Talk:Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 4, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Air Force One Pavillion

Can someone post a photo of the Air Force One pavillion here.--PremKudvaTalk 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Contra

The fact that the Reagan library removed all references to the biggest presidential scandal between Watergate and Clinton is revelant (and has been noted by dozens of scholars and commentators), and should be included as a pertinent fact in the wiki description of the museum. From reviewing the contributions of the users who repeatedly remove this fact, it appears that they feel the mere mention of Iran-Contra, and it's removal from the library, is somehow embarrassing to Reagan. This isn't a partisan shrine to Reagan. Please stop removing this fact. Info999 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I stongly disagree. I visited the Reagan Library yesterday, and although it does not mention the Iran Contra Affair in the exhibits, it does show the Iran Contra Affair in the entrance and welcome video, with people demanding Reagan resign, impeachment calls, and so forth. Then it had Reagan giving a speech from the Oval Office about the Iran Contra Affair, stating he had no knowledge and so forth. Although I do not have a link that you can follow, it is there. I won't delete the statment yet. Again, this statement is not relevant. Happyme22 17:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevancy has more to do with the fact that the exhibits were sanitized and less to do with whether or not there's a brief mention in a welcome video that fewer than half of visitors see. I'm curious...The Clinton Library now squarely deals with the impeachment/Lewinsky issue. What if, in a few years, the Clinton Library removes all references to the impeachment/Lewinsky issue (except leaves a minor mention - which is what Iran Contra gets in the film - in its welcome video)? Would you think it relevant to mention that removal in a wiki article about the Clinton Library? This isn't an article about Reagan, it's about the Library. The statement is relevant and should stay. The only people who seek to remove it seem to be Reagan partisans. Info999 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a Reagan partisan, and I resent your implying that I am. I hppen to think, however, that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents, but I am not about to rewrite the fatcs about the Reagan Presidency. There was a mention in the welcome video, end of statement. Even with that brief mention, it is not relevant to say, "Conspicuously absent (and formerly part of the permanent exhibit) is any reference to the most serious controversy generated during Reagan's presidency, the Iran-Contra Affair," as it is written in the article (my italics on any reference). There is a reference to it, so your claim is not valid. I just want everything to be truthful, and saying that there is no reference is a lie. It might be only a 30 second minor part of the movie, but it's there, so saying that the Library makes no reference to Iran Contra is blantantly false. You use the fact that the Clinton Library in Arkansas makes a reference to Clinton's Lewinsky-gate scandal; that's great. Clinton was impeached over that scandal; was Reagan impeached over Iran-Contra? I agree that there should be more mention of the Iran-Contra affair at the Reagan library, but I have absolutley no control over that. The bottom line is this: it's a lie to say that the Reagan Library makes no reference to Iran-Contra. Maybe try wording the sentence in a different way, saying that there is no major reference to the Iran-Contra scandal, but to say there isn't any is untrue. Here's what I've changed the sentence to: "Absent from the exhibits is any major reference to the Iran-Contra Affair, but the scandal is mentioned in the Library's welcome video." The statement is now true. Happyme22 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a little sad that you seem to spend an awful long time analyzing exactly what has been said, and exactly what should be said, and yet you completely ignore exactly what I said. You even quote me exactly, but apparently either misunderstood me or missed what I said. Take a look at my original statement, which is factually correct; the orientation film is NOT part of the permanent exhibit - and this is more than simply splitting hairs. The orientation film is produced by the Foundation; the permanent exhibit is produced by both the Foundation and the National Archives. What is in the permanent exhibit is very relevant. Within the permanent exhibit there used to be a panel on Iran-Contra; it was removed. That is a fact, that is relevant, and it will go back in the article, where it should remain. It's also a little sad that you claim not to be a Reagan partisan and then in the next sentence prove that you are (very sad if you don't know in 2007 that the only people left who think that Reagan was "one of the greatest presidents" are Reagan partisans (historians don't think so, political scientists don't think so, and many US citizens - especially those with a college degree - don't think so)).Info999 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think it's very sad that you claim to "just want everything to be truthful." Your claim to not being a Reagan partisan is clearly false in light of the dozens (hundreds?) of edits you've made just in the last two or three months to the Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan wiki articles. How sad. And by the way, nothing in my edits of this article display any partisan lean, one way or the other.Info999 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redux

I've removed the following (concurring with a previous deletion today):

Conspicuously absent from the permanent exhibit is the Iran-Contra Affair (which had been included in an earlier version of the permanent exhibit), but the episode is briefly mentioned in the Library's orientation film.Archives of Spin. The New York Times Company. Retrieved on 2008-02-25.

