Talk:Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford article.
Article policies


Contents

[edit] Necessity?

Before this page gets too involved, I'd like to discuss its purposes. I feel, without even having read it, that it is unnecessary and anything that would be on this page could be on Gerald Ford. I realize that there is a Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan page, but I also question the necessity of that page too. I don't want to have to nominate this for deletion right away, but I feel that it is totally unnecessary. After all, if this page was kept, what would be to stop someone from writing Birth and life of Gerald Ford? It's all stuff that could be on the main page, and really, neither are as important as his legacy as President of the United States.

Please take some time to discuss this, and I hope we can come to mutual consensus to delete it. → JARED (t)  00:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that Ford's death is not the crowning achievement of his lifetime. However, that's precisely why I think this article needs to be here (although not in its currently messy, embryonic stages). If we were to merge this back in to the Gerald Ford article, we'd have an article about a man whose magnificent life is overshadowed by the amount of stuff written about his death. Likewise, we would not merge the Criticism of Judaism article back in to the Judaism article because if we did that the Judaism article would have a disproportionate amount about criticism. If people want to learn about Gerald Ford as a person, they'd visit the Gerald Ford article. If people want to learn about the aftermath of his death, they should come here. Two different purposes, two different articles. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A major event like this is worthy of a separate article. State funerals are more about the nation's concept of the deceased and less about the deceased himself. The state funeral of Ronald Regan had political and social consequences in and of itself, so did the state funeral of JFK. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but what is the precedent (haha, pun intended) for doing this, besides the Reagan page? I mean I don't see any other famous people who have pages about them (Churchill, Gandhi, Stalin, Lenin, MLK, Jr....none of them have death pages, and they were perhaps the most influential of all!) I see no reason for there to be a page of the man's death. I express my deepest sympathy for all that Gerald Ford has done for my country, but why not focus on that rather than the fact that he's gone? → JARED (t)  00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We've 2 choices (for now): 1-Keep this page, or 2-Have the 'death section' of the Gerald R. Ford page become overly long & discriptive (possible as long or longer then the rest of the Ford article). When Ford's passing becomes old news (and editors are less interested), then delete this page. GoodDay 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Recentism. However, I believe this is not a case of the current (Ford, Reagan) being covered too much, but rather the historical (Ghandi, Stalin, Churchill, etc.) not being covered enough. Well... except with the number of quotes... they're not necessary. -- tariqabjotu 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Major event? This is Gerald Ford we're talking about here. As it stands, this is nothing but a collection of bog-standard condolence messages propped up by a few details -- redact the names and there's nothing distinctive or noteworthy about any of them. A sentence or two in Gerald Ford covers things.

