Talk:Nancy Reagan/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, this is truly Nancy Reagan's signature. See  and . Happyme22 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy's Wobbly Signature 

message: In Ronald Reagan it says she is born in 1923, here it says  1921.  Tvoz |talk 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See archives.  Wasted Time R 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh, ok - I just thought one was a typo. Tvoz |talk 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh haha. Happyme22 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ignorance is bliss Tvoz |talk 04:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth  year?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's fine, as long as he holds true to the agreement. Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That sounds fine. Happyme22 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias dispute 

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

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [second arbitrary break for editing ease]