Talk:Nancy Reagan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nancy's Wobbly Signature

Is there a verification for Nancy's signature on this page? Was it written late at night? I suspect a prank here. This is the writing of a small child or someone very old or perhaps a specially trained primate. Don't let's diminish the memory of a wonderful woman with this cranky stuff! --OhNoPeedyPeebles 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Happy added it. Drop him a line, but he doesn't seem the sort ot prank up something like that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is truly Nancy Reagan's signature. See [1] and [2]. Happyme22 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth year??

In Ronald Reagan it says she is born in 1923, here it says 1921. Tvoz |talk 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See archives. Wasted Time R 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We're goin with 1921, per the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation's bio of her (here) as well as the White House's. Happyme22 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok - I just thought one was a typo. Tvoz |talk 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh haha. Happyme22 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ignorance is bliss Tvoz |talk 04:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Duration of Ronald’s funeral

This article refers to the funeral as “six-day”, and in the photo caption as “week-long”. Maybe I’m not up to speed with American usage, but did his funeral really take a week? Funerals normally take an hour or two, max. According to Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, the funeral service happened on 11 June. Are we making some distinction here between "funeral" and "funeral service". I've never heard that distinction before. -- JackofOz 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was hardly an hour or two. Reagan died on June 5, 2004. His body was taken to the funeral home and on June 7, to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library where it lay in repose until June 9. It was then flown to Washington, D.C. where a serive was held in the Capitol building, and Reagan body's lay in state. On the 11, it was taken to the Washington National Cathedral for a National Funeral Service, then flown back to California where another service was held at the Reagan Library. An interment ceremony then took place, and he was buried at about 3 AM the next morning. So Reagan's funeral was from June 5-11 = 7 days counting the 5th. Happyme22 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change in the article. Happyme22 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So, you're confirming that all these different events that occurred over a 7-day period, in places as far apart as California and Washington DC (and back again in California), are referred to by the umbrella term "funeral"? There was a lying in repose at the funeral home; a service and a lying in state in the Capitol building; the National Funeral Service; another service at the Reagan Library; and finally the burial. I would have thought the only one of these events to be called "funeral" was the National Funeral Service in Washington DC, but as I say, U.S. usage of the word "funeral" might be different than I'm used to. -- JackofOz 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The National Funeral Service was the official state funeral service, but the others are funeral services as well. Here's some examples: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Happyme22 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

These all suggest that what occurred between 5 and 11 June 2004 was a series of funeral services, only one of which was the funeral itself. -- JackofOz 23:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is used loosely. I know that the entire week was reffered to as the "funeral," with the services during the week (there were 3, not counting the interment service) reffered to as "funeral services" or "memorial services." The service held in the Washington National Cathedral was the official state funeral service. So there were a total of four funeral services (again not counting the interment, but counting the state funeral service), and the week itself was reffered to as "Ronald Reagan's funeral." Wow - I don't think I've thought that hard about a funeral before! Best, Happyme22 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Me either. And thanks for indulging me on this issue. My only real concern is that readers will alight on this article, see the reference to a "7-day funeral", and immediately have a mental picture of people sitting in a church for 7 days straight. It gives a whole new meaning to the expression "interminable eulogies". They must have had very, very sore backsides by the time it was over; and the body must have been stinking to high heaven by then, too. I realise that the media uses words loosely, but we're better than that. Maybe we can come up with some less ambiguous wording. Thanks. -- JackofOz 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha nice mental image. I suppose we can some up with something if you think there could be some possible confusion. It seems as if our key word here is "service"; the funeral itself was seven days, but the funeral services were only a few hours. Any ideas? Happyme22 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) OK. I still reckon we have different ideas of the difference between a funeral service and a funeral. I'd have said the funeral was only a few hours, but the various funeral services lasted 7 days. With that in mind, may I suggest the caption read:

• Former First Lady Nancy Reagan says her last goodbyes to President Ronald Reagan by kissing and patting his casket on 11 June 2004, prior to the interment and culminating which concluded a week-long series of funeral services for the president.

And the text could be something like:

• During the seven-day series of state funeral services, Nancy, escorted by her military escort ...

This would then make the text about Lady Bird Johnson ("She attended the funeral of former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson in Austin, Texas on 14 July 2007 ... ") not seem like a much shorter ceremony than Ronald Reagan’s funeral was. -- JackofOz 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I have conducted more research and found that the entire process of a president's funeral, if he should choose to accept it, is called a state funeral, which entitles him to have a ceremonial march down either Pennsylvania or Constitution Avenue, and lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda. Reagan was the only second president to have a service in the Washington National Cathedral, which is the state funeral service. first para. of here here as well That would make sense, for there are three American "state funeral" article on Wikipedia: State funeral of John F. Kennedy, Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, and Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford.

It just seems as if we are taking a simple concept and twisting it into somewhat-confusing phrases. It appears to be worded correctly. If users want to know more about a state funeral, they can click on state funeral. Happyme22 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense now that I'm aware "funeral" has a wider scope than just the church service, and particularly in the case of the state funerals for VIPs. This has been an educational experience, so thanks, Happyme22. -- JackofOz 06:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you JackofOz for bringing attention to this issue. I'm glad I was able to help. Happyme22 14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan approval ratings

[ Moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R. ]

First off, hello again. Here's my thoughts: the sentence is worded very oddly and I'm confused reading it, mainly the "she had both more people approving and disapproving of her than Rosalynn Carter" part; it just doesn't make sense. According to the cite (here):

• Carter's approval was 46% when her husband left office in 1980
• Reagan's was 56% in 1989
• Bush's was 71% in 1993
• Clinton's was 47% in 2001

And quoting directly from the source: "By the time her husband left office, more than half of Americans had a favorable opinion of outgoing First Lady Nancy Reagan. Fewer than one in five had a negative opinion of her. Opinion of her grew more positive as more Americans learned about her during the course of her husband’s presidency... While views of Mrs. Reagan were never as positive as those of her successor, Barbara Bush (who was viewed favorably by 81 percent of voters in early 1992), they were more favorable than views of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rosalyn Carter as their husbands left office."