And while we're on the subject, what were the political and social consequences of Ronald Reagan's funeral, pray tell? That seems like another article worth merging or deleting. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but here's the problem I have with it. (1), you failed to mention a 3rd option of shortening everything and shoving it back into Ger. Fd. I think that's a great option. Yes, you lose some, but it is not important to mention some of the overly specific things mentioned here, or even all of the quotes. Problem (2) is that it would be unfortunate to have to delete this page. Going by what you are saying, then we should delete the Reagan page and others that might be out there too. I'd hate to have to do that, and I probably never would, but I do not support it's existence. I think we should come up with a solution now, though, before the page gets bigger and harder to shrink back.
In response to Calton, thank you for being ever so blatant with your remarks! Haha. Anyway, he hits the nail on the head, and although I'd hate to delete the Reagan page, it seems like it should go. → JARED (t)  00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the {{notability}} template. It obviously does not belong, and is just there is over-emphasize JP06035's belief that this article is unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I figured I'd point it out to others that it is not notable, but point taken. → JARED (t)  00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the Recentism argument. Reagan's funeral was notable because he, himself was notable. Kennedy's funeral was notable because the whole nation was mourning. Gerald Ford (God bless him) was a caretaker president for a partial term who lived to a ripe old age in relative obscurity. The quotes from various leaders are formulaic; preserve them in Wikiquote, if need be. I vote to delete this page. Mmoyer 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I say: Keep it! at least untill the end of the funeral, this is good page to collect information, when all is over we can always take the best of the article and merge it into the main Gerald Ford article. The coming days a lot will be added on this subject and it would only clutter the main article. And that's my humble opinion.
User:Allard Thursday 28 December 2006 11:08 CET
Vote to keep. Like the article with Reagan, this article details the state funeral and other rituals celebrated (OK, bad word) in connection with the death of Gerald Ford. Yes, Reagan was obviously notable, but so was Gerald Ford. I point out that Ford was the only president NEVER to have been elected to the office (or to the vice-presidency); in itself, that is notable. The fact that he pardoned Richard Nixon, and thus ended the "long, national nightmare" that was Watergate, is notable. To call him a "caretaker" president is an insult to his legacy (although that is an argument for another forum). Yes, the article in its current state is a mess, but once the funeral is over and Ford's body has been laid to rest, then I'm sure it will be edited and take shape in a form similar to the articles relating to funerals of JFK and Reagan. It need not be elaborate, just a simple, well-sourced article. And hey, this is just me, but I would also expect an article when Jimmy Carter, the elder George Bush, Bill Clinton or our current President Bush (and eventually, his successors) when they die. [[Briguy52748 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)]]
You just mentioned things that are already on the Gerald Ford page! Why should they be repeated here? It makes no sense. No one else deserves a page like this either. And just think... there would be more about the person's death than anything else about his life or accomplishments! Why not focus on those aspects of a person, rather than how they were buried? → JARED (t)  15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The ceremonies relating to President Ford's death is what this article is about (note the stress). The Gerald Ford article is about his life and accomplishments. I understand your desire to not hold anyone to a higher standard by creating "special" articles for them (and yes, I supposed you'll say next that a 6-year-old girl will come on here and create an article about the funeral for her goldfish). I agree that wikinews is more for up-to-the-moment developments and articles, but I see a future need for this article, to help people understand why certain rituals are observed. [[Briguy52748 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)]]
Yeah, but that is what State funeral#United States is for. Maybe you could give that it's own page, and include everything about the state funerals of the presidents, but it it totally unnecessary to have a complete page on the death and funeral of this man. → JARED (t)  18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the majority votes to keep Ford's death in a separate article for now, and I agree. When this story ceases to be a current event, then all pertinent information can me merged back into the main Gerald Ford article, and Ford's death article cleaned up. Since info changes at the speed of light, we should use this article as a good stomping ground for the time being. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that if I were to WP:AfD this article, we'd get a lot more votes to delete/merge. It is only a big support here because the people talking here are actually editing. I'll definitely take all what was said here into consideration before considering an AfD, but I think that in the end, that may have to be done. → JARED (t)  18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Some deaths and funerals are probably worthy of their own page. Churchill, for example, had a state funeral whose pomp and pageantry were notable at the time, and not equaled until Princess Diana's (whose funeral also merit its own article because of its political and social significance). RFK's funeral train, JFK's caisson, Reagan lying in state all were important cultural touchstones and produced widespread and heartfelt emotion. For Ford, God rest his soul, there is and will be respect and due honor, but nothing more - few are truly grieving other than his family and personal friends. Point being, I think this article is questionable. More broadly, and not, I'll admit, directly tied to this article's talk page, I think the lying in state and the rest to be overdone, an effort not to insult the man by comparison after Reagan's, and thus a sort of grade inflation in funerals. LeoO3 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless if this article is merged or not, the best route would be to wait until all of the funerals are over, and this story eases to be a current event. Then and only then will we begin to understand the legacy of Ford's death in history. We're talking about the importance of future events. Let's wait until the dust settles, then take up the argument to merge. We can't let our own opinions of Ford cloud this article. Save the WP:AfD for a couple of weeks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
He is a venerable man and has done good things for our country. You make a good point and I think that that may be the best route to follow, for now. → JARED (t)  19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the request for merge tag for now, due to concensus being reached to keep the articles seperate for the time being. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ford's death was obviously not earth-shattering like Kennedy's assassination and his presidency not as long or notable like Reagan's, but how often does the United States hold a state funeral for a president? Answer: Hardly ever and only 8 presidents have lied in state in the US capitol rotunda (more than that, about 12, I think, have had state funerals), so ia a state funderal like this is a big deal and historically important as a separate event from the biography of the political leader whose remains lie in the casket. It definitely deserves an article. Obvious keep. Crunch 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ford's death was felt by many and this article should be kept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.172.134 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

KentCountyArchives The article should definitely be kept. State Funerals in America are a unique institution and provide Americans with the opportunity to reflect on many aspects of our Nation and government, in addition to remembering and saying farewell to the deceased president. The State Funeral of President Ford had just such an effect. The benefits of this article go precisely to the core functions and goals of Wikipedia. Bottom line - Keep this and every other current and future article about U.S. State Funerals.

  KentCountyArchives 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC) KentCountyArchives 9-9-07

[edit] Statements

Why did everyone deleate the quotes that I foumd?

[edit] Hopefully

This will not turn into what the Ronald Reagan state funeral once was, which was way overloaded with trivia. We don't need a narrative (Wikipedia is not a newspaper) nor do we need every trivial thing mentioned. Please keep that in mind. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's all this would be. I mean, anything that goes into this page is just news, not really encyclopedic. The encyclopedic aspect of it all would be finding it in the context of Gerald Ford, not on a page by itself. It really should be merged. → JARED (t)  15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Look at the Reagan article, which isn't perfect but it's a decent blueprint for this article. It still has too much trivia but still. This is how NOT to do it. It's how the Reagan article looked before it was re-written. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] World Leaders

Please do not add information about foreign delegations to the funeral. Please confirm with news media and/or other sources. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 14:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] See Also

Why do we need to see also the State Funeral for Ronald Reagan? Why not See Also for State Funeral of Truman? I just don't see the significance. Brian23 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • An interesting historical coincidence. President Truman died on December 26th, 19772. T.E. Goodwin 06:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is just the sort of trivial gobbledygook that junks up articles like this. It doesn't belong in the article. An interesting piece of trivia if you're inclined to cling to coincidences, but, really not important. Crunch 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing because Reagan's funeral was a recent event, and fresh in this generations minds. Truman died years ago. I think adding the link gives a good point of reference, and may even help edit this article on Ford's death. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSSE

Please do NOT add information that the Secret Service is in charge of security, because the funeral is an NSSE.

I don't want to see something, like it is at Talk:2002 Winter Olympics on this page. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 18:17, 28 December, 2006.

Why the abbreviations for DHS, NSSE, CG MDW, etc, when the abbreviations aren't used anywhere else in the article? Jimpoz 04:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

I don't believe President Ford's cause of death is listed on the page itself. I believe it was heart failure, but I'm not 100 percent sure. Perhaps it is a relevant fact to add if I am correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.39.130 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Under Wkipedia "Deaths in 2006" there are four media citations for cause of death as heart failure. Most notable in my own opinion are the ones from CNN by the Associated Press and also The Washington Post. President Ford had a KNOWN history of heart dysfunction as a pacemaker had been placed surgically in his chest last August 21st to regulate his heartbeat.T.E. Goodwin 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not notice any reference to heart failure as the cause of death in the links from Deaths in 2006...Is it possible that the linked articles have been updated, and this information has been retracted?--GregRM 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Earlier this afternoon,(I am posting this at 5:06 PST) someone changed the cause of death from heart failure to "natural causes." Heart failure is considered a natural cause and a specific cause at that. Why anyone would want to make it more generic is anybody's guess at this time. The term "old age" doesn't tell us whether the death was due to cancer, heart disease or whatever. And, as I pointed out there are different forms of "natural causes." T.E. Goodwin 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify my earlier comment: I am referring to the CNN, Washington Post, etc. articles, which seem to say that the cause of death has not been announced.--GregRM 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The cause of death has not been officialy released at this point. The cause was listed as heart failure on Wikipedia's main page, but was removed shortly thereafter due to lack of credible citation. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Why did everyone deleate the quotes from all of the foreign leaders that I put up?Richardkselby 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need the quotes from anybody besides Betty Ford and President Bush. Simply mentioning the fact that others paid tributes to Ford is enough. --RandomOrca2 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You do know that it took me half an hour to get those quoresand put them on Wikipedia? Richardkselby 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long it took you. We appreciate your efforts. It just doesn't belong in the article. --Raderick 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well you made it seem like that my efforts were not made to help or do anything constructive.Richardkselby 23:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotes you added were good, but looked unencyclopedic in this article. Most of them were added back into the text. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I think the Cheney quote had some relevance since he was his Chief of Staff.Adamv88 03:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protests

