cited or removed.Arcayne 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, a large amount of this header will be deleted in 24 hours unless some folk can find some citation for the statements.Arcayne 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing

{{help}}

I am noticing that as edits take place, the article is truncating at the bottom. Please do not panic - this is not some rampant vandalism. Apparently, since the article has not been evaluated for level of importance, it might not be considered a real article yet. I am working to get some assistance to get the article evaluated, and hopefully clear up the situation. The entirety of the article is still there, as can be seen if you click the edit this page tab at the top of the article page.Arcayne 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need to address the large number of pictures here that are not necessarily licensed, and their sizing. Pictures without proper licensing get yanked in very short order by the autobots. If you are unsure whether a picture is free to use, ask here, or check out WP:ImageArcayne 08:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sun City Girls pop culture reference

• Sun City Girls have a song entitled "Nancy Reagan" on their 1987 album, Horse Cock Phepner.[3]

I pulled the following reference from the Pop Culture header because I've discovered that the album never saw wide circulation, and that existing copied of the album (released in 1987) are exceedingly rare indeed. I am thinking that the cultural impact is slight in comparison to the derogatory nature of the citation. What do y'all think?Arcayne 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sun City Girls have a song entitled "Nancy Reagan" on their 1987 album, Horse Cock Phepner.

The Late

I am noticing the beginnings of a little edit war brewing over the use of the words, 'the late' in reference to Ronald Reagan. Another editor wisely mentioned that deaths that are recent are referred to as "the late." In conversations with User:Booshakla over this, he has mentioned that he has had long arguments over this in another article, implying that an edit war brewed over there about this very same topic. I see nothing in the Wikipedia Manual of Style that refers to the referencing of dead folk, recently or otherwise. In the absence of that, the use of 'late' should be used. Comments?Arcayne 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna make another route, how about "She is the widow of Ronald Reagan, the president" or something of the sorts? That's how Betty Ford's article starts. Booshakla 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine the way it is. An admin already weighed in on the matter. If you want to change policy, I've pointed you towards two areas where you can argue for a change. This is not the article to effect change in policy and, as Betty Ford is not a featured or great article, it is inavisable to use it as a template.Arcayne 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Still don't agree with you. An admin making an opinion (which I haven't seen) isn't all-binding just let. A lot of discussion is going on, and it will take awhile to figure this out. There's discussion on both sides. Booshakla 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I know you don't agree, and that's okay. The edit by the admin is here. I think we should leave it be for now until the discussion you are involved in is finalized one way or the other. Could you provide the link where the aforementioned discussion is occurring? While we are waitng on that, maybe you could help us fix the citations for the references we have in place. Sound cool?Arcayne 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "the late" is fine. "The late Ronald Reagan" sounds fine to me. Usually, the late is a title for deseased persons, so I'm not really seeing what the big deal is. Happyme22 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan Citing

Hi. I am somewhat new here. I have added the second paragraph on Mrs. Reagan's page in the First Lady section, descibing the assassination atempt, and the lasting effects on Mrs. Reagan. I have all of the materials for a refrence, but I don't know how to do it, because when i tried, someone deleted it. It's from a book. It's called My Turn. It was written by Nancy Reagan, published by Random House in 1989, in New York, and the ISBN number is :0-394-56368-9 . There's all the info, i just don't know how to do it. it should go after the 2nd para. on the assassination attempt. it would be great if someone could help me out... Thank You! Happyme22 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• D. S. Lane, A. P. Polednak, M. A. Burg (1989). "The impact of media coverage of Nancy Reagan's experience on breast cancer screening". Am J Public Health. 79 (11): 1551–1552.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• A. Butler Nattinger, R. G. Hoffmann, A. Howell-Pelz, J. S. Goodwin, (1989). "Effect of Nancy Reagan's Mastectomy on Choice of Surgery for Breast Cancer by US Women". JAMA. 279 (10): 762–766.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Has anybody the book: Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography by Kitty Kelley ISBN 978-0671646479? --Stone 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood A-list

The Hollywood A-List has this to say about Nancy in a nastier manner: “The eminence grise(ly) in the Reagan White House. Used astrology to determine policy decisions. Slept with Frank Sinatra in the White House itself. Personally pro-choice but kept quiet and supported anti-choice actions for her husband's career. Former "Hostess Girl Escort for the studios when they needed to recruit investors or starpower; Famous for giving the best head in Hollywood in her day. Was three months pregnant when she married Ronnie. Failed to say no to pot at least once. Supposedly verbally abused her children. Sexually linked with:

1. Milton Berle,
2. Yul Brynner,
3. Clark Gable,
4. Peter Lawford,
5. Frank Sinatra,
6. Spencer Tracy, and
7. Mike Wallace.”

