Talk:Nancy Reagan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re: MedCab Request

Sorry for the delay in completing the form. I have received this message on my talk page here, where I have replied, as well as noting a response on that editor's talk page here.

The Medcab request will be completed tomorrow evening. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have begun cabal request but got pulled into conference that ran very late. Will complete in the next few days. Thanks again for everybody's patience. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See, WP:There is no deadline and WP:CHILL. Take your time. We are not in any hurry with regard to either articles or dispute resolution - in fact, doing nothing is often the best thing everyone can do. ;-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the medcab request is not officially open yet, I am going to address my points here. First, in the medcab request, you say that you hope to bring your unaddressed points to attention - which points?

• landslide election - addressed
• White House china - addressed
• spending money during an economic recession - addressed
• all things Just Say No - addressed
• Ethics and Govt. act and clothing - addressed
• IRS post-presidential investigation - addressed
• King Fahd - addressed

Those are all your major points that have come up, and all have been addressed. Whether they have been acted upon in your favor or not is an entirely different matter, as three (Wasted Time R, Tvoz, and me) of the four members of the discussion (Wasted Time R, Tvoz, you and me) decided that not all were appropriate for the article. Some were, such as more criticisms of Just Say No, the removal of landslide election, the spending money during the economic recession, and the IRS point. But just because they were ruled out or you were asked to consider placing them in other articles does not mean that they were not addressed.

Secondly, history of editing behavior? I see no editing behavior problem that any of my colleagues or I violated, and we have all acted in good faith. Telling you that some claims are inappropriate is not editing in bad faith. It appears your vandalism to my talk page would be the only indication of poor faith from any of us, but you have agreed to stop so I see none anywhere.

Furthermore there is no bullying or ownership going on. Again, concensus found it more appropriate to state detailed criticisms of Just Say No in that article. That's not bullying. And just because we have the article watchlisted and edit it, as well as contribute heavily to discussions such as this on the talk page, does not mean that any of us own the article.