Not these guys again: Westboro Baptist Church is supposedly going to do their usual crap at Ford's funeral. Not mentioned in the article, so someone with a good source should bring that up. --Jnelson09 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Those guys are a side show circus act and a disgrace. "Supposedly" showing up isn't worthy of being mentioned in this article. Even if they do, unless something major happens, it probably isn't relevant. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Fred Phelps appears to be a wacko cult leader. No need to mention them in the article. Jjmillerhistorian 17:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether he's a wacko cult leader or not -- and few would probably disagree with that -- if he shows up to a degree that it's covered, say, by the national media, it might be worth a word. Sadly, the fact that they guy is deranged does not preclude him from mention. Crunch 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It could be mentioned in this article if they effected the funeral in any way, but if they just showed up and whined there really wouldn't be any reason to add it. It could mentioned in their article as one notable funeral they annoyed people. Jjmillerhistorian 11:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Must rearrange

Users will have to rearrange this article to make sure it reflects as to what happened during each event. Please put individual events as categories. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you see a need, don't wait for others. Remember, be bold! Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
We're not a newspaper. Please be careful that trivia isn't included unless it's necessary. Such as, we don't need to say who held Betty's arm during such and such or how this is the first time that the US has used XXXXX since XXXXX. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
So far. It's not terrible. lol I don't want to seem to be a gloomy gus on this. I just want this to end up being a nice, concise article. So far, it's not bad. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's out of order because someone based this article almost exactly on Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan which was once a terribly overdone blow-by-blow trivia-filled account of every step and whisper of the event. It has been edited down substantially, but the chronological lack of order remains. Someone who cares more than I do might want to fix this article which is headed in the same direction. I recommended waiting a week or three because your efforts will be futile at this point. In the midst of a big current event, people are prone to dump everything they know into a Wikipedia article without concern for importance. Crunch 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Holiday?

I've heard that his death will be recognized with a post office/bank holiday on Tuesday. Is this true? Should it be included? Thanks, --Grant M 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It should not be included. SNIyer12, 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, if we do get a holiday because of this, I think it should be included somewhere. It's significant because it's not common in the US. We already have "President George W. Bush has declared a national day of mourning for President Ford on Tuesday, January 2, 2007, to mark the funeral service.[6]." in the article. I see no problem with amending it to say "national day of mourning and public holiday" if indeed a holiday has been declared. I don't believe one was called for Reagan's. The US had the day of mourning but I think it ended there. I could be wrong. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a holiday. I was at my local library last week and they announced they were to work to a "short day" in honor of Ford. I know that the markets and the P.O. will close on Tuesday. However, GWB made an Executive Order shutting down most Gov. offices (with slices of exemptions for DoD, DoS, DHS and other federal agencies who have to be open for National Security reasons). In short, this will be a de facto holiday, even though I don't think people will think of it as such. - Thanks, Hoshie 21:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of hearse

I vote to remove the photo of Ford's hearse. It's low quality due to the darkness, and doesn't lend anything more quality to the article. I already removed it from the main Gerald Ford article. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote to remove, the photo is poor quality. GoodDay 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Photo has been removed. SNIyer12, (talk), 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The new photo, is a perfect choice. GoodDay 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Good photo, much better than the last one. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename page

This page should be renamed to state funeral of Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford lived to an old age and died of natural causes. His death does not warrant an article, but his funeral does. This article is on his funeral, not his death--Jiang 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the motion (but still do not approve of this page's existence). → JARED (t)  01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is just a temporary page. It should be reduced and added to Ford's page and the State Funeral page. Maybe after he is interred. Jjmillerhistorian 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hymn name?

Does anyone know the name of the Hymn that was played while Ford's casket was being transferred from the Senate to the Hearse? Its the same hymn that was (briefly) played in the Full Monty's funeral scene. Stude62 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

One was "Abide with Me", the other was "Soul of my Savior". [1] --Ibagli (Talk) 15:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Abide With Me - added that. Thanks for enlightening me (of course if I attended church, I would know this). Best regards, Stude62 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably the most common hymn at funerals. Our rector puts "C&A" for Crimond and Abide With Me in his funeral service notes. I can sing most of it - words and harmony - from memory :-) Guy (Help!) 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs from the National Cathedral

I have uploaded some photographs taken outside the National Cathedral. They are in on commons.

Don't have time at the moment to see if any of these are useful here, and haven't really been involved in writing anything here. Surely, there will be some "official" photographs too. --Aude (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure we can use any of them. Maybe 1? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say none of them. The cathedral is pretty, but the forefronts all look cluttered with people, vehicles, and such. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need?