Therefore, my edit to the page seems to be correct, as we are judging by polls taken when the FL's husband's left office. Now of course, Nancy Reagan's poll numbers were the lowest of any FL's during the first years of her husband's presidency and didn't raise much until later, something already covered in the article. If I'm missing something, please let me know and we can discuss a way to reword the phrase. And really I'm only caring so much because we're in an FAC. Thanksa lot, Happyme22 (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Political analysts look at both the favorable and unfavorable numbers. The source gives:

VIEWS OF OUTGOING FIRST LADIES

Hillary Clinton (1/2001)
Favorable 47%
Unfavorable 28%
Don't know 23%

Barbara Bush (1/1993)
Favorable 71%
Unfavorable 6%
Don't know 23%

Nancy Reagan (1/1989)
Favorable 56%
Unfavorable 18%
Don't know 24%

Rosalyn Carter (10/1980)
Favorable 46%
Unfavorable 9%
Don't know 45%

Yes, more people liked Nancy than Rosalynn, but twice as many disliked Nancy as Rosalynn. That's a testiment to Nancy being somewhat controversial, as the article says. (Of course, Hillary has an even higher unfavorable.) Analysts often look at the (fav minus unfav) number, in which case Nancy and Rosalynn are essentially tied, with Barbara well ahead and Hillary behind. It's this that I was trying to get across. Wasted Time R 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It would also be good to have a Betty Ford number in here too (two before, two after), I think she'd be very high. Wasted Time R 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely see your point now. Yes, we should be sure to mention that her unfav rate was higher than Carter's. How about something along the lines of:

"Compared to fellow First Ladies when their husbands left office, Reagan's approval was higher than those of Rosalynn Carter and Hillary Rodham Clinton, however she was less popular than Barbara Bush and her disapproval rating was double that of Carter's." and use that cite. Before I was confused with the "both approved and disapproved" and worried others might experience similar confusion. Happyme22 (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, OK I guess. Wasted Time R 11:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the sources or the article text, but the discussion above reads like synthesis and original research. Are you all getting these conclusions and comparisons from the sources, or are you connecting the dots yourselves? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, all that was written based on the above is:

Though Nancy was a controversial First Lady, 56 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of her when her husband left office on 20 January 1989, with 18 percent having an unfavorable opinion and the balance not giving an opinion.[75] Compared to fellow First Ladies when their husbands left office, Reagan's approval was higher than those of Rosalynn Carter and Hillary Rodham Clinton, however she was less popular than Barbara Bush and her disapproval rating was double that of Carter's.[75]

This is just a recap of the above table, which derived directly from the cited source. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias dispute

I wasn't "showing my own bias", as HAPPYTALK22 said in their undoing of my revision. The country was in economic decline, and she wasn't criticised that heavily for the China Patterns incident...it was only a minor issue. If anything, her extravagant wardrobe became more of an issue with the press and the public. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article as best possible to read as organized and to not reflect any bias. I will continue to update.

Yeah thanks. This article was completely stable until anon vandals like you started showing up. Just please lay off; I'm working "overtime" trying to reverse all the POV and non-MOS edits. Happyme22 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.

1- If there were many people making changes, perhaps it was not as stable as you'd like to think. Please allow the possibility that you are possibly writing with a bias.

2- I am not a vandal. I am adding no information or vulgar or inappropriate language, only re-organizing information that is easily found in the article and it's cited sources.

3- I will not "lay off". You are not the God of all things Nancy nor are you the King of Wikipedia. I have as much right to make edits as you do, despite my desire to stay anon. Take it down a notch. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take your discussion to your own respective talk pages on this issue. Jmlk17 09:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the question of whether the china purchase was a big issue at the time, it was. A search of the New York Times archives shows about 40 articles on it published between 1981 and 1983, for example. As for 74.73.106.239's proposed edit to the lead section, breaking the chronology by lumpin g the astrology controversy in with china and dress is unwise, since they happened at opposite ends of her time in the White House. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As for 74.73.106.239's charge that Happyme22 is showing "bias", that's unwise and foolish. Happyme22 brought this article to successful FA, which means that a lot of other editors looked at it for bias issues too. There are always legitimate questions about how to phrase and weigh things in the lead section; it's inherently difficult because there's limited space. Charges of bias are unhelpful. Second, because the article is FA, there's a presumption towards stability; it's best to discuss problems and proposed changes to the article in talk first, before getting in edit wars. Third, 74.73.106.239, I can tell you as a fact of WP life that as an IP address you will get no respect here. May not be fair, but that's the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I appeared to overreact, but I did become quite stressed out last night trying to revert all the vandalism, poor edits, POV edits, and those not complying with the MOS. Happyme22 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See the bottom of User talk:74.73.106.239. As long as 74.73.106.239 is willing to promise not to continue reverting, I will remove the block. --B (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as he holds true to the agreement. Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If he/she doesn't, the block can be reimposed. I'm waiting for a reply from him/her before removing it, though. --B (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Happyme22 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. At the end of the day, I will be happy to use this article's discussion page as well as our talk pages provided that the opinions of myself as well as others regarding this paragraphs possible bias are not simply disregarded and that HappyTalk22 shows some flexibility with the article's wording and agrees to give any user (User name or anon) reasonable respect. He may have put work into the article but he doesn't own it. I would also like to address HappyTalk22's continued reverting of this article: it's not ok for me but it is for him?74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: China Issue

I believe, as do others whose changes have been reverted by HappyTalk22, that the second paragraph is somewhat misleading.

This is the beginning of the article and not the place for specifics. The China Replenisment, while a notable event, did not constitute the majority of the criticism drawn by Nancy Reagan. The nation was in a period of economic challenge in the beginning of President Reagan's first term and the First lady, to many (per sources noted in the article), represented spending habits that were notablly excessful and inappropriate. This related to her manner of dress, travel, decor, and paid consultations with non-respected professionals. Noting the China Replenisment as a major factor in her criticisms is misleading, implying that this was an isolated incident that was blown out of proportion, which her continued actions prove to be not true.

I suggest that the second paragraph be written in the following manner to first summarize the First Lady's accomplishments and then to summarize her criticisms:

"She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 with Ronald Reagan's presidential victory. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention. She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which was considered her major initiative as First Lady.
As First Lady, she experienced criticism early in her husband's first term due to her decision to replenish the White House china. As described in the article below, her insistence on haute couture fashions during a period of economic decline also garnered criticism. More controversy ensued when it was revealed in 1988 that she had consulted an astrologer to assist in planning the president's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband's life."

Perhaps more of her contributions could be added to the first section? Surely she did more than "Just Say No". 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"As described in the article below" is not a very good way to put it, for a variety of reasons. See WP:ASR. Keep in mind that someone could be listening to this where "below" would have no meaning or they could be reading a book where it's on the next page. You don't want the article to refer to itself or to Wikipedia unless absolutely necessary. --B (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, agreed. The phrase "As described in the article below" can be easily removed as the sources are noted in the article iteslf; how do you feel about my request for the change as otherwise written? 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ps- No word on HappyTalk22 being blocked for his continued reverting of other's edits on this article? It just doesn't seem fair or in accordance with wikistandards. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, my user name is Happyme22 not HappyTalk22. I like Nancy Reagan; I've met her a few times and I consider her to be a good person. But we cannot seperate her criticism and accomplishments as first lady into two seperate paragraphs. That goes against WP:CRITICISM and totally eliminates the chronological order of the paragraph. The china event was notable. It was ordered at a time when the nation was undergoing an economic recession, therefore as explicitly stated in the article, Mrs. Reagan was largely seen as being "out of touch" with the American people. This deserves mention.