Peter Lawford Quote

Relevant to the above, Peter Lawford's biography has him sayng that "Nancy Davis was a party girl who gave the best head in Hollywood"

Yeah, and I removed it quite some time ago, because it is unreliable, second-hand gossip (actually, I would call it trash-talk). Until someone is able to prove it, it won't go anywhere near to the article, as per WP:BLP. Opening WP up to libel suits is frowned upon quite distinctly. :) Arcayne 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors can't prove anything, this isn't mathematics. We use existing, reliable sources for information. The Kitty Kelly book is well known, and has even been called "encyclopedic". If Nancy hasn't sued her in the past 16 years then the book passes the BLP test. If there are no further objections this will go in. 71.112.7.212 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would very much like it if you would cite the source of who exactly calls this source "encyclopedic"? That Reagan hasn't bothered to generate more sales for the book by suing is not a sign of guilt. If you put the information in without proper citation (and no, Kelly's book doen't meet the standard for reliability). I would think that someone such as yourself - accused of being a sock puppet - would be keenly aware of the burden of proof. Arcayne 08:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne? There is a reason that this is on the Talk page versus the Article. Kevin Jeyes did a column for the Chino Times that highlighted the sexual foibles of certain political persons around the time the GOP were attacking Bill Clinton. Milton Berle and Peter Lawford were awful gossips. One doesn't need Kitty Kelley to find dirt on the Reagans - it's there. I suggest you start with Dark Victory by Dan Moldea which documents how the Mafia used Reagan in getting control over Hollywood. Give us your input after you read the book. - Sparky 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit WP:BLP. Nothing anything disparaging about the Reagans is going into the article unless it is cited six ways from Sunday. And by cited, I man it comes form reliable sources that are verifiable, and gossip trash doesn't meet that criteria. I don't necessarily like the Reagans, but that doesn't mean I think its appropriate to add rumors and undocumented information. Find citations, post them here, and we'll weight the reliability of the info without engaging in character assassination. This is to be considered a disputed subject, and therefore, it will be held to WP standards.Arcayne 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And no, my input doesn't require me reading a 20-year old hack job consisting of innuendo and conspiracy theorist nonsense. If you wish to cite references that the book utilizines, realize that they will be diligently checked. Any additions that disparage the Biography of a Living Person without citation will be removed immediately. I might strongly suggest that - despite the percevied harshness of my post - that you think very, very carefully about making sure your statements are properly cited. If they aren't, you will quite likely get booted. Exercise caution, my friend. Arcayne 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This well-sourced info is going in; if the information has been in print for 20 years it is reliable. Calling a well known book a "hack job" that you've never even read isn't going to persuade anyone. 71.112.7.212 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't need to read it, anonymous user - I simply read the several reviews of the book. That none of the charges listed in the book ever took hold - as fact normally does - is rather telling that the book is a disastrous collection of DaVinci code-like connections. It is not a reliable source, and the statements contained therein do not rise to the level of WP:ATT. I strongly urge you to also revisit the WP:BLP article, which inclusion of these statements would be in violation of. As an editor, I would be bound to remove them "immediately". And, as you are suspected sockpuppet, I would be inclined to report your suspect behavior to the appropriate admin. -Arcayne 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Glaucoma Rumors

According to Ron Reagan Nancy's glaucoma is really bad now; A brave doctor would prescribe medical marijuana to ease her pain. Almost seems ironic, but Nancy only wanted teens to say no to drugs. - Sparky 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation for that claim? Arcayne 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Because it isnt true. Did Nancy say it was OK for 10 and 11 year olds to smoke pot? And 20 year olds? 71.112.7.212 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was thought that Elementary School kids were out of the loop then. Her message was targeted at teenagers. College kids were thought to be set in their ways and unmallable. And Ron's comment about his mom came out in an interview with Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air a week after his father's death. It's known that marijuana is treatment for her problem. - Sparky 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, NPR does offer transcripts of their interviews. It shouldn't be hard to find verifiable citation for the info.