This talk page is your fair chance to present your ideas to supposedly make the article more NPOV, and none of the editors of this page have taken that chance from you. We have acted how editors should, that is provide answers and constructive criticisms - not say yes to everything. We've used this discussion page for discussion, and the concensus has reached an outcome on what should/should not be included. It may not be what you want, but it is best for the article. To say that I am bullying and owning the article is terribly offensive, as I have taken so much pride in this article and it's FA status. My intentions are 100% good; I'm an experienced editor; I truly see no POV problem, and apparently the eight out of eight editors who supported the article for FA status only a little over two months ago didn't think so either. But now we are in a contentious debate where the outcome has largely been decided, per concensus. I feel there is no reason for the medcab request, nor the contacting of high-profile editors such as User:Raul654 to "intervene". If you don't "get your way" you should not employ others to potentially turn them against productive editors and favor your counterproductive claims, but I think the mediator will side with reason: save the major details for other articles devoted specifically to the subject (i.e. Just Say No), and do not insert material that violates WP:BLP (1978 ethics act). --Happyme22 (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your comments, I intend to take Doug's advice above and take my time to complete my research in the history of the article and in it's promotions before replying. Once that information is clarified, I think all will see validity in the issues I have mentioned. I trust that you will be patient until then... 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say up front at this point that I have not yet taken the time to review who has made what edits when or the substance of the arguments. However, it would really help things if the editors don't argue over the points themselves and whether they've been addressed until we start discussing the matter. Of course, we can start anywhere and anytime, but arguing about it won't help anything. At the same time, the article content would probably be best off left in the status ante (i.e. the condition before disputed editing began) simply because this is an FA article. Otherwise I would suggest that the editor who wants to add (or keep) material normally has the burden of showing it meets WP:V. If that's going to result in a lot of changes, can editors agree to refrain from editing in the disputed content for a few more days? As long as 207.237.228.83 isn't delaying for an improper purpose (say, to keep material from being changed that should be changed - including reverted) and isn't going to take the lack of any response as silence = consensus, there is no reason to jump into the discussion until this user has his or her request fully formed. If there is a specific reason we need to start discussing it sooner, just let me know and I'll start reading more. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I just saw the above about not changing the article, which I just before did, as explained in the section above. However, I'm willing to stand behind the changes on WP:V and WP:everything else. I'll wait until this medcab thing opens to comment on it, although why I was included kind of mystifies me. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm only concerned with changes that may be in dispute, particularly ones that cause the inclusion of challenged material. And I can't make anyone do anything, it's just a suggestion in order to show good faith.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I'm including more material toward one of the things that User:207.237.228.83 has complained was omitted, so he/she is unlikely to object. It's now clear that the article had a significant flaw when it became FA, in that it ended discussion of the designer gifts/loans issue in 1982. In doing so it omitted discussion of the further 1988 revelations on the matter, and of the 1989-1992 IRS investigation and back taxes finding. Since I'm one of the people who supported the final FAC, I take some of the responsibility for this flaw, and I'm now trying to fix it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this point - as noted in the ongoing discussions and as I've edited recently too. Tvoz |talk 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note, I have closed the WP:WQA#user: Happyme22 as it was initiated by the same IP user that requested mediation. Also, all parties are welcome -encouraged in fact - to provide WP:Diffs and links to discussions together with some very concise summary of the issue - there is no need to wait to do that - just please no back and forth if we can manage that. Please try to avoid weasel words and personal attacks and simply say User:Foo inserted x and User:Bar reverted (then give the diff) or User:Foo was uncivil here (followed by diff) - Lots of adjectives don't help, they just inflame. The point of this is to try to get everyone to focus on mission - to write an encyclopedia - and stop arguing over it. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know that I had a section devoted to my supposed "editing problems" on the Wikiquette page, but thanks for closing that. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was exceptionally uncool. Considering his past conduct on this and your page, you might want to consider submitting a wikiquette alert on him. that sort of behavior is so very 4th grade. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see this posting on Doug's page and the related link involved. Again, as I have said and per Doug's advice above, I have no intention of continuing discussion of any issues with the Nancy Reagan until other 'internal' matters can be addressed first...and I turst the other, more experienced editors will find the same courtesy. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did find a paragraph break needed to be inserted here between details from Kitty Kelley's uncited book and IRS/taxation known info. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage Tvoz and SandyGeorgia to change their minds and participate in the MedCab in order to find a quicker, more balanced, and fair resolution to the issues I will address. Many postings I cite will be theirs and I hope they will find confidence and time to stand by their edits both to the article and to the discussion and talk pages. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello 207.237.228.83, can I take this opportunity to ask you why I've been named in this "medcab"? Can you point me with diffs to one or two edits of mine to the article or to this talk page that you think are unreasonable? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the same question. And, I most certainly stand by my edits and comments, as anyone who has edited alongside me knows. That has nothing to do with choosing not to be drawn into this. I'm here to write , edit and maintain an encyclopedia, not to play wikilawyer games - over the course of my year and a half and nearly 10,000 edits I've found that sometimes one's suggestions are accepted, sometimes they are rejected, and sometimes compromises are worked out. That's what has been going on here, and there is absolutely no reason for this action. Tvoz |talk 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I also would like to inquire as to what edits I have made that have been "disruptive" to the page. Furthermore, Doug himself stated on the mediation page "Some editors have informed this mediator that they will not agree to mediation as they see the matter as essentially frivolous." - is the mediation even going to occur? The issue(s) is/are largely resolved. Happyme22 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see that Wasted_Time_R, Tvoz, and Happyme22 are eager to read my arguments in the MedCab and can only reply that they will be able to see the details and understand my points once that report is complete and submitted. As I've indicated in the prelim MedCab, I will discuss not only the Nancy Reagan article itself -where several outstanding questions remain unresolved-; but also with editorial procedures that moved the article to FA; and with editor actions relating to the continued editing of the article itself. I intend to stay up quite late this evening, so it should be ready for you to review in the AM, but if it is not, please know that I do not intend to abandon the issues at hand. Please also note that Doug has reminded me that WP:there is no deadline and that I should take my time in order to be fair and accurrate. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have the confidence and time to stand by your work, there should be no reason for both Wasted_Time_R and Tvoz not to participate. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that as I am working on the MedCab as described above, I will not be able to participate in any discussions regarding article content or on notes to my talk page until that is complete. Thank you for your patience. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully respect your right to call a mediation and your right to use it effectively. Although, I am not in favor of one, as I see no pressing or excessive POV issues at hand. Happyme22 (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