As for the "continued reverting" - that is called removing contested information and/or vandalism, POV edits, or edits that don't comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. After being denied multiple times for page protection, I am simply trying to protect the article by reverting vandals and poor info. Happyme22 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

B is definitely right that you never want to say things like "as described in the article below". I agree that the initial controversy of her FL period can be expanded to include the clothes and the economic downturn. I strongly disagree that the controversy elements should all be lumped together after the describing her FL accomplishments. The lead section needs to represent the actual chronology of what happened. I would add something about her protector role and "the Gaze" before getting into the astrology bit, because that gives it context. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to that and understand Happyme22's adherence to WP:CRITICISM. But the China incident, while notable, was not the largest reason for her criticism in the early years of President Reagan's administration as the paragraph curently reads; it was her willingness to spend largely while the country was in economic decline. Further, if the China was a matter that created criticism, so was her interests in high fashion (not just "garnering much attention", as the article surrently states). Lastly, I am AGAIN asking Happyme22: what poor info am I adding to this article? How have I vandalized it? Why are you monopolizing this article? 74.73.106.239 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And the difference between my reverting and your (74.73.106.239) reverting is this: I am continuously reverting vandalism, POV, contested edits, poor edits, or those that don't follow the MOS, which is perfetly acceptable. You were violating WP:3RR, meaning that when specific content was removed you added it back in without dicussing it or providing citations and reverted multiple editors more than three times. Now I will say that I was guilty of 3RR for a brief period as well, because I was reverting you, but I stopped after three reverts and you continued to revert other editors, such as User:Jmlk17, as well. Therefore you were blocked, not I, and as of now I see no legitimate reason for me to be blocked.

As for the lead expansion, it is supposed to provide a brief overview of the article. It probably would be good to mention something about the "protector" thing, but we cannot expand it too much because it's an overview. Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That you clearly admit "I like Nancy Reagan; I've met her a few times and I consider her to be a good person." shows bias. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Knowing/meeting/liking Nancy Reagan does show a bias on my side, but I have not, and will continue not to rxpress that liking in the article and turn it into POV statements. It is not a crime to like someone who's article you have been working on. It only becomes a problem if you repeatedly show POV in favor of that person, something I have not done. I have been working here for a while and I know the way things work. As for your china claim, the best thing for you to do is find a citation to try and back that up. If you find one, I suppose we can consider it. Happyme22 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That you admit to reverting multiple editors of this article, many of whom have made similar edits as mine, shows your outright monopolizing and dominance over this article. As it says at the bottom of this editing page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it."

Lastly, you have continued to refer to my edits as "adding poor information and vandalism", yet you have not once given an example of wht poor info I may have added (none) or in what way I have "vandalized" this article. Perhaps it's time for you to admit you have a bias related to this subject matter and how the article is presented and that it's time for you to PLEASE STOP! I agreed to use this discussion page to discuss changes, but not to be bullied, nor will I accept your unwillingness to accept the fact that myself and others believe there is an obvious skewed POV in the second paragraph of this article.

Ps- reference to the China as being indicitive of more than an isolated incident is found in Klapthor, Margaret Brown (1999). Official White House China: 1789 to the Present. Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 0810939932. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to go to my holiday dinner, but Happyme22 is clearly bullying this article. I will NEVER EVER EVER use wiki-anything again as it is clearly and obviously being used as a tool for non-Neutral POV's by those who "have been working here for a while and I know the way things work." I hope Nancy's body finds the same fate as Eva Peron.

Well, since 74.73.106.239 just vandalized the entire article by replacing it with 'Nancy Reagan is the American Eva Peron.', I'd say this dispute is over. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have reimposed the block for [7]. Unblocking him/her was obviously a mistake. Happyme22, thank you for the good work you've done on this article and I apologize for giving you another problem to deal with. --B (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I was unable to help here because of the time of year; I promise to help review the changes made during its mainpage stay, sometime after Christmas. Please ping me if I forget. Did the article come through OK? Thanks, B, for helping out Happy and Wasted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there's still a lot of vandalism to the page, but I think it's doing relatively okay. Thanks everyone for your help. Happyme22 (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage day always makes me very uncomfortable; it's just painful to watch any article go through it. Will catch up later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't articles be automatically protected, or at least semi-protected, when they go to mainpage? This has been ridiculous and embarrassing to WP ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That will never happen; the conversation has been had and rejected too many times to count. Many people believe the mainpage benefit outweighs the damage; consensus on that has been revisited a gazillion times, and it always comes out the same. Theoretically, we can repair any long-standing damage after mainpage day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed attack post by user 74.73.106.239, dated 19:56, 25 December 2007. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week. Please let me know if he returns. --B (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reporting on criticisms

The second paragraph currently reads:

"She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 following her husband's landslide victory, but experienced criticism early in his first term due largely to her decision to replenish the White House china. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention. She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which was considered her major initiative as First Lady. More controversy ensued when it was revealed in 1988 that she had consulted an astrologer to assist in planning the president's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband's life."

1- She became the First Lady when her husband was sworn in as president, not promptly after his victory in the election. This edit, however mildly accurate, manages to mention his landslide victory, even though this is not particularly relevant to the subject at hand.

I see no problem with this; he was elected in 1980 and sown in 1981 which we accurately display. --Happyme22 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the time sequencing in the statement. However, looking at it, I think the word "landslide" should be removed. Reagan won an overwhelming margin in the electoral vote (489-89) but not in the popular vote (50.7%-41%). The term "landslide" is usually reserved for blowouts in both counts, such as Reagan 1984, Nixon 1972, LBJ 1964, or FDR 1936. I don't think you really need an adjective here at all, but if you want one, use "solid victory" or something like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an adjective is not necessary. However, I don't know why we need to reference the President's victory at all, no? I mean, it seems to be common knowledge that she became First Lady when he became President. Perhaps: "She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 upon her husbands inaguration to office of President" 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not for removing the reference to his election entirely, but I guess landslide can go. Happyme22 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the change that you've made, but don't understand why not simply say ""She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981..." without any reference to President Reagan. Is it not understood that the First Lady becomes First Lady when the President is sworn in? If not, should that not be a subject to be detailed in the "First Lady" article.207.237.228.83 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the the "White House Glamour" section begins with "Nancy Reagan became the First Lady of the United States when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President in 1981". You have no objection in this place but object in the lead? I do not understand why a reference to the Presidential victory must be mentioned here. Possible evidence of Non NPOV. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

2- While early criticisms of her First Ladyship were in part due to her decision regarding the replenishment of the China Set, later criticsms indicated that this was only one action indicative of a larger issue mentioned in the article: that the administration was comfortable spending great deals of money while many in the country experienced a significant economic downfall. This was also indicated by her interest in high-end fashion. Yet, the paragraph as written seems to dismiss and excuse these criticisms as 'restoring glamor following years of lax formality' and identifying her interest in haute-couture as only 'garnering attention', not 'garnering further criticsm.

Do you have a citation back this up? --Happyme22 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, several.