You will have to forgive my earlier baseball bat of Harsh. I have distinct problems with people taking cheap shots at public figures. I never did like either of the Reagans,a nd all of these relatively sleazy attempts to include unsourced rumor mill material to make a buck detracts from those issues which truly deserve vilifying. Every person who has a WP article here has the right to a neutral assessment of their life, with criticisms as well as acclamations being properly cited. Aside from the strong feelings on one side or another, WP:BLP is something that WP takes very seriously. Wiki-contributors can be wrong on a science article and no one would really care. Commit libel against a real life person without rock-solid citation, and WP is staring down the business end of a libel suit. They are keen to avoid that. So am I. Arcayne 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to buy the transcript. If he listened to the story that's enough. But Nancy Reagan did do the just-say-no for 10 year olds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Um, know it isn't good enough. Dude, if you aren't even going to look at WP:ATT, then don't bother editing. Secondary sources are what we use, not primary sources. A transcript is a secondary (read:static) source, whereas primary sources like 'I heard it on the radio' are inherently unreliable. We actually use citations here in Wikipedia. Nothing will go into the article that is within the BLP purview without substantial citation from reliable sources. Before you add the source again, consider discussing the topic here first. Before that, however, make sure you read WP:ATT alllllll the way to the end, because if you aren't going to follow WP, there isn't any point in my trying to point out your POV bias. Arcayne 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelley Book

Look, this isn't a reliable source. Yes, it is a published book, so it is verifiable. However, the author doesn't cite sources for her claims. Therefore, the book itself, and any statements thereof cannot be used. While this seems a stricter interpretation than for say, a scifi movie or a comic book, it is for precisely this reason that it cannot be included. The subjec of the article is a living person, and is thusly goverened by the policy of WP:BLP and WP:ATT. Since at least one of our contributors doesn't feel thast they need to actually know this particular policy, I will summarize the relevent part here. We are tasked to "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". the Kitty Kelly book falls under this category. It was considered trash by reviewers 20 years ago, and it hasn't become any less trashy with age. If there are properly-sourced reliable claims within the book, those might be included. However, the criteria for inclusion is - as mentioned before - much higher than normal. Of course, primary sources are not enough, whereas secondary sources are what Wikipedia is built upon.
That the Reagans are not the most popular folk is clear. However, it is for exactly that rason that we are required to be extra vigilant; everyone deserves equal protection under the aegis of Wikipedia's policies. Arcayne 06:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is just the kind of gossip WP:BLP should try to prevent, however we could compromise and mention that Nacy is so famous that she has been the subject of tabliod journalism and rumors such as... etc. futurebird 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the several individuals were fighting this inclusion of material. To me it looks like derogatory information, which, according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed instantly. It also says that removal of said type of information does not fall under the 3RR. I would consult an admin just to make sure that the information is exactly how perceived, and then I wouldn't worry about how many times you remove it. It seems that only this anon is actually pushing for the inclusion, and the rest of you are positive that it isn't something that should be here. According to BLP, if it's derogatory, it's removed ASAP, without worry of 3RR.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

if "several" individuals were "fighting" for the inclusion of this material, mabe the best thing to do is include it. as it comes from a reliable source, a well-known book that's been in print for almost 20 years, there is nothing in BLP that precludes it being in here. its information nancy might not be proud of, but that's not the standard here. since BLP is not the issue here, you'll need to abide by 3RR

But that is precisely the point, anonymous-user-suspected-of-sockpuppetry. The source is not reliable, and because its authenticity is disputed by more than one editor, it cannot be utilized. Arcayne

Reliability does not negate the policy on derogatory information about a living individual. Please see the links above. Accusing her of adultery is rather derogatory, and speaking ill of her closeness with her children doesn't bode to well either. Lastly, believing in psychics is irrelevant unless it impacts her life in some way, like say she went completely bankrupt because of donations to them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Added section:Books about or by Nancy Reagan

As per User:Futurebird's recommendation, I've added a section, properly cited with a reference mentioning in substance (though not in detail) the existence of Kitty Kelley's book. I have not included the information that Kelley is currently considered a plagiarist, as I cannot establish the provenance of the accusations here (scroll down). That the accusations are more recent, and not in regards to this book are the only other reasons I don't mention Kelley's suspect character and honesty.
That aside, I am not familiar enough with NR's books to make statements about them. Someone with more knowledge will have to add a brief synopsis of each of them. Arcayne 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of citation in BLP