MedCab will not be completed tonight. Sorry, it's 3AM and I'm exhausted from the load of research I'm finding in the history...but again, I know WP:there is no deadline and would rather be clear and fair than load everybody down unnecessarily. Patience is a virtue, I guess... 207.237.228.83 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have enquired of the IP editor whether the MedCab is going forward or not, the point of the MedCab is to try to get the editors to discuss the matter civilly and get back to editing. Agreement over content may never be reached, but if successful agreement over consensus might. By the way, re the WP:WQA, I know that it does say to notify the other parties, but I've found in some cases this is the very point that inflames things, where absent notification the referring party might be advised to just leave the issue alone, stop talking, edit another article, etc. (and sometimes even telling the referring party that he or she is the rude one and needs to drop it before it gets worse for him or her). Just a thought, not suggesting the procedure is wrong but sometimes it's better to WP:IAR and I wouldn't take offense at the fact someone did that, the people who help at WQA try to be fair and address such issues as they arise.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Please see this for my response to your inquiry. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate everyone's patience, though I do apologize if I miscommunicated one thing. I had no intention of holding the article hostage. I only asked that the parties hold off on any edits that were controversial, especially with regard to adding material - I think I overstated that at first but then tried to clarify it. My impression has been that the only proposals or additions of material that have been in any sort of dispute have come from the IP user anyway. Unless I completely misunderstand, the IP is upset about material you won't add, not normal edits you're making to the FA article. My intention was to keep out the disputed material until it could be discussed, not lock things up. Sorry if I was unclear on that account.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, as several editors have stated they have no intention of participating in mediation, I am closing the MedCab case.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Influential

Way back when, I added under my IP address (before I know what sockpuppetry was) that Nancy was an influential First Lady. User:Arcayne removed it on the grounds of not having a citation. Well, with Mrs. Reagan's recent media attention after falling in her home, I've found one from Reuters saying just that. The cite also says Mrs. Reagan was controversial, which I think we have established in the lead, so unless there are any objections I'm going to put it in. --Happyme22 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Influential on what? Other First Ladies that followed her? Or on the general public? Or within the Reagan administration? Or on Ronald himself? The Reuters story doesn't say, which makes it kind of hard to use as a cite. You can find a lot of cites for her influence within the Reagan administration[1][2][3] or on Reagan himself[4] — that last one has some interesting poll results that the article could use. I'm not sure you could find much on the first possibility, unless Laura Bush has said something, and the second possibility would revolve around the effects of Just Say No, or popularity of the color red, or something like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's just it: she was influential within all those things (with the possible exception of other first ladies following her) and in this case the unspecific use of "influential" might just be best. Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, but I won't argue it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sacrum

For non-medical editors like me, I decided to detail Nancy's sacrum fracture with CNN AFP REUTERS links. This is the 2nd and fracture is near-death thing, not so simple as that. Thus, Reuters noted the silence on the details just 8 weeks therapy. But I had witnessed many of my elder relatives who died due to bathroom or toilet accidents on this sacrum thing. Thus, Wikipedia readers ought to know about this thing. and sacrum, a large, triangular bone at the base of the spine and at the upper and back part of the pelvic cavity, where it is inserted like a wedge between the two hip bonesedition.cnn.com, Nancy Reagan leaves hospital after breaking pelvis She left the hospital on October 17, would thereafter undergo daily physical therapy at home, and the anticipated recovery would be 6 to 8 weeks.afp.google.com, Nancy Reagan leaves hospital after fallreuters.com, Former first lady Nancy Reagan out of hospital--Florentino floro (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what the wikilink on sacrum is for - rather than going into details on the sacrum we wikilnk to its own article. I did leave all of the citations in place for readers to get more details, but we don't usually go into that kind of detail in a biography . Tvoz/talk 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama comment

I've removed mention of the comment Obama made at his press conference today. It's unimportant, and it has nothing to do with anything Nancy has done. Furthermore, Obama was confusing two First Ladies' actions: Nancy's use of an astrologer, and Hillary's famous "seances" with Eleanor Roosevelt (see Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#cite_note-121 for the full backstory on that). Since the remark was a turn on "talking to living presidents", Obama was probably thinking more about Hillary than Nancy, but bungled the association. In any case, it doesn't belong here. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha - I have to say I was sitting there trying to sort it out when he said that - I knew that didn't sound right! Maybe he realized half-way through his comment that it was Hillary and didn't want to say it! In any case - although he did say it, it obviously isn't appropriate for Nancy's bio so I agree with the removal. Tvoz/talk 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is inappropriate -- both for this article and in general. All I know is that I lost a lot of respect for him... of the little bit that I had ;) --Happyme22 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw Happy - it was a joke. Give the guy a break and some time - he may surprise you. Tvoz/talk 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa - just heard on Shep Smith that he called Nancy and apologized - and they had a "warm conversation"... clearly he reads our talk page.... Tvoz/talk 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

and here Tvoz/talk 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well he will be my president January 20, 2009 and I think every American should support him and at least give him a chance. I just saw Shep too and I think Mr. Obama did the right thing. Of course he reads our talk pages!! :) Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the new administration should hire one of us as their official liaison to Wikipedia! We know the ropes and could help them avoid being the subject of pages and pages of edit wars and BLP violations and talk disputes and locked articles in the years to come. Yo, Rahm, now's the right time to get on the good side of this new media!! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were already on the payroll? Tvoz/talk 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not... ;) Happyme22 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wink wink. 207.237.228.71 (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Excusez-moi? Tvoz/talk 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

split section(s)

maybe as Nancy Reagan's tenure as First Lady and Early life of Nancy Reagan.--Levineps (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think quite yet. I'd love to expand upon the sections and add details, and perhaps when/if that is done then we could create daughter articles, but the length seems to be alright as it is. Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At 36 kB (6109 words) readable prose size the current length is well within WP:SIZE guidelines. BLP daughter articles get very low readership and are generally not worth the effort unless there is really no choice, which is not the case here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Mrs."

At some point this article picked up several uses of "Mrs. Reagan" and one of "Mrs. Obama". I thought that "Mr." and "Mrs." were still forbidden by the MOS, and WP:LASTNAME would seem to confirm that. Use of a standalone "Nancy" has been blessed, and I think either that or "Nancy Reagan" should be used where just "Reagan" is ambiguous. The "Mrs." usages seem very jarring, since WP never uses them elsewhere. What do others think? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez, you're right -- my bad. I guess I was writing in the same style as the news articles; I'm not sure what got into me! I'll fix them if I come across them. Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

New First Lady intro paragraph

I've got strong doubts about this new introductory paragraph in the "First Lady" section:

Nancy Reagan became the First Lady of the United States when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president in January 1981. One of the most enigmatic and controversial first ladies to date, Nancy Reagan's actions over eight years arguably expanded the role of the first lady.[61] Subjects such as her interest in high-end fashion, her work with drug awareness initiatives and anti-drug crusade, and her influence in the White House behind the scenes were all widely reported on during Reagan's tenure as first lady.[61]

