Talk:Nancy Reagan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Nancy 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2007.


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)