The NY Times source is from an opinion piece, and only states: For example, the museum in the Reagan Library does not mention the Iran-contra scandal. This covers none of the other assertions in the excised item, that the exhibt included it earlier, or that a mentions it briefly. Also, I gather from the WP article that the Libray occasionaly has Temporary exhibits. Was the Iran-Contra Affair is one of these exhibits? Maybe we should list everything that has been in the temporary exhibits, and call there removal or absense controversial?

There are better ways to phrase this to be less-obviously POV, provided we have a better source with more details. Assuming someone can provide a legitimate reason for including the item at all, perhaps a better way to state it would be:

On such date to such date, the Library featured items related to the Iran-Contr Affair as part of its normal [schedule/feature/slate?] of temporary thematic exhibits.

If someone can provide a reliably-sourced list of the Library's notable temporary exhibits, then perhaps adding that as a section, including the Iran-Contra mention) would be the best way to proceed with this. - BillCJ (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GOP Debate

Hi everyone. I'm going to add a section or paragraph (depends on how important it is) on the GOP Presidential Candidates Debate that was held at the Reagan Library earlier today, May 3, 2007. I want to clarify that my edits do good for Wikipedia, and User:Info999's attacks against me offend me, but they are lies. I am here to help Wiki articles. Happyme22 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to everything we saw yesterday (from the media and the event itself!), the "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library" could not be the host/sponsor of the debate; it is a federal government institution and so is prohibited by law from participating in political events. It is incorrect to cite the Library as the host/sponsor. The "Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation" and Mrs. Reagan were the official hosts/sponsors. There are several areas at the Library that belong to the Foundation, and are not federal government property; the Air Force One Pavillion (the location of the debate) is one of them. That area, the Presidential Learning Center (a two-tiered auditorium) and the main gift shop are where most political events are held. And by the way: questioning someone's motives is not an "attack"; calling them a liar certainly is. I wonder: will pointing out this hypocrisy also be labelled an "attack"?Info999 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Listen you're the one who keeps this fued going. I want to stop this right now, ok? I appologize for incorrectly labeling you as a liar, and so forth. I only started working on this page after I visted the Reagan Library, and found a truthful place where the Iran Contra affair is briefly mentioned, and we resloved that dispute, coming to a consensus, so why keep arguing? Again, I'm sorry. Happyme22 23:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't continue anything...out of the blue today and with no prompting you called me a liar. I think you were upset that I pointed out, correctly, that you were allowing your feelings about Reagan to inject POV in wiki articles. At first you claimed that you were not a Reagan partisan (above) and then went about demonstrating that you are. I think it's possible for one to be for or against someone or something but not let it influence one's edits...and I found some instances of that not being the case with some of your edits, and I pointed it out. For doing so, I get your diatribes and your name-calling. On your own page you claim that Reagan is your "hero"...above, you write that you think he was one of the "greatest Presidents"...and yet when I point out you're a Reagan partisan (a fact, mind you, not an attack), you call me a liar. I'm not all that upset by it, though, since inaccuracy, mendacity, inconsistency and hypocrisy are all hallmarks of Reagan and his ilk, and so I don't expect much else from his worshippers. And yet you won't find that sentiment, or anything even approaching it, in my edits. It takes effort, and it begins by admitting one's biases, and then carefully avoiding them in the edits. Good luck. Info999 03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jet Fighter image

The jet fighter image is not necessary on this page.

  • The page already consists of seven images, kind of maxed out for it's length;
  • The formatting is completely off, with it being the only image on the right side;
  • Aligning it with the others on the left is better, but the images below are off. The pics of Reagan's casket lying in repose and grave are now both in the Presidential Candidates debate section;
  • The jet is displayed at the library, yes, but it is not one of the major parts of the library. In fact, it sits out back. If anything, an image should be of the Berlin Wall or Reagan's limo but the article has enough images.

