Talk:Nancy Reagan

message: The second intro paragraph should really be rewritten.  The purpose of the introduction is to give a general outline of the person's life without coloring it in either way while erring on the side of positivity.  The entire second paragraph seems to exist only to talk about criticisms over mundane details such as her choice to change the White House china and talk to an astrologer.  I have no problem with this information in the article, my only issue is why are such inconsequential details in the intro? Just to make her sound controversial? MrDestructo (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD does not support your model of what the purpose of an introduction is.  Instead, it says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."  That's what this lead, including the second paragraph, does.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to counter your WP:LEAD with WP:WEIGHT.  Please explain how her choice of White House china or consulting a psychic are considered notable events in her life, as is described in the sentence you quoted.  Obama's intro does not mention Ayers, Limbaugh's intro does not mention drug addiction, Niccolò Paganini's intro doesn't mention his pact with the devil.  I can't find anyone's intro paragraph that sounds as petty as this one.  I'm not arguing against criticisms in the intro, I'm arguing against including minuscule events from the subject's life and labeling them as "notable."  MrDestructo (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Public perception is often the major part of being First Lady (since the role itself has few actual significant duties) and the china and astrologer episodes were a big part of her public image; neither was at all "minuscule". The astrologer episode also illustrated the behind-the-scenes influence she had within the White House. Both are quite relevant to a summary description of her time as First Lady. Also note that this is a Featured Article, meaning it has been reviewed closely by many other editors, who agreed that this material belongs in the lead. As for your comparisons, Obama and Paganini both have/had careers of immense accomplishments and their leads will be quite different. Limbaugh is an interesting case, in that he has significant accomplishments as a broadcaster but his political influence is largely a function of perception. I think reasonable arguments could be made either way about including his drug addiction in that article's lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The astrology thing was not a minor story, it got a lot of media attention at the time and has been written about ever since.  Check out this list of Google Books hits that mention it.  The sentence about her role is a summary of what is discussed in the "Influence in the White House" section in the article body.  Yes, some other First Ladies have faced similar commentary, but in this case it wasn't partisan-based but more based on ideas about gender roles.  The source used for some of that text, Lisa Burns' First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives, is a good place to read more about this topic.    Wasted Time R (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph 

message: The photo chosen is a professional portrait intended to portray Mrs Reagan an a favorable light (which, from a certain perspective, makes it non-NPOV). Don't you think the date of the photo should therefore be shown, as it is with virtually every other Wikipedia portrait? 67.170.64.149 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Official photos are the norm for the top image in WP articles on government officials, and yes they tend to be professionally done and make the subject look good.  But you have a point about the date; it's now shown.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the date of the photo?

message: "Kennedy" is mentioned ten times - isn't that too much in an overview article about Mrs Reagan? Points to be made by comparing the two First Ladies or the two administrations could perhaps be grouped into a single section? I think it would help keeping focus on the article's main person in an otherwise very good text.  --84.209.23.211 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The references to Jackie Kennedy are clustered in two First Lady sections, "Fashion" and "Elegance and formality", which seems reasonable to me.  The references in a later section are to the Kennedy family as a whole and do not seem duplicative.  I have reduced one unnecessary 'Kennedy' usage in an image caption, however.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. --84.209.23.211 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kennedy connection 

message: How can First Lady be considered an office? I realize that by now all the First Ladies' articles are likewise formatted, and that this poor woman was showcased more than most and deserves some honors. (Even more so for Jackie O. who endured even worse, rest in peace.) But it's not official, ergo not an office. It doesn't seem encyclopaedic or proper. I have no doubt that being First Lady is a demanding cross to bear, but it seems to me that we should use some words other than "In office."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. It caught my attention the other day, but I let it be as I thought it may be an "Americanism" that I am unfamiliar with. But it does sound very strange to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a complaint that's been made a number of times against various First Lady articles.  The solution is a change to the infobox template involved to show an alternate legend of "In role" rather than "In office".  I've made a request for this at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Request: Change 'In office' legend to 'In role' for Infobox First Lady; we'll see if anything happens.  The archives there contain previous commentary on this issue.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Update – the infobox template has now been enhanced to cover this case, and the infobox here now says "In role".  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In office"? 