Read this. -Arcayne

Mr. T pic

Hey everyone. Because I didn't want to include the picture of Nancy Reagan and Mr. T in the White House cross hall, I was criticised. Well, it appears that User:72.245.4.233 agrees with me, for he/she stated this on the history page earlier today: pictures-it looked really bad with the 2 pics stacked on top of each other because some want to keep the one of NR and Mr.T, which i dont see as necessary;wat about one giving a speech?. I agree with him/her. I don't think it's necessary to have the picture, for wouldn't this one be a little better? I know that helping the unpriveleged children of the district was included in "Just Say No," and it's not that I have a "defined image" of a first lady, like Nancy, as being proper and formal; it's that this picture looks odd. Even I, someone who has met Mrs. Reagan, went "what?" when I saw the picture, for it didn't make sense to me. That's why I tried to get rid of it, but was yelled at. Again, I think another picture like the one above would work better. Or, we don't even have to include one of her drug campaign again, for we already have the one of Mrs. Reagan hosting the conference in the White House East Room. Why not this one or this one or this one or even this one? I think one of these would be better than a confusing picture of Nancy Reagan sitting on Mr. T's lap. Do I present my case better now? Happyme22 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Happyme22. I hope disagreeing with you some weeks back is not synonymous with yelling. As stated by several of us before, a wiki article is neither a place for a carefully stage-managed "memorial" or a place to denigrate a subject. The Mr T picture gives dimension to Mrs Reagan in its unusualness, in its complete lack of stagecraft, something that administration prided itself on. And, in an an almost sweet way it is incredibly American in the happy meeting of two people that seem surficially very different. You claim your desire to remove it is not based upon its not meeting an expected criteria of a proper first lady, but that it looks "odd." This sounds to me as the other side of the very same coin. Most of the other pictures appear very formal and carefully crafted, especially the intentionally self-deprecating "Second-hand Rose" get-up for the Gridiron dinner. Wikipedia need not be restrictive, if you would like to add another official looking picture, please do. I know Mrs Reagan loved the Red Room and that one might make sense, but if we delete all but the expected photographs I think we diminish the article, and the subject. I agree the picture of Mrs Reagan and Mr T differs from the others but that provides a bit of welcome realness. I do not find it disrespectful to Mrs Reagan or Mr T, and I believe the article is better with the picture. I am curious why you found it confusing. CApitol3 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan China Pic

There is a controversy about a newly added picture of Nancy Reagan's china she ordered. I deleted it, but it was put back. Here's a cpoy of the message I sent to the user who placed the picture here:

Hey. I deleted your picture for two reasons: (1.) look at the article right now. There's a huge gap between your picture and the next paragraph, which isn't displayed in any of the other pictures. There isn't a way to fix that without deleting the pic. (2.) We should be displaying Mrs. Reagan's time as first lady, and not the China she ordered for the White House. I know and understand that it was a big part of her first term as First Lady, but I don't care what the China looked like; it wasn't the design that caused the controversy. I want to see pictures of Nancy Reagan. I would recommend this photo because it shows what Mrs. Reagan did to overcome the bad press she was getting from the china. The china pic is in a bad place; it doesn't really display anything having to do with Nancy Reagan, other than the fact she bought it, and there was some controvery over she buying it not over the pattern or design of it. Again, the china piture is not necessary, for it leaves a large space, and it does not sufficiently show Reagan's time as First Lady. Happyme22 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the pic again, and as I've expressed before, I think we need pictures of Nancy Reagan, not her china. Happyme22 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi HappyMe22. Hey, you don't mention above that I left you the following message on your talk page!

What can I say? We disagree once again. The china is lovely and as the article shows it was a tempest ina teapot, it didn't cost taxpayers a cent. Mrs Reagan loves red. I think someone should write a bit about her style and entertaining. It was really distinctive and her decoration of several rooms in the White House residence were also notable. I'm not a Republican and during their administration I did not care all that much for them. But I have a lot of empathy for Mrs Reagan and the very long ordeal she went through watching her partner slip away. Selecting White House china, is not something all first ladies are able to do. She took an amazingly active role in it. She even had several shades of scarlets and reds made and brought them to the State Dining Room at night, and chose the color that looked best with ambient candlelight. I've said before, wiki is not a shrine, or a place to denigrate. I know you like her, and admire her. I would love to see you include the picture you like. CApitol3 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, if you look on the jacqueline Kennedy page, there are pictures of her redecration of the state rooms in the White House.CApitol3 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but Mrs. Kennedy has been noted numerous times for adding an elegance to the White House, which had been sorely lacking for over a hundred years, whereas Mrs. Reagan's contributions to the White House itself are debatable. While I think the picture should have been brought here to the discussion area, so people could see what we're talking about, I think it would be important to ask why a picture of this china is key to understanding the nature of Reagan. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I also wanted to add that the pictures that have been included thus far are a real improvement to what was there before. The article is coming along nicely. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Arcayne's assessment. Happyme22 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Could you post the pic in question here?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan, NY

Hi everyone. There has been some confusion about where Nancy Reagan was born, of all things. She says in her autobiography, My Turn, that she was born in Manhattan, New York (pg. 66, 67, and all of Ch.5), plus these 3 web sites say that she was born in New York City (these were the first three I chose).