From firstladies.org (http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=41) ---under Presidential Campaign and Inauguration, "Media attention focused on the high cost of the 1981 Inauguration and the private "candlelight" dinners for wealthy underwriters of the events, as a marked contrast to the Carter inaugural which had Inaugural Ball tickets selling for $25 to guests...The combination of the redecorating, new china set, more formalized entertaining style than the Carters, in addition to her attendance of the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana of England in 1981, and her acceptance of free clothing from designers (thus unwittingly violating the new Ethics in Government Act of 1978) led to the creation of a public relations dilemma. Contrasted in print and broadcast news with the 1981 economic recession, high unemployment and homeless families, the so-called "Queen Nancy" caricature was created and even occasionally invoked by Democrats as a means of criticizing the Administration. In addition, much as there had been some suggestion of a regional bias against the Carters' southern background in the national media, primarily generated from the eastern seaboard, there was suggestion of a bias against the Reagans' lifestyle and friends from the entertainment industry in California." 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

From the National Review, April 10, 1987 by William F. Buckley, Jr. as sourced by(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v39/ai_4781415) "She is a grave addition to the national debt, as witness her "bloated, expensive East Wing staff.'"207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

From the NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/opinion/24safire4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) "She was discovered to be taking free dresses for six years from the nation's most expensive designers in exchange for the publicity she gave them, and at first falsely claimed they were purchases." 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

and (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6D9113CF935A35751C1A96F948260) "Nancy Reagan's high-style clothes have been the source of frequent public discussion, most recently when it was reported in October 1988 that she had failed to disclose the gifts and loans as required by the Ethics in Government Act. But this appears to be the first time the I.R.S. has become involved. The investigation was reported today in The Washington Post...In her new book, My Turn, published by Random House, she said it was a big mistake not to have announced she would be borrowing clothes."207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that incident is mentioned already in the "White House gamor" section. Happyme22 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said in my introducing this point, the section as it has been written seems to dismiss and excuse these criticisms as 'restoring glamor following years of lax formality' and identifies her interest in haute-couture as only 'garnering attention', not 'garnering further criticsm'.207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the two sections; you are concentrating on the introductory paragraph (or the lead) to the article, while I am saying that it is explicitly stated and covered in the White House glamor section of the page. The lead is meant to be a precise overview of the article and should not delve into specifics of any particular part/event of Mrs. Reagan's life (see WP:LEAD). Happyme22 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead mentions the china incident, which, while certainly notable, was a minor incident that later presented iteslf as an early indication of the spending pattern of the First Lady during a time of national recession, a more grave issue as evaluated both during and after Reagan's term as First Lady by the many reputable sources offered here. Certainly the issue of her fashions and the related ethical breaches were more widely notable and more volatile issues for the First Lady's legacy than the individualized event of the china replenishment. If the lead is meant to be an overview of the article, the specific related to the china might be removed (or mentioned only in passing) and the topic of her fashions and acquisitions thereof should be given more weight (not just recognized as "garnering attention")...as should the costs incurred by the offices of the First Lady and the public perception thereof (her expensive East Wing staff, high cost of the 1981 Inauguration, and so on as previously mentioned) Possible evidence of Non NPOV. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: (the lead should accomplish) "briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any" and "The lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article" and "in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In the White House Glamour section itself, I would be more comfortable with the word "perception" in place of "aura". While 'aura' has connotations of something invisible, unseen, and/or intangibility (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aura), the word 'perception' relates more to a cognitive apprehension and/or basic component in the formation of a concept (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perception).(See comment regarding 'nonetheless' below) Possible evidence of Non NPOV. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, referring to this section as "White House Glamour" puts a positive spin on an issue which was and has remained the bulk of the criticism against the First Lady. Possible evidence of Non NPOV. Perhaps another title with a more NPOV could be created. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

and of course, (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED8143DF931A25751C0A965958260)"Chris Blazakis, a fashion executive who prompted investigations of Nancy Reagan by contending that she improperly kept $2 million in free designer clothes, furs and jewelry, died on Tuesday at his home..."207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

White House Glamour section currently reads: " In 1982, she revealed that she had accepted thousands of dollars in clothing, jewelry, and other gifts...", but there is no mention of her violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a notable and unfortunate slip for the First Lady. Additionally, it was not thousands of dollars, but per the reliable sources I have mentioned, it was between hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars.207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that "White House Glamour" is a complex and multifaceted subject by which Nancy Reagan was recognized and remembered, and that "White House Glamour" may be broken into several subheadings: the china replenishment, the fashions, the attendance at formal events both at the White House and abroad, the more formalized entertaining, and so on.207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From medaloffreedom.com (http://www.medaloffreedom.com/NancyReagan.htm) "Although the White House, after years of neglect, needed the lift, Nancy was criticized for spending frivolously in the middle of a recession...Nancy's wardrobe engendered further criticism. Designers donated their fashions to Nancy in exchange for the exposure she afforded them, but the public balked. The Reagans were accused of not caring that America was having trouble making ends meet, while they lived and entertained lavishly, surrounded by well-heeled friends."207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know (and remember) Nancy took a lot of heat for it, but not President Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. For now, that's why I am suggesting this information be included in the Nancy Reagan article. It should be noted, however, that in cases like this, Nancy was not living an incredibly extravagant lifestyle while the President was behaving humble and spendthriftly. They participated in this manner together, were perceived as such, and were criticised conjointly. And while you may remember the heat on Nancy but not on Ronald, (http://www.medaloffreedom.com/NancyReagan.htm) reports differently. I would be happy to provide other sources if you'd like, so that you could also update Ronald Reagan's article with this information (such as the one mentioned above (http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=41) ---under Presidential Campaign and Inauguration, "Media attention focused on the high cost of the 1981 Inauguration and the private "candlelight" dinners for wealthy underwriters of the events..." 207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention in the Nancy Reagan article of other similar and more weighty ethical breaches, for example: from the NYTimes.com (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1D71430F93BA35750C0A966958260) King Fahd of Saudi Arabia donated $1 million to Nancy Reagan's anti-drug campaign in 1985 while the Reagan Administration was considering a request from his country to buy surveillance aircraft, a former White House official said Tuesday." 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with Nancy Reagan... Happyme22 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the wording of the sourced NYTimes article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1D71430F93BA35750C0A966958260): "King Fahd of Saudi Arabia donated $1 million to Nancy Reagan's anti-drug campaign in 1985 while the Reagan Administration was considering a request from his country to buy surveillance aircraft, a former White House official said Tuesday...James Rosebush, who served as Mrs. Reagan's chief of staff, confirmed the donation and said the Saudis were lobbying very hard at the same time for the purchase of AWACS surveillance planes....Mr. Rosebush said that several heads of state might have contributed to Mrs. Reagan's program but that none contributed nearly as much as King Fahd...He said that in September 1983 the Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei donated $500,000 to the National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, a second organization tied to Mrs. Reagan's anti-drug program...Around the time they were helping Mrs. Reagan's anti-drug efforts, both King Fahd and the Sultan of Brunei also covertly contributed money to the Nicaragua rebels at the request of the United States...The Post also disclosed a $1 million contribution to Mrs. Reagan's efforts by a Syrian-Saudi businessman, Mouaffak al Midani." 207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Other ethical breaches are available. For example, from NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022007/gossip/pagesix/studios_rescued_reagan_pagesix_.htm), "July 2, 2007 -- TWO Hollywood studios courted the political influence of Ronald Reagan by funneling him money through a sweetheart land buy, a new book claims. In "Hollywood Confidential," (ISBN: 158979320X) Ted Schwarz writes that in 1951, Reagan spent $85,000 for hundreds of acres of less-than-prime land in Malibu County. Fifteen years later, when he was elected California governor, "Nancy Reagan was pleading poverty . . . The couple needed money." That's when executives at TV and music powerhouse MCA offered a deal with money "laundered through a seemingly legitimate real estate transaction," arranging for 20th Century Fox to buy the land for $8,178 per acre for a total of $1.93 million. "The truth was that in 15 years, [it] had not increased in quality or desirability," Schwarz writes. To avoid the appearance of buying a politician, MCA and Fox announced Fox was moving its studios to the property. But "there was never an interest in moving the studio other than expressed in the false [press] release," Schwarz writes. A legitimate sale would have reaped about $550 per acre. Nancy Reagan's rep did not answer our e-mail."207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3- Footnote source 64 is from p.3 of an article which details many more of the intensive criticsms that the "Just Say No" policy collected, yet such criticism is blatantly absent from this paragraph and from this article...this program has received much more weighty criticsm that that of her visits with an astrologer.

Then the more weighty criticims should be included in the Just Say No article, but if you have any specifics regarding Nancy and the program please list them here. --Happyme22 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure,

from Page 1 of the source itself -which, you'll please note, is titled, "Just Say Nonesense" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n5_v25/ai_13786316/pg_1): "In the past 10 years, drug education has become a $2 billion industry, with companies selling expensive teachers' seminars and anti-drug texts to schools across the country. At least $1.25 billion of that comes from federal block grants that schools can use for counseling, social work, and other "anti-drug" activities and paraphernalia--including posters, bumperstickers, t-shirts, and coffee mugs. At least an additional $750 million comes from local and state governments and corporate gifts. Money well spent if it keeps our children from inhaling, right? That's the catch: There's little evidence that these dollars do anything to keep kids from using chugs. It's a new alphabet soup, all acronyms for messages of abstinence: STAR, DARE, ALERT, and dozens more. The nation's schools have bought a bill of goods so large and so ostensibly worthy that it's difficult to acknowledge disappointing results."207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The concept of this source is generalized and cited in the Nancy article. I don't think it's proper to include anything futher from this article because it's already written about, although please see my comments below. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

also info at pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande03.html)"Some derided Nancy's approach as simplistic -- liberal Abbie Hoffmann likened her "Just Say No" campaign to "the equivalent of telling manic depressives to 'just cheer up'"207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is good because it's about Nancy herself, but it is a liberal critic doing the criticizing and that needs to be reflected as well. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this portion currently shows a slightly Non-NPOV. For example: liberal critics called her programs simplistic, but she validated them by appearing on Dynasty, Diff'rnt Strokes, and in "Stop the Madness", a video sponsored by her husband, the President, and his administration? This was not simplistic? These are not weighty forums to address a national crisis, but a public-relation based campaign. Addressing the UN General, perhaps, but appearing with the characters from Diff'rnt Strokes? Please see (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100339): ("Diff'rent Strokes was little more than light entertainment for the home-on-Saturday-night crowd")207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "nonetheless" is also with slight skew and attempts to invalidate the criticisms made (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonetheless) "nonetheless, adverb: despite anything to the contrary (usually following a concession), WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University."207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not our job to determine whether they were simplistic or not, thus showing our own bias. Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Other less liberal critics than Abbie Hoffman have labeled the program in a similar manner as detailed above below, but see note at bottom of page regarding undue weight. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

from associated content.com (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/74742/addiction_is_societys_problem_and_just.html) "The idea of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" to drugs wa a good publicity stunt, but it did not solve the drug crisis in the U.S. nor really address the life styles, the frustration and boredom that may be one of the root causes of addiction, whether to drugs or alcohol. “Elements of unemployment, poverty, racism, sexism, family dissolution, and feelings of powerlessness and alienation are associated with the problem of substance abuse” "207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This one is saying that the campaign did not go far enough. That's legitimate. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but I disagree. The quoted source does not say the program did not go far enough on the path that it was on. It says that the program was on the wrong path in general and did not (does not) "really address the life styles, the frustration and boredom that may be one of the root causes of addiction, whether to drugs or alcohol. “Elements of unemployment, poverty, racism, sexism, family dissolution, and feelings of powerlessness and alienation are associated with the problem of substance abuse.“ " See below207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

and from http://www.drugalcohol-rehab.com (http://www.drugalcohol-rehab.com/just-say-no-to-drugs.htm) "The Just Say 'No' to Drugs campaign that was heralded in when Ronald Regan was president, may have been a good start in bringing national awareness to the drug problem in the U. S. Critics, then and now say that this campaign does not go far enough. Other critics say that this campaign has had the "forbidden fruit" effect of making drugs more enticing...Whatever your belief, the Just Say 'No' to Drugs campaign offers but a simple solution to a complex problem. Over the years, the political propagandists behind the Just Say 'No' to Drugs campaign have tried to make it 'cool' to say 'no'. This has worked to some degree, but has fallen way short of what has been needed. Bringing about public awareness without public solutions are most often doomed to fail. According to a report by the U.S. Center on Substance Abuse Prevention, "alternatives programming appears to be most effective among those youth at greatest risk for substance abuse and related problems." "207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So this one is saying that the program helped, but did not go far enough. That's legitimate as well. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe this is not the case here either. The source validates that "Just Say No" was an awareness program that did not go far enough, but also clarifies that it did not offer public solutions..."This has worked to some degree, but has fallen way short of what has been needed. Bringing about public awareness without public solutions are most often doomed to fail." Furthermore, as the Just Say No heading is written, it does not address that this program was merley an awareness campaign that was then used to secure funding for a drug abuse/drug offense bill, and to address international drug interdiction and trafficking laws. These are separate issues and thus validate the above cited source ((http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/74742/addiction_is_societys_problem_and_just.html) "The idea of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" to drugs was a good publicity stunt...")

I could go on qouting many resources, but I think I've proven my point on this subject. I believe edits to the "Just Say No" article represent the same bias and the article reads in a Non-neutral POV. I will work on correcting that article next. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In effect, I still believe that this article as written remains in a biased state. It can be given all the gold stars and awards and featured article status that Wikipedia sees fit, but there is a blatant skew in effect here.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point editors to an unprovoked attack by this IP user to me located at my talk page that I am pasting below. User:Tvoz was nice enough to defend me because I honestly have no idea where the attacks came from. Here it is:

you own the Nancy Reagan article, don't you? Seems like nobody can make any edits there without you arguing them into submission. I mean, look at that second paragraph: all the criticisms of her First Ladyship seem to point to successes while invalidating the criticisms.