message: :I just read this article and consider it a "Good read". I do think that the "External links" section can be examined (there are eight) with consideration of ELPOINTS #3, links to avoid, and EL official, with a goal of  minimizing the number of links.
:"Further reading" and "External links" are somewhat connected but we generally separate them for various reasons including cohesion. I would think C-Span a reliable source so if content is deemed important it could be incorporated into the article. The same with the New York Times ("Nancy Reagan collected news and commentary") and it seems "First Ladies of California" would be better suited as "Further reading" if important.
:We have started to evolve towards the section becoming a dumping ground for editor's favorites so need to trim when we can and keep an eye out for link farming. Otr500 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good read 

message: :I ran across a perplexing "citation" that turns out to be a "Note" piled onto other references. The content of the "note" "Some sources and websites erroneously list her as either being born in Flushing or being raised in Manhattan.", without actual sourcing, is original research. I found at least one other similar "reference" in the "Early life and education" section as well as at least one bare URL.
:Without some corrections, along with possible trimming of the expanded "External links", a review might find this article has become degraded from "A featured article". Otr500 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I find the following line to be misleading "In 1988, she became the first first lady invited to address the United Nations General Assembly, where she spoke on international drug interdiction and trafficking laws."
It gives the impression that Nancy is the first first lady to interact with the United Nations in an official capacity, which is untue. Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed as the US delegate to the United Nations General Assembly 33 years earlier and made significant contributions. While Eleanor was not in the role of first lady at the time (by 8 months), a change is needed to clarify the point.
Perhaps referring to Nancy as "the first (acting) first lady..." or "the first first lady (currently in the role)..." would be sufficient emphasis to show that she was not trailblazing a connection between the role of the first lady and the UN like the current statement implies. DinoGarret (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations role 

message: I have done some archiving, and, unlike her well-documented appearance on Different Strokes, there is no record of a guest appearance on any Dynasty episode.2601:447:4080:10:F00D:331C:4B77:A09F (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In contemporary reporting, I also only found the Diff'rent Strokes appearance. Interestingly, many of those mention that Gerald Ford made a cameo on Dynasty. I found a current source that repeats the Nancy/Dynasty claim. But I suspect that article picked up the claim from this article, just like a number of Google Books hits (they're all ebooks, likely WP rehashes). The linked main article on the campaign makes no mention of it. I've removed Dynasty. Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claim of Nancy Reagan guest-starring on Dynasty appears to be fictional 

message: Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography. See the further reading section (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]] 

message: Is this really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oktayey (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? We're just reporting what she was actually called, based on her, er, strengths. We're not prissy about stuff like this. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @JackofOz Alright, I guess. Mentioning this kind of thing just seemed so incredibly profane for an article about a First Lady. Oktayey (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's almost sort of the point. What people do behind closed doors is their business, that's one thing. But when someone gets a reputation, and even a nickname, for a certain sexual activity with multiple partners, that's already newsworthy in itself, but if they later go on to become First Lady (!!!), that's a juxtaposition that's too delicious to just be ignored in the interest of propriety. But it seems you're not averse to mentioning what she did, just the term "Throat Goat". Is that it? --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @JackofOz Well, I wasn't shocked specifically by the nickname. In hindsight, I agree my initial reaction wasn't very reasonable—doubting that it should be included because it was too profane for an article on a First Lady. Oktayey (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Throat goat"?? 

message: I made Category:Nancy Reagan a subcat of Category:Reagan Era, which made Category:Conservatism in the United States redundant.  I've made some mistakes with categories before, so if this doesn't seem like a legit change, feel free to undo it. - Special-T (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories