Talk:Richard Nixon

Add Books

Can you add Dean J. Kotlowski , Nixon's Civil Rights: Politics, Principle, and Policy and Joan Hoff, Nixon Reconsidered to the bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.120 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

notes

Eisenhower was the 34th president, not the 36th, and was succeeded by JFK not Johnson. Please fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9C1A:FBF:CCFB:BE21:B9DB:A14B (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017

After the line "when Chairman Mao invited a team of American table tennis players to visit China and play against top Chinese players.", please put "This later became known as the Ping-pong diplomacy." This because it's not currently linked on the page. 86.92.144.197 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Embedded wikilink in existing sentence instead of adding onto it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Nixon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202030631/http://millercenter.org/president/biography/nixon-campaigns-and-elections to http://millercenter.org/president/biography/nixon-campaigns-and-elections
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160729063732/https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/watergate/trial/exhibit_01.pdf to https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/watergate/trial/exhibit_01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol

In many ways this is a fine article, but I find it strange there is no mention of the subject's predilection for alcohol.

This story is an example of one which discusses it. Any thoughts? John (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see what more scholarly sources say about things, rather than popular stories. And, well, we've covered politicians drinking to the extent that it affects stuff. If material doesn't come out until thirty years later, I'm wondering if it really affected stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Summers and Swan, 2000, seems to be the source we need here. Here's a Guardian story about the same thing. Prescription drugs as well. John (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)–

Certainly whether more recent biographies and scholarly studies accept that would be a way of showing that. I don't recall seeing that in Black's bio, which is post 2000.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Part 1 of Guardian story
• New York Magazine, 1976
• Book source: Ronald Powalski
• Book source: Susan Cheever
• Book source: Anthony Summers
• Book source: Lebow and Stein
• Book source: Woodward and Bernstein

I will continue to look and think but I think this is something that belongs in the article. --John (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

These all seem to relate to the same incident. Not counting Ehrlichman's statement while awaiting sentencing for felonies. We don't seem to mention LBJ's drinking, even though the National Park Service rather celebrates it. I just don't think there's enough substance here to be worth adding.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. We disagree. What do others think? I remember Joe Haldeman writing about Nixon weeping drunkenly in the White House. And of course another article's omissions needn't restrain us from adding something here on this one. Not to be heavy handed but of course completeness and NPOV are FA criteria. John (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A fairly large number of FA regulars looked over this article and didn't seem to think it was necessary, there's WP:UNDUE for one thing. What makes it so gosh darn important that it must be covered at the top level article, rather than in the Presidency article (if it need be covered at all) or some of the other Nixon articles? But in any event, what would you say? A sentence, a paragraph, a section? And without synthesis.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I would argue for a well sourced sentence or two. John (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of proposed text and sources? I'd tend to omit this in general. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue to read and collect sources before I do this. There is no hurry, and as Wehwalt says, the article has survived this long and even been through peer review in this state. I would say at his stage that I'd be surprised if there would be this many good book and Internet sources describing the drunkenness of other presidents. --John (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"These all seem to relate to the same incident." Yes. John, are you sure your not half reading the sources to reinforce a sort of half thought through, heard somewhere, received belief. Otherwise, please come to the table with a definitive position, rather than wasting time. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure, thanks. Have a go at reading them yourself and you'll see. John (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I already have, before and now. So what now? Ceoil (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Violent protests?

I'm unhappy that the article characterises the protests against the war as violent. Can this really be justified? John (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

First sentence(s).

The consensus is to keep the first sentence as is.

Cunard (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since Nixon was more than President of the United States -- he is also noted for serving in the House, Senate, and as Vice President, I propose that the first sentence be divided into two and generalised to read:

"Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was an American politician. Nixon served as the 37th President of the United States from 1969 until 1974, when he resigned from office, the only U.S. president to do so."

This would be somewhat more consistent with many of the other articles on American presidents, such as this and this. Thanks, Nechemia Iron (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Many presidential articles that have passed through FAC, such as John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, James Garfield, Warren G. Harding and Harry Truman do not. I'm not aware of any FA reviewer even asking for those words. The reason for omitting them is that it adds five words for no added information at the point in the article at which we are to be the most pithy, especially since in google and other brief formats, we get very little space. It therefore pays to choose words that will provide the most bang for the buck. "Was an American politician who". Well, although four had never been elected to any office, all 44 presidents have been politicians, and certainly all are American, it's implied in the term "United States". It adds nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the article supposed to be frozen as it was for FAC? Why is this about google? First sentence should probably be a summary of sorts. Nechemia Iron (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not frozen, but as with most contentious changes, you require consensus. It is a summary. Your first sentence would be a less complete summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