Several others in the history of this article have also tried to change that paragraph and other areas of the article that sound biased, but you just don't give up until your POV stands or your "opponent" is too tired. Way to go, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't log in and sign this comment with your username, it's hard to know what you're referring to, so I will say this: Nancy Reagan is a featured article, meaning it has gone through a great deal of review, nitpicky and substantive, and the fact that it has achieved this status is a testimony to hard-working editors like Happyme22 who has stayed vigilant against vandalism and edits that may violate the crucial biographies of living people policy. Your accusations are unfounded, and, coming after this comment by your IP earlier this month here on this page, I'd suggest you read up on policy really quickly, such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and likely several others. If you have a substantive comment to make that points out where Happyme has edited in a biased fashion, give the specifics. Otherwise, please learn how to work collegially in building the encyclopedia. And, it is simple courtesy to notify other editors when you make a complaint against them - I see this complaint, but I don't see any notification here. Perhaps I missed it. Tvoz talk 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this was an attack post, just a notification that there are usere who believe and are able to cite sources that show evidence you are keeping this article in a biased state. I will gladly apologize for my comment on your talk page, however, this does not affect two items- one, that the article does not clearly reflect the amount of criticism received by Nancy Reagan, and two- that you are hesitant to make necessary, evidenced, sourced changes to reflect truths about her First Ladyship. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are so many users that are against me and my perceived "bias" then I would like them to show themselves. I accept your appology on my talk page but please try not to show your own POV :) As for the drug criticisms, I have made changes to the article to reflect them. The fashion part was changed to include the recession in the body article. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that one could easily go through the history of this article and it's changes and show the users who have agreed with these requests for changes and for the denials thereof. Second, please do not personalize my comments here. I am not "against you" or "your" perceived bias, but am only interested in creating a more factual, accurate, correct, and long-standing biography. I am sure this is your goal too, and while we may differ on how this is to be done, I know that I for one understand -as must an experienced editor as yourself- that there must be midground on the above mentioned points. Let me know if there is more I can do to help this goal to fruition.207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are giving too much undue weight to the drug program claims and the King Fahd stories. There are criticisms of Nancy Reagan already included in the article and thanks to your respectful manner of discussing, I have added more. But I now feel that you are taking them a bit too far and getting too detailed. This detail does not belong here, but rather the Just Say No article because you are presenting specifics that do not have much to do with Nancy Reagan herself. First, however, I would suggest reading WP:WEIGHT so that all claims are balanced. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:WEIGHT per your advice I will address the "Just Say No" article next, where I assume as the source of this info is the NYTimes it will be included as valid and important. (There may be other places where this info is important, i.e.: Iran-Contra).

Unfortunately, though I thank you for including more information regarding the criticism of "Just Say No", as founder of "Just Say No" and as this was the First Lady's major initiative, I do not understand how it would be inappropriate to mention these items here. As I've mentioned, These are evidence of more possible examples of Non NPOV existing: "Although the bill was criticized by some, Nancy Reagan considered it a personal victory"...no details of the criticisms - nor by whom or on what scale- , yet it winds up as a victory for the First Lady. Also related, note my comment above regarding "nonetheless". Additionally, "It was also aruged that the program did not go far enough in addressing many social issues" should be rewritten to say, "It was also aruged that the program did not address many social issues" as cited with the above resources. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that you did not disagree that the inclusion of these articles or the information therein was too weighty as long as they were understood by you to be "that the campaign did not go far enough", however, once I've clarified (with direct quotes) indications of the failures of the program, you then decided that I was giving the criticisms undue weight. Possible example of Non NPOV. There are many indications of this article having been promoted to FA status with multiple examples of an included Non NPOV.207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I eagerly await your opinion regarding my suggestions on the "White House Glamour" which have not been addressed or included (violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 & hundreds of thousands/millions vs. "thousands" -- both significant and weighty), as well as your advice regarding a more NPOV title to this section. I politely thank you again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[arbitrary break for editing ease]

[outdent] My sense is that this article is a reasonably presented biography, and I don't see anyone supporting the POV stated above that it is not. The FAC process was quite thorough and rigorous, by objective editors like me who had no previous ties to the article, and I think the correct conclusion was reached in awarding FA status. The volume of complaints here by one editor seems out of step with the consensus of uninvolved editors who passed this article after a lot of back and forth, and it is extremely difficult to wade through the above. So, briefly:

• The lede should and does reflect the article - saying that her fashion garnered attention accurately reflects the truth and the section in the article which talks about it - she was known for her high fashion, and it was not only in a critical way, but the criticism is there in the text as well.
• The word "aura" I think is used correctly here, probably because I believe I was the one who added it. She had an aura of being out of touch, even by the definitions you post above - it is intangible, an appearance, an impression given. We can't say if she actually was out of touch - she appeared to be, to some observers. "Aura" captures that properly.
• Do you have a reliable citation for "millions" or "hundreds of thousands" of dollars of clothing? As for Ethics in govt - one of the sources said it was unknowing - was she charged with a violation? If not, it would seem out of place and a possible BLP problem to say that she did something that she wasn't aware of and which wasn't raised.
• 'White house glamor' seems to reflect the section accurately.

Again - overall, while of course there always can be improvements in any article, I disagree with your statement that this is a biased article, and believe that it is deserving of the "gold star" that was awarded to it, after a great deal of scrutiny, which you seem so dismissive of. Tvoz |talk 08:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also having trouble wading through the above. But if I can pick out a few disputes:

• In #1 above, 207.237.228.83 seems to be complaining about unnecessary mentions that Reagan won the election: "I do not understand why a reference to the Presidential victory must be mentioned here. Possible evidence of Non NPOV." This is silly. Reagan won, it's okay to mention it.
• In #2 above, I also like "aura". If ever a person had an aura about them, like it or not, it was Nancy.
• In #2 above, the "free dresses" issue is a legit ethical question about Nancy's behavior, and deserves to be dealt with in some depth. Unfortunately I don't remember the details of it too well, so I can't comment on the amount of value involved, or whether it was a breach of any Ethics Act, etc. Research and citing will have to be done.
• In #2 above, I do not believe the Saudi donation to Just Say No during the time of the AWACS debate is a valid ethical issue for Nancy. It's the Reagan administration that had to decide on the AWACS sale, and if their decision was turned by Saudi lobbying — whether donations to Nancy's program or any other kind of activity irrelevant to the merits — the ethical components of that decision are on the administration, not her. And bear in mind that there were reasonable arguments both for and against the AWACS sale, it's not like this was an obviously bad idea that got turned by a well-placed donation.
• Again in #2 above, if Hollywood studios made a sweetheart deal with the Reagans to get influence from Ronald Reagan, that's an ethical question for Ronald Reagan. All this bit establishes is that Nancy lusted after the finer things in life, which is already well established.
• In #3 above, one thing to realize is that most, maybe all, anti-drug-use programs have had less than great success. It's a very difficult problem, that has reacted more to broad, long-term socio-economic-cultural trends than to specific efforts to deal with it. That doesn't mean you come down hard on people trying to stop drug use. The bulk of the detail on how well Just Say No worked or didn't work belongs in that article; this article should just summarize it.

