Talk:Nancy Reagan/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: "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)
replies: text: Thanks for the additions. Very helpful. Jay 05:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help.  209.221.222.92 20:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Communist List

message: 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)
thread_title: Last Movie

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Later Life edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Editing

message: * Sun City Girls have a song entitled "Nancy Reagan" on their 1987 album, Horse Cock Phepner.
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)
thread_title: Sun City Girls pop culture reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Late

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nancy Reagan Citing 

message: 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 <B>"Hostess Girl Escort</b> 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:
# Milton Berle, 
# Yul Brynner, 
# Clark Gable, 
# Peter Lawford, 
# Frank Sinatra, 
# Spencer Tracy, and 
# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hollywood A-list

message: 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)
thread_title: Added section:Books about or by Nancy Reagan

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mr. T pic 

message: 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)
thread_title: Manhattan, NY

message: Just to let everyone know, Nancy Reagan is now a Good Article :-) Happyme22 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats on that, Hap. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Reagan GA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lead Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The truth about infoboxes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It needs a page citation from a reliable written source if it is to be properly included.--Mcattell 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nancy abused her children

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Photos

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nancy's Place of Birth