First, I don't see the need for it. The lead section of the whole article already summarizes her time as First Lady; I don't think it need be done here again. Second, the NYT story being used doesn't support the notion that Nancy expanded the role of first lady. Rather, it says that the first lady role has been expanding over time, and talks almost as much about Rosalyn Carter as Nancy. So Nancy was definitely part of this evolution, but I don't think anything she did in particular expanded the role. Third, while no one will doubt Nancy was one of the more controversial first ladies, the source doesn't really support 'enigmatic', and I don't see it either. She liked style and fashion, she wanted to protect her husband politically and physically and was willing to take actions to do that, and she wanted to participate in a good cause. What's enigmatic about any of that? Fourth, "to date" is a bad expression to use, since this article has no date and indeed it has to read well 50 years from now. All the better to drop this paragraph, I think. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to fill space and provide a general overview of the first lady section in a similar fashion to what was recently done at the George W. Bush article. But I may have taken it a bit too far and stretched some details now that I look back.... I had heard her described as enigmatic in a review of her autobiography, and I was in the process of looking for that source when I was sidetracked this morning (my wife wanted me to take out the trash....) and apparently inserted that without the source. That was my mistake.

Anyway, if you feel the paragraph is more a burden than an asset, I'll remove it. I still have a list of things to do to the article, including expanding the fashion section, cleaning up/adding to the elegance section, and cleaning up the influence section. Happyme22 (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Weighting of clothing gifts and loans material

Happy, I don't understand your edit that said "I'm trying to capture the gist of this paragraph and the controversy without delving into extraneous details that throw off the weight of the section". The clothing gifts and loans material was worked out after considerable research and talk page discussion at the time, and its weighting and level of detail was considered correct at the time. Since then, the other fashion/renovation/image/elegance material in the First Lady section has been expanded, which is fine and good. So the weighting of the gifts and loans material is already less than it was before, compared to the First Lady section as a whole. Thus, I don't see how the weighting can now suddenly be considered to be incorrect, or the level of detail too great, and I cannot see any reason for further reducing this material. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding level of detail, I would note that the whole First Lady section is very detailed throughout, with "The renovation included repainting walls, refinishing floors, repairing fireplaces, and replacing antique pipes, windows, and wires." and "Her white, hand-beaded, one shoulder Galanos 1981 inaugural gown was estimated to cost $10,000[74] while the overall price of her inaugural wardrobe was said to cost $25,000." and "The full service comprised 4,370 pieces, with 19 pieces per individual set.[86] The service totaled $209,508." and "She hosted 56 state dinners over eight years, compared to six by George and Laura Bush." and so forth. This is a good thing! Specific detail is more telling than vague generalities in conveying her approach to the FL position. The same level of specific detail is also warranted in the clothing gifts and loans description too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Back when we had the lengthy discussion and that paragraph was hammered out, I felt that there was a large balance problem, in that the weight placed on the controversies outdid the weight placed on her fashion choices, designers, cost, and influence. To solve that problem, I decided to pull out some books and research the Google News Archives and expand details regarding her fashion choices, designers, cost, and influence as you noted above, while simultaneously removing extraneous details from the controversies section. That would put everything in its proper perspective. Believe me, my personal opinions on the subject of the article did not influence those edits. My problem was the overall balance of the section.

In addition, I slightly reworked the controversies paragraph because I got caught up in reading and noticed the following paragraph from this NYT article:

“Frank Q. Nebeker, director of the Office of Government Ethics, which oversees the ethics [in government] law, noted that in 1982 the White House and his office agreed that clothes and jewelry borrowed by Mrs. Reagan did not fall under the gift provisions of the law and did not have to be reported.”

So what I’m getting is that the White House entered into an agreement with the agency that oversees the Ethics in Government Act, and that agreement stated that the Reagans did not have to report Mrs. Reagan’s acceptance of gifts. I don't know if it was determined that she violated the Ethics in Govt act -- judging from that revealing paragraph above, it would seem that she did not -- but of course it was speculated that she did. That was another major reason why I cut down the controversies paragraph.