Hope this helps. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with both Tvoz and Wasted Time R. This should be a summary of Just Say No and its founder. Remember, it did pass at FAC. Happyme22 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted's points about to whom the ethical questions accrue, and await sources for the claim that the dresses were worth "hundreds of thousands" or "millions" of dollars. I don't know if that claim is true or false, and can't advise on editing that sentence without the information. Same goes for my question about the Ethics in Government Act. Tvoz |talk 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers might also look at User talk: 207.237.228.83 for some background discussion. Tvoz |talk 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These were already posted above:

From firstladies.org (http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=41) ---under Presidential Campaign and Inauguration, "Media attention focused on the high cost of the 1981 Inauguration and the private "candlelight" dinners for wealthy underwriters of the events, as a marked contrast to the Carter inaugural which had Inaugural Ball tickets selling for $25 to guests...The combination of the redecorating, new china set, more formalized entertaining style than the Carters, in addition to her attendance of the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana of England in 1981, and her acceptance of free clothing from designers (thus unwittingly violating the new Ethics in Government Act of 1978) led to the creation of a public relations dilemma. Contrasted in print and broadcast news with the 1981 economic recession, high unemployment and homeless families, the so-called "Queen Nancy" caricature was created and even occasionally invoked by Democrats as a means of criticizing the Administration. In addition, much as there had been some suggestion of a regional bias against the Carters' southern background in the national media, primarily generated from the eastern seaboard, there was suggestion of a bias against the Reagans' lifestyle and friends from the entertainment industry in California."

From NYTimes.com (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6D9113CF935A35751C1A96F948260) "The Internnal Revenue Service is examining tax returns filed by former President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, to determine whether to seek additional taxes for gifts or loans of items like jewelry and designer dresses, a former official for a Los Angeles couturier said today. The former official, M. Chris Blazakis, who was executive vice president of Galanos Originals, said he had provided tax agents with detailed information over the past year to aid their investigation. Mr. Blazakos said in a telephone interview that the inquiry was begun as a result of letter that he sent to Lawrence B. Gibbs, the former I.R.S. Commissioner, but he declined to disclose specific allegations that he made in the letter. Galanos was one of several firms that provided gowns, jewelry and furs to Mrs. Reagan. Mr. Blazakis, now a freelance writer in New York, said he was working on book about the Reagans. Value of at Least $1 Million Nancy Reagan's high-style clothes have been the source of frequent public discussion, most recently when it was reported in October 1988 that she had failed to disclose the gifts and loans as required by the Ethics in Government Act. But this appears to be the first time the I.R.S. has become involved. The investigation was reported today in The Washington Post. Fashion experts who examined photographs of Mrs. Reagan wearing outfits from leading couturiers have estimated that they were worth at least a million dollars. Both the I.R.S. and Roy D. Miller, a Los Angeles tax lawyer who has prepared the Reagans' returns, declined to comment today. In recent weeks tax agents have examined the photographic record of the Reagan Presidency in the National Archives, apparently to document specific items of clothing or jewelry worn by Mrs. Reagan. Jill Brett, an archives spokeswoman, said today that the agents had made copies of contact sheets. In general, such material is held by the archives while Presidential libraries are being built. Mark Weinberg, a spokesman for the Reagans, said today that he was not immediately in touch with them and did not know about an I.R.S. investigation. He said Mrs. Reagan was in London. Fred F. Fielding, a former White House counsel who had advised her in 1982 to report loans of clothes on financial disclosure forms, was reported by his office here to be out of the country. Mrs. Reagan has expressed regret that she did not take Mr. Fielding's advice. In her new book, My Turn, published by Random House, she said it was a big mistake not to have announced she would be borrowing clothes. "

from NYTimes.com (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED8143DF931A25751C0A965958260)"Chris Blazakis, a fashion executive who prompted investigations of Nancy Reagan by contending that she improperly kept $2 million in free designer clothes, furs and jewelry, died on Tuesday at his home...".

These have all been cited in my notes above, along with many many many other questions and identifications in this article that would lead any reader to err on the side that Mrs. Reagan was not at fault for points made by detractors, or that criticisms were somehow invalid or unjustified. I would be more than happy to go through this section of the discussion page and highlight the main points in red if the article has become to clouded or too long-winded for easy reading. Please advise, and thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious question to the above is, what was the result of the IRS investigation? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this Time article from 1992 says that "Concluding that between 1983 and 1988 the Reagans failed to report some $3 million worth of free clothes, jewelry and furs, the IRS presented them with a hefty bill for back taxes and interest. A former assistant to Mrs. Reagan says the bill was settled." That certainly seems worth including in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do it now. Happyme22 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds right for inclusion. If nothing turns up about any charge under the Ethics act, I'd leave that out. Tvoz |talk 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. I've added it in. Happyme22 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has this been added to her Later Life Activities instead of White House Glamour? 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it occured in 1992, after the White House years. Happyme22 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The IRS invsetigation concluded at that time...but the violation was during her stay in the White House. Furthermore, shouldn't "thousands" should now be changed to "millions", or some indication that it was not thousands but millions? I mean, there's a big difference between three thousand dollars of free clothing and three million dollars of free clothing, and this needs to be reflected accurately. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the "thousands" are from 1982 and correct as stated; I added a sentence there about the value of the gifts for the remainder of her years as FL. But the IRS stuff correctly belongs where it is in "later life" as that's when it took place. Tvoz |talk 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you want to add a human interest angle to this, here are 1989-1990 letters between Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon (!) on the ongoing IRS investigation in which Nixon says the IRS is horrible and Reagan says Nancy is very upset. Now if anyone knew how to screw around with the IRS, it was Dick Nixon ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like the guy on trial for killing his parents asking for leniency because he's an orphan. Tvoz |talk 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My computer's lagging so I can't view them, but I'll take your word for it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It does say that Nancy was upset but I don't actually think it's something to include, to be clear. Tvoz |talk 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of what was said in "Later Life Activities" about this. The passive "it was reported"-isms aren't necessary, the start of the investigation and the NYT cite that goes with it should be included, as should a brief explanation of why these things were taxable. I'm on the fence about whether the "White House Glamor" section should add a mention that the $3 million was later the subject of a back taxes investigation and payment. On the one hand it clues the reader in who may skip the rest of the article once the White House years end, on the other hand it jumps the chrono narrative akwardly. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep it in later life. It'd be random in the "Glamor" section because the investigation took place in the post-White House years, according to the Time magazine ref. Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for above changes and additions. Better. Yes, I can see that. However, addina a single word to White House Glamour makes it so much more accurrate: "In 1982, she only revealed that she had accepted thousands of dollars in clothing, jewelry, and other gifts, but defended herself by stating that she had borrowed the clothes and that they would either be returned or donated to museums.[56] Gifts and loans she received during the rest of her years as First Lady were later determined to be worth about $3 million" 207.237.228.83 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen friend, that would be showing your own POV. It's pretty evident from your wanted inclusions that you're not a fan of Nancy Reagan, which is perfectly alright. But Wikipedia is not the place to espouse your own beliefs. I don't see what inserting "only" would do for the article. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to read back the press stories again, but I get the sense that she changed what she was doing with the clothes after 1982 after the initial criticism, thinking she was now doing it right, but still ran afoul of the taxation laws. I don't think adding "only" makes this clear. Maybe a footnote here explaining what happened in greater detail, without throwing the main text narrative off, would be helpful. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is what is sounds like, but, as was mentioned above, it is purely speculation. Without any evidence that "Nancy knew she was breaking the law but decided to do it anyway" OR "Nancy unwillingly violated an act" it is all just our own interpretations. Happyme22 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think something more is needed here. I'm reading through stuff and collecting cites, hopefully will have something in the next day or two. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I'll think more about the above, but I think "only" is wrong there, as in any case it refers to what she claimed in 1982 - the $3million was for gifts that were received after that - in 83-88 - so since she's not clairvoyant, "only" isn't appropriate there to my mind. But meanwhile - I tripped on the revised sentence starting "Gifts and loans she received" in the WH Glamor section - sounds to me like money loans. Can we word that differently? Gifts and fashion loans? Tvoz |talk 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this NYTimes article . 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

and this NYTimes article 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the Time article the NYT is referencing. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since both articles site the Time article, let's use that one. The second NYT provided is an opinion page as well. Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[second arbitrary break for editing ease]