A listing of every song done at the funeral? What exactly is the point? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're dang right we do. I went back looking for that information earlier and someone had deleted half of it. Thanks so much. If you don't want to read it, just skim by. Now I've gotta go back and find it.

Matthearn 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we do - while its an important part of the services, but it doesn't deserve its own article, does it? I for one was looking for the name of one of the hymns played and added it in. The information is relative and useful, and it helps to serve as a public record. It also helps to point out that Ford himself planned every action and note of the mouring week, so if we are going to document the events, then also document the music as well. And as Mattearn pointed out, if it isn't of interest just read past it. Stude62 18:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course we need a listing of not just the music, but those who performed and conducted it! Denyce Graves and who else? (this comment made at 20:16, January 3, 2007 66.233.91.22)


I think that it's not in the Reagan funeral article so it shouldn't be here. A general listing within the paragraph suffices. Lists can be wonderful and they can also be eyesores. And btw, Matthearn, we have histories for a reason. You can very easily go back to an older version and get your list back if you want it for reference purposes or whatever. This edit has the entire list. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no problems with creating separate articles that list the music in full along with all of the dignataries who were at the funeral. And then in this article, we can do a short summary paragraph which links to the lists. I'm just not a fan of placing big lists in the middle of a paragraph. Makes it hard to read and a bit of an eyesore. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I think that its useful. As for the comparison to the article on Ronald Reagan, perhaps we're more observant now than we were when Reagan died. My dislike for an article that lists the music and the guests is unfavorable because I could see such an article easily being put up for deletion of nom'd for a merge. List articles on Wikipedia aren't always held in the highest regard. Still we need to go back the fact that Ford scripted this funeral himself, the music was selcted by Ford as an integral part of the ceremonies, and should be included in the article in my opinion. Stude62 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan events

I think the Michigan events portion should be restructures, so that we have about the repose, the funeral, and burial. I'll be checking it periodically. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Amway Grand Plaza Hotel in Grand Rapids renamed its ballrooms in honor of President Ford. And also it should be noted that the events really only took place in Grand Rapids and a few events in Lansing.

[edit] Merge this article back when...

This article should be merged back into the main Gerald Ford article after the funeral and ceremonies are completed, and the news cycle on his death has concluded. But not until then. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 13:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for news. That's what Wikinews is for! If you think for one second that people will want to merge this back into Gerald Ford when it's all over, think again. By that point, the article will be so involved that people would just say "It would be a pity to delete it" or "look at all the stuff here, there's no way we can put it all back in Gerald Ford!" Think of what you are proposing... → JARED (t)  15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying to merge the entire article back into the main article. When Ford's death is no longer a current event, we can take all the necessary info and cut and paste as needed, based I'm sure on some consensus. This article should probably be kept forever, just as Reagan's was. I suppose I should have bettern explained my position here. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy, get their own death & state funeral article, Ford gets his own to stand. With that said, I don't support a merge now or at any time in the future. --Raderick 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Focusing on past US Presidents, I'm alright with the JFK state funeral article (there should be simlar articles for Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, F.Roosevelt). However state funeral articles for Reagan, Ford and other former US Presidents who's death weren't dramatic (more or leass -old age), shouldn't have State Funeral articles. Since Wikipedia came into being (2001), 2 former US Presidents have died, will all future former US Presidents get State Funeral articles? That's alot of 'extra' articles. After a 1-year wait, these State Funeral articles (for undramatic deaths), should be deleted Or at least trimed down. GoodDay 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's make this easy people. If a president gets a state funeral, he should get a state funeral article. I mean, who among us gets to decide which president was more important in death. No offence, but this argument is slightly absurd. A state funeral is news worthy, and amounts to enough information for it's own article. Even if you don't agree with me, at the least we should have a seperate article covering Ford's death for a few weeks, to wait for the news coverage cycle to complete. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep this article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.172.134 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] No merge is needed

I did a test run by merging Ford's death article with the main Ford article. The resulting page is terrribly long. We would serve Wikipedia users better if both Ford articles were kept seperate (in my view). For example, the main Reagan article is still seperate from his death article. In fact, info about his death in the main Reagan article is very short, with no pics either. Perhaps we could shorten the death info in the Gerald Ford article as well. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military Escort for Ford Family

In one sentence, Michael Wagner served as the military escort for the family, yet in another sentence, it says that Guy Swann served as the family's military escort. Which is correct? --TommyBoy (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy Swan SNIyer12 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)