So your mentioning FAC is not relevant? "Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was an American politician." is not less complete. The article is not just about his presidency. Nechemia Iron (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. Many experienced writers looked at it then and in the peer review. Among other things, they looked at the first sentence. I suppose that goes to the weight of the consensus. Your version repeats matters unnecessarily, and the first sentence does not establish the significance of the subject. If I don't seem to answer your points, its because the points you are making have shifted from consistency with other articles to other matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, William Howard Taft and Franklin Pierce have similar phrasings to Nixon's, and are FAs. At least nine FAs now. Probably a few dozen FAC reviewers between them thought the phrasing was fine..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC: I think you should have allowed more time for the many talk page watchers to weigh in before starting one so quickly. I think it's premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I !vote to leave the first sentence as-is.

The goal of the first sentence of a WP article is to assure the reader that they have the right article, and not some other subject that has a similar name that they've got wrong somehow. A few famous people, like Benjamin Franklin, are notable in many different areas and it may be hard to reduce their notability down to a single phrase. But most famous people, despite the full list of all their varied activities, are primarily known for just one thing. Nixon falls into this group. The phrase for him is "the US President that resigned".

Of course, as quickly as possible after the one notable thing, an intro should get to the most notable of the other things about the subject. We're doing that here already. So, the proposed change is not an improvement for this article. (It might be more "fair" to Nixon, but that can't be part of WP's job.)

--A D Monroe III (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Preserve as is, for the same reasons as expressed by A D Monroe III. BorisG (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with ADMonroe. I tried to work int he politicain part in my head, and kept coming up with the current lead. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing RFC, consensus is keep as is; and I accept this. Thank you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For future reference and clarification, the first sentence at the time of this RFC was:

Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States from 1969 until 1974, when he resigned from office, the only U.S. president to do so.

The RFC is about breaking this into two sentences, moving the resignation down to the 2nd sentence. Moving the resignation out of the first sentence was rejected by this RFC. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

War on Drugs - New Section?

The monumental policy failure of the "War on Drugs," which still affects the world today, may warrant it's own complete section in this article. - Sleyece (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The one passed by a Democratic congress and affirmed by every administration since then?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that the war on drugs doesn't get more coverage in this article. The fact that other administrations have continued the policy only makes it more relevant. Orser67 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The "War on Drugs" is still a notable policy change in the Nixon administration, regardless of the concurrence of the Democratic Party-dominated Congress of the time in passing it into law. The War on Drugs began changing our national priorities, our diplomacy and our code of Federal and state laws immediately after its adoption as policy. Passage of laws enabling that policy by Congress doesn't entirely explain its implementation during the Nixon administration, especially given journalism which throws light on the political reasons for the War on Drugs. I agree that the "War on Drugs" ought to be a section with its own heading. loupgarous (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree on including more. War on drugs itself is notable, and Nixon is noted repeatedly in our article on it. I don't know if it needs more than a paragraph, however. Maybe start by expanding our current mention to that much, and see how it goes? If it does need its own section, it will be easier to see where it fits once we see how its covered. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Nixon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808222147/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/VolArm.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/VolArm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

This page lists Richard Nixon as divorced. He was not divorced. Richard Nixon had one wife for his lifetime. SingingM (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That little 'd' is for died, not divorced. Nixon's wife died in 1993. Nothing here to fix. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

1968 peace talks -- redux

The issue that never seems to go away....

I see from a discussion in March 2013 that a paragraph was put into the article that was agreed to on Johnson, the peace talks, and the campaign's dealings with Anna Chennault.

Alas, as we Nixon-followers know, the Farrell book and Ken Burns documentary popped the question wide open again. Recently, the following paragraph was inserted into the text underneath the agreed-to paragraph:

In late 2016, historian John Farrell publicized notes in which Haldeman wrote down Nixon's instructions during the campaign (these notes had been provided to the Nixon library by the Nixon estate in 2007). In an October 22, 1968 phone call with Nixon, Haldeman wrote, “Any other way to monkey wrench it? Anything RN can do,” and “Keep Anna Chennault working on SVN” [South Vietnam]. It is not clear whether the government of South Vietnam needed much encouragement to opt out of a peace process they considered disadvantageous.[124]

Aside from growing WP:WEIGHT issues that this places on the article, many new sources have come to light ---a few only in the last few days and weeks--- that call the near-uniform opinion of political pundits and prominent journalists into question; below are the opinions of five of them.