• http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/article1088.html]
• http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/nrbio.html
• http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/nancy/nancy_bio.asp

Juding from these sites, and the knowledge of the person we are writing about, it is not accurate to say that Nancy Reagan was specifically born in Queens, NY. That's like saying Jennifer Aniston was born in Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA, when she was really born in Sherman Oaks. I'm going to revert back to Manhattan for now, but if you guys think that New York, New York is better, do that. Any questions or concerns? Send me a message. Happyme22 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan GA

Just to let everyone know, Nancy Reagan is now a Good Article :-) Happyme22 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on that, Hap. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead Question

From the sentence in the Lead:

"Mrs. Reagan experienced a great deal of criticism early in her husband's first term, mainly dealing with her decision to replenish the aging White House China."

Was the White House China thing the main source of criticism? I would have thought the astrology thing, the expenses issues and the prickliness with the other staff would have been more of note. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well having personally spoken to Mrs. Reagan (not that that has to do with this at all, but I like bragging about it), I no quite a bit about her life. The atrology thing wasn't released until 1988, having been leaked in Don Regan's memoir, so during the early years of the Reagan Presidency (1981, 1982) Nancy's criticism was mainly (and majorly) because of the china. Happyme22 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems good enough for me. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22, the line "replenish aging White House china" (italics are mine) sort of suggests the White House china was in bad shape, possibly cracked and chipped. It wasn't. It was more a problem of numbers of place settings. Previous administrations had had either Castleton (manufacturer of Johnson service) or Lenox (manufacturer of Wilson, FDR, and Truman services) create more place settings. State and other official White House dinners over the last half of the twentieth century though streamlined in numbers of courses grew in numbers of guests. The Reagans entertained on a fairly large scale and the quantity of any one service was not enough for some of their dinners. I think your friend Mrs Reagan did a pretty remarkable job in guiding the design of the Reagan service. And it really cost the U.S. taxpayer nothing. The problem was perception with unemployment high, and wage growth flat, it appeared lavish. The Kennedys were right in fearing bad press if word got out that the document fabric for the Red Room and Blue Room had been woven in France by Tassinari et Chatel after the attempt by the U.S. firm Scalamandre was found inferior. They allowed the story that the fabric was made on Long Island by Scalamandre when in fact the fabric was brought into the country in diplomatic pouches to preserve privacy. I think Democratic, Republican, Federalist, or Whig, the White House should have great design. The Clintons did large number entertaining and several times placed orders to augment the Reagan, Johnson, and Wilson services. Not until 1997 did work begin on a Clinton service, known also as the millenium service as it was introduced in 1999 just before the millenium, it was made to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the White House's occupancy, and paid for by the White House Historical Association. CApitol3 02:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, point very well taken. How would you suggest writing the sentence then? I think that we need to keep something about the china, because that is mainly what the controversy was about. Do you agree? Happyme22 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the china should be mentioned, tempest in the proverbial teapot that it was. Will think on this a little. CApitol3 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth about infoboxes

The template being used for Nancy Reagan's infobox is not up to the task. A new templateis being constructed, and will be replacing the one currently in the article. The same info will be added, plus the signature. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They have way too much crap crammed on that infobox for political figures. I've created a template for a First Lady, but for some reason the signature section will not show up at all. It's exactly the way it should be, just like on the other political templates (HTML looks exact), but it won't recogize anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nancy abused her children

Why isnt the fact that Nancy Reagan abused her children in here? 08:14, 23 July 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.22.171 (talk • contribs).

We don't censor information here. But note that per WP:BLP, any controversial information MUST be supported by a reliable, cited source.

Her two children both have their own articles. I looked at them; the Patti Davis article says that Patti said, in her biography, that Nancy physically abused her. If there are no independent sources for this claim, then it would be unacceptable to say that Nancy actually did abuse Patti; rather, we can only include this in an "She said" sentence.