OK, I've made changes to the article to reflect a better coverage of the designer loans/gifts issue. I've used some of the above cites, and also added a couple of contemporaneous 1982 NYT cites, which alas are behind their pay barrier but which help confirm what happened then. The whole issue is not the easiest thing to explain succinctly, because loans and gifts are considered differently. (Loans did not have to be reported under the Ethics and Government Act — but the White House had agreed to do so earlier anyway, while gifts — which loans presumably become if they are not returned — are mandatory to report under the Ethics and Government Act.) But I've tried to convey the facts of the matter as concisely as possible. I've also added a brief mention of this to the lead section, since it's important. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the recent edits by Wasted Time R. The first expanding the loans deal was largely beneficial, but if you truly want "balance" I would suggest including that the designers liked Nancy and liked having their designs showed off by the first lady. That's why they allowed her to borrow them in the first place (cited with that same Time article). An assistant to one of Mrs. Reagan's favored designers, James Galanos, said "If it's something she needs to borrow, she does borrow, but otherwise she buys." (again cited with the Time article) We don't want to portray Mrs. Reagan in only a negative light, as it appears she had a reason for borrowing the clothes. To tell you the truth, I don't even recall much of that occuring in the '80s, although I was more preoccupied... But it appears it did happen. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Wasted Time R. You are an extremely helpful and a model editor. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Good points all, and I've included them into the section. I didn't remember the post-1982 developments either, and I was a politics follower as well as a Time and New York Times subscriber ... but I also was a new father at the time, so I'll attribute it to that rather than a busted memory ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your solution is good, Wasted, except for one point - perhaps I missed it on my quick read just now of the citations, but I didn't see them definitively state that she was found to be in violation of the Ethics act - there seemed to be some disagreement among the sources in the article, if I recall correctly. We shouldn't state that she was in violation unless either she was found to be by the people who decide such things, or at least if a source article concludes that she was in violation. Otherwise it's veering on OR, I think. I may have missed it in the sources though - where is that? Otherwise, though, I think you handled it well, albeit with a little bit more weight than it might merit in an overall biography of her life. Tvoz |talk 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn;t catch anything on the ethics issue (just because I haven't checked) but please do verify that it is written, otherwise get rid of it. I still think it already is minorly treading into WP:OR and WP:BLP, because we do not know if she willingly violated anything. I was going to mention the WP:WEIGHT issues but found it in my best interest not to, as I did not want to spark up the debate again. But we are all reasonable people so let me say this: Wasted Time R's edits were largely beneficial, but the WH glamor section now focuses mainly on this single fashion issue. She did a lot more in the White House (and to the building itself) including a renovation and room conversions, which I suppose can be expanded upon someday and should not be overshadowed by this single fashion critique. I'm also not sure if it merits full inclusion in the lead. Instead of the current "...and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention as well as criticism for accepting unreported loans and gifts from fashion designers" I think "...and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention and criticism" is more concise without going into weighty details, as is the norm. Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Well, I was trying to be succinct to avoid giving it WP:UNDUE. But here's the fully story. She acknowledged in 1988 only getting loans, which would not be a violation of the Ethics in Government Act. But the designers clearly state that some of these clothes weren't returned, while others were returned but had zero value by that time. The designers didn't mind, because they got promotion out of it. Indeed a whole different criticism of her that I didn't get into, was that her practices resulted in favoring some designers over others [Oct 1988 NYT article]. So this sure seems like a gift. The Office of Government Ethics guy gives no answer to that question [Oct 1988 NYT]. However, the IRS investigation beginning in 1989 explicitly includes gifts as well as loans in what it's looking into [Dec 1988 NYT], so clearly they decided gifts were involved. That NYT article says: "it was reported in October 1988 that she had failed to disclose the gifts and loans as required by the Ethics in Government Act." Well, that's a little sloppy; disclosing the loans was required by the Act, rather the White House had said they would voluntarily list loans on the annual disclosure forms. But clearly the failure to disclose gifts was a violation of the Act. As far as I can tell neither she nor anyone else in the White House was charged in connection with this, but it's still a violation. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another point that I didn't get into was the "unwitting" violation of the Ethics of Government Act with the 1982 gifts. The law was new (1978), and no one was sure exactly where the boundaries were, so I decided not to mention it in that context. However, in 1982 everyone discussed what it meant, and what was allowed and what wasn't. That's why Nancy's actions from 1983 on are more notable and worthy of inclusion in this regard. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Happy's overall concern that the "White House Glamor" section's weighting has gotten out of whack, yes that's always a worry. Adding material on Nancy's WH room redecorations and repurposings is a good idea; Hillary Rodham Clinton#Traditional duties has a paragraph on that same topic, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to respond to Happy's concern about the lead ... Your formulation seems to suggest that the criticism was about her fashion sense, rather than an ethics question. But my basic opinion is, leads are impossible to get right. Editors argue and parse them down to single words for signs of subtle slanting ... ugh. I'd abolish leads and force everyone who goes to the article to read the whole thing :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I can see that. Alright, I'll probably think of something, but I'm okay for now leaving it as it is. Happyme22 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one last thing on this then: how about adding "for which no charges were brought" or words to that effect after "in violation of the Ethics in govt act" - this is reminiscent of how we (correctly) say on HRC that she was subpoenaed but never charged with anything. If we say Nancy was in violation of the law, I think we should say whether it was pursued. I don't disagree with your reading of it, and I'm not arguing that it's not notable, just trying to close that loop for BLP reasons. (And I agree that adding more to the WH Glamor section will help the undue weight problem.) Thanks for tackling this, Wasted. Tvoz |talk 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought of this, but "for which no charges were brought" might imply she was investigated for it, which I'm not sure of. Something like "but any possible violation was not pursued" might be better. Except that I'm not sure that's true either; maybe some gov't agency did look at it. I'm not confident that I've seen all the stories on this ... I wish I had access to the pay Washington Post archives (like I do with NYT) as they might have covered this more extensively. And with HRC it's easier, she had the full weight of the Ken Starr Machine aimed at her and we know what she was investigated for ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I get into all Washpo archives (though I don't know why I would if some are paid) so I'll take a look. Tvoz |talk 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a 7-day free trial I could sign up for, so I've started looking, have already added one clarification re loans and Ethics and Government Act. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)