I still plan on adding more details to the fashion section, focusing on specific outfits. Perhaps when that is done, which I hope to accomplish in the next few days, we can reevaluate this further if it is necessary. But I thought that my edits acheived a rather nice balance within the section. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I neither said nor meant to imply that your personal opinions had anything to do with your edit. Secondly, I'd make the general point that the balance of this material is best viewed relative to the entire top-level section on Nancy as First Lady, and not so much to whatever subsection it happens to be in. That's because the former is a historical reality, while the latter is an editorial organizational decision that you have been changing and tweaking (which is fine). Or look at Hillary Rodham Clinton: there's an entire subsection under her first lady section called "Whitewater and other investigations". That subsection is "all controversy", but it's not out of balance because it's (in the judgment of me and other editors) in proper balance relative to the entirety of her First Lady section. (I'm not suggesting that approach be taken here, as it wouldn't be appropriate, but just illustrating my point.) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the substantive question you raise, the final parts of Talk:Nancy_Reagan/Archive_2#.5Bsecond_arbitrary_break_for_editing_ease.5D explain what was happening here. Loans under $10,000 in liability were not subject to the Ethics in Government Act but were instead part of a voluntary agreement to report. However some of the borrowed clothes were in excess of that amount. Or, they weren't returned, or had zero value when they were returned, in which case they became gifts. All of these cases did fall under the Ethics in Government Act and constitute what she was in violation of. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I too in no way meant to imply that you said that my personal opinions influenced the edits, but I feel that when discussing content such as this about a subject such as Mrs. Reagan, I should make it clear that personal opinions don't matter to avoid accusations of POV (you wouldn't do that, WTR, but some out there would). Enough about me... let's get down to business: You raise the point that the paragraph should be weighted in relation to the entire top section of the first lady section, as it is "historical reality." While true, what about the specific section on her fashions is not historical reality? I ask that rather hypothetically, because it is all historical reality: the top section, the top section's subsections, the middle section, the middle section's subsections, etc. So I am a bit perplexed. However I can see how one may make the case that it should be judged in relation to her entire tenure; that is a much better argument in my opinion. But that, too, does have its holes. The book Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage by James G. Benze devotes 121 pages out of 172 to simply describing what happened while Nancy Reagan was first lady (the other 51 pages go into her early life, acting career, FL of California, post-FL, and legacy). Out of those 121 pages, two and a half focus on the fashions controversy. That's it. While Benze writes about other subjects which are not even mentioned in this article (and some of which I hope to add to the article), the weight relation is significant as it shows us that we must not overstep our limitations in presenting it to the readers.

Regarding the actual wording/phrasing of the content: wow, it's been a while! I read over that discussion that you cited above; your layout of what went down is perfectly accurate. The problem that I have, however, is overtly writing that Nancy Reagan violated the Ethics in Government Act. Though it makes sense that loans not returned become gifts and thus would have had to have been reported, she was not convicted of violating the act. It's like what happened as a result of the Lewinsky affair: though Clinton lied about the affair, he was not found guilty of perjury, meaning a court of law found that he had not been lying. If Wikipedia were to contradict that, the editors would be committing interpretation of an official descision made by a court of law, which is strictly banned per WP:OR. The same principle applies here, in that logic says one thing but official actions (or lack thereof in this case) say something totally different. If she was investigated and was found to have violated the act, then I would support adding it in. But she wasn't and therefore I don't believe it is right, especially in a BLP, to assume that she violated it without official documentation saying that she did.

As a result of my comments above, I would like to propose the following, as consensus can change:

Though her elegant fashions and wardrobe were hailed as a "glamourous paragon of chic," they were also controversial subjects. She was criticized for wearing expensive clothing amid a recession early in her husband's presidency. In 1982, she revealed that she had accepted thousands of dollars in clothing, jewelry, and other gifts, but defended her actions by stating that she had borrowed the clothes and that they would either be returned or donated to museums. Facing criticism, she soon said she would no longer accept such loans. While often buying her clothes, she continued to borrow and sometimes keep designer clothes throughout her time as first lady, which came to light in 1988. As the Reagans did not disclose loans over $10,000 or clothes that had not been returned to the designers, speculation arose as to whether the first lady had violated the 1978 Ethics in Government Act.

This version is somewhat more succinct while still relaying necessary information to the reader. I believe it is a nice compromise which incorporates both of our ideas. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My "reality" remark just meant that the organization of the subsections can change; at one point, if I remember correctly, the "Fashion" and "Elegance" subsections were combined, making them longer; at another point, it was a top-level subsection for a while instead of being under "White House glamor". The weighting can look like it's changing as the subsection structure evolves, but comparing it to the whole First Lady section gives a more constant picture.

As for that weighting, right now there are 26 paragraphs in the First Lady section and this is just one of them. I think that's commensurate with how other sources treat this matter. And as I said above, the detail here is at the same level as descriptions in the rest of the First Lady section. And it's important to include Nancy's quotes (and those of her rep), to give her side, to be parallel to the many quotes elsewhere, and to convey her personality (I think the "broken her little promise" quote is 'very Nancy' in terms of how she phrases things). I feel your proposed revision unnecessarily cuts the material down too much. Also, I think your "She was criticized for wearing expensive clothing amid a recession early in her husband's presidency" addition needlessly duplicates the more encompassing "The new china, White House renovations, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the wedding of Charles and Diana, Prince and Princess of Wales,[89] gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people during an economic recession.[8]" sentence that comes later.

However, I do see your point about flat out stating that she violated the Ethics in Government Act. So I'm willing to water that down. I changed "in violation" to "in possible violation", because your "speculation arose" formulation would probably get a {{who}} tag put on from someone. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also trimmed out the $3 million figure as duplicative, since that's given later in a post-First Lady section. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification -- I now understand where you were coming from with the "reality" statement. I don't plan on changing the organization of the subsections much more. Your 26 paragraph figure is rather convincing that the weight is now better; I also plan on adding more information and restructuring some paragraphs in the middle and bottom tiers of the first lady section. But I still wouldn't say that we are using the best version of the paragraph.

Regarding the quotes, I think Nancy's side of the story is already well presented (I can always dig up paragraphs from her autobiography defending herself). I'm fine with the "regrets she failed to heed council's advice," though I don't believe that the "broken her little promise" should be included. The problem is that the quote didn't come from Nancy; her press secretary, Elaine Crispen, said it. And Nancy wrote this in her autobiography, My Turn, page 34: "I don't know why Elaine said that, but she was wrong, and I told her so. None of the clothes were given to me to keep. Some have gone to the Reagan Library; some have been committed to museums. The rest belong to the designers." So the subject of the article refutes the statement we are attributing to her, which in actuality was not made by her at all. I think it's best left out.

In fact, I think the whole bottom part of the paragraph should be reworded. The quotes break up the facts, which can be good in many cases but not in this one. As it reads, it is a bit confusing. I'm thinking connect the "none of this had been included on financial disclosure forms" right into the "non-reporting of loans was...." for clarity and brevity, then put the council quote at the end.

None of this had been included on financial disclosure forms, thus the non-reporting of loans under $10,000 in liability was in violation of a voluntary agreement the White House had made in 1982, while not reporting more valuable loans or clothes not returned was a possible violation of the Ethics in Government Act. Nancy expressed through her press secretary "regrets that she failed to heed counsel's advice" on disclosing them.

Glad you see my point about flat out reporting that she violated the act. I'm fine with "possible," though even if someone were to slap a {{who}} tag on it with my proposed wording, I have sources to back up the speculation if we decide to take that route. Happyme22 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that Nancy had disowned the "broken her little promise" statement. We don't know whether she was accurately quoted or not, but I'm okay with leaving it out, and with your revised wording of the bottom part of the paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It kind of surprised me too, but she disputes it which adds another interesting twist to the story... I've put in the revised version. Thanks Wasted. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 173: Dead Link

The site to which footnote 173 links no longer exists: "Nancy Reagan Statement on Senator Kennedy". Press release. <http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=F17EFA9C-8420-40F5-9D55-F09BF77A9718>. I have found another site that links to this content <http://thepage.time.com/nancy-reagan-statement-on-ted-kennedys-death/>. I would edit the note myself, but am embarrassed to say that I have forgotten how to do it and am too busy right now to take the time to find out how to do this. Jts10101 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the spot and fix. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)