I personally think that including the info in the Patti Davis article is sufficient, because of the lack of publicity around it, but I'll defer to other editors on the point. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to see the page number and book title. And I highly doubt that's the exact wording. Happyme22 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see the source, I concur. I would like to check it out myself. In general I would say biographies are pretty far from being the most reliable sources available for the simple fact that anyone can assert anything they want in a bio, often just to sell more books. I think context is important as well, what is termed "physical abuse" today was called parenting 35 years ago. IvoShandor 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs a page citation from a reliable written source if it is to be properly included.--Mcattell 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I added two family photos of the Reagans today. One is a wedding photograph, which is appropriate to the "marriage and family" section. The other one is a family photo, placed in the First Lady of California section. Unfortunately it has to be kept small because there's so little text in that section.
Both photos are from the National Archives and are in the public domain.
I replaced the color photo of Nancy and Ronald on a boat, because that photo is already being used in the Ronald Reagan article, and the new photos are more appropriate to the particular sections.--Mcattell 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. To begin with, the picture you uploaded to the marriage and family section is of GERALD FORD's family - lol! Secondly, while the second picture of the actual Reagan brood later under the first lady of California section is accurate, we are running the risk of having too many pictures in the article. Some restraint is called for. The pic of them on the boat is both telling of the relationshiop and clearly depicts the two of them, and especially Nancy. Not really sure why you removed it, aside fromt he fact that it is used inthe Ron article (which is completely okay, btw). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we have quite a few pictures in the article now. typically, the rule of thumb is two for every three sections. Perhaps we should pipe up as to what photos might serve the article better than others. Thoughts from the other editors? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's too little text in the article, not too many photos. The entire section dealing with the "First Lady of California" section is just a few sentences.--Mcattell 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I think the newlyweds photo is spot-on perfect for the section that begins "Marriage." It is also the only depiction of Ronald and Nancy together in the article while they were still relatively young. The color photo is fine, but its used in a different article. That would be fine if there weren't alternatives, but in this case, there are good alternatives. I think the pictures actually work together well, but this article needs more text and information, so the pictures don't look so crowded.--Mcattell 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I removed the family pic, to prune the amount of photos here. But again, more text would fill out the article. I think the article looks fine as it is now.--Mcattell 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK! I was out of the discussion on this one, but the page seems to look good. I think all that needs to be written is more about her First Lady of California years. Best, Happyme22 08:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy's Place of Birth

There's no getting around it, Nancy Davis was born in Flushing, Queens. Everything that says otherwise, "New York" or "New York City" has been provided by Nancy herself, or those thinking they are doing her a favor. This is to give the impression of wealth and glamor- upscale New York City, not horrible Flushing, Queens. Listen-
There are many parts of Manhattan that are far WORSE than Queens. Flushing, Queens, especially in the 1920s was not the most terrible place in the world to be born, and it isn't today. The modest house on Amity Ave. where Nancy first lived wasn't the little house on the prairie, nor a bordello. It was a decent house and it still stands today, recognized by the citizens of Queens and by every reputable biographer (not employed by Nancy) and historical society as the first home of Nancy Reagan; she had been born in a nearby hospital in Queens.
But that is beside the point. What if Queens, New York actually WAS a horrible place and IS a terrible place? Is that sufficient reason not to print the truth? Or, I should ask, does the truth even matter around here?
When you revert Nancy Reagan's birthplace back to New York City, and of course, this will happen-- think about the ethics of purposely misleading those who look up Wikipedia as a reference book and assume what they read is the truth. Or does such an issue sail over your head?

Gosh, there are so many incorrect assumptions, I am not sure where to start, Anonymous User: 67.187.198.77. Let's start with the easiest ones, okey-doke? First of all, you have been around long enough to learn how to sign your posts - there's even a btton for it, if you can't muster up the effort to type four tildes. Learn it, love it, live it. :)

Secondly, Assuming that there is some grand conspiracy to do Nan a favor clearly indiactes that you need to brush up on assuming good faith. Anyone here can tell you that I fairly despise the object of the article's husband, and don't much care for her. With that in mind, I take a bit of offense that I'd be cutting NR any sort of slack. Learn some manners, sport.

Thirdly, I have noted that - once again - someone is not bothering to cite the Flushing thing or whatnot. Someone did at one point, but that edit appears to have vanished. Allow me to use smaller words for you: no cite-y, no include-y. We on the same page now?

You may have noticed that the tone of this post wasn't very friendly. I tend to get a bit edgy when some noob comes into the article and accuses us of bias and hiding the truth. I said before that you should learn some manners. You want politeness, you might want to invest in acting that way yourself.

I think we are done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(removed attack post from Anonymous User 67.187.198.77 as disruptive, and provided a second warning for uncivility - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC))