Jump to content

Talk:Nancy Reagan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.73.106.239 (talk) at 19:56, 25 December 2007 (→‎Re: China Issue: suck my twat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleNancy Reagan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
November 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1

What was archived

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)[reply]

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

Birth year??

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

See archives. Wasted Time R 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, ok - I just thought one was a typo. Tvoz |talk 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh haha. Happyme22 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ignorance is bliss Tvoz |talk 04:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That's fine, as long as he holds true to the agreement. Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That sounds fine. Happyme22 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the response ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, douche, but an article DOES have to be neutral. Happyme22 has consistently been aggressiv in keeping the Nancy Reagan article skewed towards her favor. If you check that article's talk page, you will see several admissions by him that he IS clearly in her favor, and that his edits to her article are aggressive in such a manner that there should be no question of his bias. That you (and other adtiors/administrators) have been so lax in blocking him for making non-NPOV edits to her articleonly goes to prove -again- that Wikipedia is nothing more than a media manipulated brainwashing machine. Fuck you, Wikipedai, you just lost a user ever.
    Yes, douche, but an article DOES have to be neutral. Happyme22 has consistently been aggressiv in keeping the Nancy Reagan article skewed towards her favor. If you check that article's talk page, you will see several admissions by him that he IS clearly in her favor, and that his edits to her article are aggressive in such a manner that there should be no question of his bias. That you (and other adtiors/administrators) have been so lax in blocking him for making non-NPOV edits to her articleonly goes to prove -again- that Wikipedia is nothing more than a media manipulated brainwashing machine. Fuck you, Wikipedai, you just lost a user ever.
    Yes, douche, but an article DOES have to be neutral. Happyme22 has consistently been aggressiv in keeping the Nancy Reagan article skewed towards her favor. If you check that article's talk page, you will see several admissions by him that he IS clearly in her favor, and that his edits to her article are aggressive in such a manner that there should be no question of his bias. That you (and other adtiors/administrators) have been so lax in blocking him for making non-NPOV edits to her articleonly goes to prove -again- that Wikipedia is nothing more than a media manipulated brainwashing machine. Fuck you, Wikipedai, you just lost a user ever.
    Yes, douche, but an article DOES have to be neutral. Happyme22 has consistently been aggressiv in keeping the Nancy Reagan article skewed towards her favor. If you check that article's talk page, you will see several admissions by him that he IS clearly in her favor, and that his edits to her article are aggressive in such a manner that there should be no question of his bias. That you (and other adtiors/administrators) have been so lax in blocking him for making non-NPOV edits to her articleonly goes to prove -again- that Wikipedia is nothing more than a media manipulated brainwashing machine. Fuck you, Wikipedai, you just lost a user ever.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nancy_Reagan&oldid=180142601"