Again, there is no need for this image on this page, due to lack of space and formatting issues. Maybe once (or if) the article is expanded and space is created fr additional images, but not as of now. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to strongly disagee with you on this one, for several reasons:
  1. Six of the other pics are paired off, and this is the only one in a section that has no pics.
  2. It's on the left; the others are on the right, unless you have a Hebrew browser.
  3. The MOS-images recomends stagering the pics, and not having them all lined up on one side. You can look it up, as I have more points to address here.
  4. Other than the Lead image, it's the only pic with an outdoor view, and is a nice view anyway - int he "Exhibits and Scenery" section!
  5. Space and formatting aren't a problem, unless you're veiwing on a screen resolution smaller than mine, which is 800x600 on a 15-inch monitor.
  6. If any image needs to be removed, its the first AF1 pic. THe plane is a bit far away, and the front of the image is cluttered. The second pic has the VH-3 in it, so it shows two planes at once. Also, the first AFi image is in the VC-137C SAM 27000, but I had the courtesy to leave it in when I added the second pic. I can change my mind now, since the article is too crowded, and we don't need two of AF1.
For the record, let it be noted that you uploaded four of the 6 images on the page, and I uploaded the other AF1 and the F-14 image, though I am not the photographer.
I don't want to get in a turf-war fight with you, as neither of us owns the article. You've done a great job here, but, as I've stated, not everything is according to MOS, in spite of your claim otherwise. Please try to be flexible here, and realize that no one is right or wrong, we just have different oppinions. I'ts been your way for a while now, let some else have a shot. It's what I have to do on the articles I've created or expanded, including the VC-25 page, when a new editor came on and had some different ideas than I did. And when I had in mind one page for both VC-137Cs, I relented and allowed that same new editor free reign to create separate pages for SAM 26000 and 27000. And since he did such a great job with both of them, I have to admit he made a good choice.
So please, relax and be flexible here. It's not a bad thing to change up articles every so often - thats the fun of instant editing! - BillCJ 07:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly relaxed. I'm sorry that I said the pics were on the left as I got my directions confused for some reason! I think for this specific article, the images stacked on the right are better formatting wise, but if you can do something better please feel free to try. And your reasoning for adding this image was quite good, so please feel free. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I usually stack them on the left too. (Btw, I should have added a smile after the right-left comments, as I was pretty sure it was a typo or something.) I'll see what I can do about the layout, but that's not really my thing. I may have an editor I work with take a look - he's pretty good about tweaking pic layouts. It's late here in the ET zone, so I'll look at adding the F-14 pic and twaking layouts tomorrow. Btw, while I intedned to remove the first AF1 pic when I aded the second, I thought they looked great together, stacked up, and that's why I left the first one. They complement each other well. - BillCJ 07:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I tried. With the TOC on, the presidents and first ladies images sandwich some text depending on screen resolution. -Fnlayson 20:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] private funds

FWIW, since User:Info999 disputes the private funding being unusual claim, this is what the source I consulted says (from page 2456 of volume 4 of the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science): "Unlike other Presidential Libraries, which were built with federal funding, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was funded entirely through private donations". I've reworded the article to say "unlike some other", since that seems to me the weakest interpretation of what this source is claiming. If someone has a better source that contradicts this, feel free to add it. --Delirium 07:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your source is incorrect. FDR built the first presidential repository archive with private funds and donated it to the United States. Ever since the passage of the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955, this model has been codified into US law. The presidential libraries that came after FDR - Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton - were all also built with private funds and then donated to the United States. No federal funding was used in the construction of any of these libraries. You can see the relevant information here [1] and here [2]. Odd that the encyclopedia you source would be so off on this topic. Info999 07:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Hello. I thought I would review this as I actually got the chance to visit the library on my tour of America this summer. I have placed the article on hold as I have a few thoughts, mainly regarding content, style and a reference:

  • I assume this is a continuance of material from the LA times article but can you reference this - Ryan said Nancy Reagan expressed "surprise and disappointment" when he spoke with her regarding the affair.
Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The current temporary exhibition on Nancys clothes - when does this end? Do you know what is the next temp exhibition? Perhaps include this.
Y Done - The Reagan Library has a "calendar of events" page on their website (here) and updates it regularly. Happyme22 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Air Force One! On my visit I had one big question upon entering the hanger - how the hell did they get the plane in here.... Especially since the big class window at the front (the obvious entry point) looks out onto the valley and down a massive hill. Perhaps you could include this?
Haha! I'll loook for something. Happyme22 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reagan Library hosts many public events This would be better as The Reagan Library has hosted many events, including...
Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the inventory/poor records part should have its own subheading within Exhibits and scenery
Y Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How much did the building cost? How long did it take to build? Were there any planning problems?
Would that be the main building or AFO? I looked for the cost of the AFO pavilion and found nothing but I don't know about the main building. Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've found that the main building cost $60 million (see here), but I don't know about AFO. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you have addressed these and I will promote to GA. Thanks. LordHarris 09:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA passed. Good work. Thanks for addressing those points. LordHarris 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)