Charlie Hill: "At this point in the film’s arrangement of its story, significance is given to the charge that after the Tet Offensive, then presidential candidate Richard Nixon signaled to President Thieu of South Vietnam that better terms could be had if Thieu rejected negotiations until after Nixon was elected. This calumny was not invented until a generation later, by a professional polemicist aiming to blame Nixon for continuing the war when it could have come to an end in the Sixties. The film’s producers leave its viewers assuming it was true." [1]

Niall Ferguson: "Did the South Vietnamese really need Richard Nixon to have been informed by anybody that there was an October surpsie coming, that they would then need to sabotage? Anybody that's been properly trained as an historian knows that on that test, this case collapses because it was absolutely clear to anybody who read the papers that there was an October Surprise in the pipeline and that, secondly, a Nixon administration would be tougher than a Humphrey administration; that was because they both made their positions absolutely clear. And therefore, the South Vietnamese, who had pretty good intelligence sources of their own, they didn't need any of this to know that this was in the pipeline and that they should hang tough... This is one of the biggest red herrings I've come across." [2]

Luke Nichter: "Because sabotaging the ’68 peace efforts seems like a Nixon-like thing to do, we are willing to accept a very low bar of evidence on this." [3]

Jack Torry: "To those who believe the worst of Nixon, Haldeman’s notes provide conclusive proof that Nixon risked thousands of American lives to win the presidency by secretly telling the South Vietnamese government to boycott peace talks. In a lurid headline, the Huffington Post declared: “Proof that Nixon ‘Monkey-Wrenched’ Vietnam Peace Talks.” But nothing Nixon said that night had the slightest impact on any deal which could have ended U.S. involvement in the war. The undisputed fact is there was no chance for a peace agreement in 1968 which would have been accepted by any American president." [4]

Victor Davis Hanson: "Recently, another old charge of foreign collusion has been resurrected. Democrats allege that during the 1968 campaign, Republican nominee Richard Nixon opened a back channel to the South Vietnamese to convince them to stall peace talks to end the Vietnam War. Supposedly, Nixon was worried that President Lyndon Johnson might order a halt to the bombing. Then, Johnson opportunistically would start peace talks in order to help his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, defeat Nixon in the election. Regardless of these unproven charges and countercharges, Nixon's narrow victory in 1968 was a result instead of a law-and-order message, a new Southern strategy, the third-party candidacy of Democrat George Wallace, an unpopular incumbent Democratic president, an inept Humphrey campaign, and unhappiness with the ongoing quagmire in Vietnam." [5]

Not to mention the Nixon Foundation's many solid questions about the context of the Haldeman notes and Farrell's interpretation of them: https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2017/06/misunderstanding-a-monkey-wrench/

Therefore, it may be time to rethink how we describe the Chennault information in this article, knowing that the last agreed-to text was put in over four years ago and that the subject can (and should) be elaborated on in other articles such as Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968.

I would propose we scrap the existing two paragraphs, and settle for something like the following:

Johnson's negotiators hoped to reach a truce, or at least a cessation of bombings, in Vietnam prior to the election. On October 22, 1968, candidate Nixon received information that Johnson was preparing a so-called "October surprise" to elect Humphrey in the last days of the campaign, and his administration had abandoned three non-negotiable conditions for a bombing halt. Whether the Nixon campaign interfered with any ongoing negotiations between the Johnson administration and the South Vietnamese by engaging Anna Chennault, a prominent Chinese-American fundraiser for the Republican party, remains an ongoing controversy. While notes uncovered in 2016 may support such a contention, the context of said notes remains of debate and it is not clear whether the government of South Vietnam needed much encouragement to opt out of a peace process they considered disadvantageous.

Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Any comments on this proposal? Happyme22 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your solution is acceptable to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I updated the article with the solution above. Happyme22 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Images

Images are placed here unlike in any other article. Why?Ernio48 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please review the discussions on this talk page and its archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

Under the VP list for Nixon's presidency, Gerald Ford is not hyperlinked to Gerald Ford's page. Maherblast (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

But he is just above that as successor.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't catch this. The successor part was actually below the vice-president part, so that may have been confusing. Plus Lyndon B. Johnson is linked twice, so I figured it wouldn't hurt. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on it, but this is something that seems to go back and forth in this and other political articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Kings of Britain

All the five sons of Richard Nixon's parents were named after kings of Britain. There were three Donalds who were kings of Scotland.Barney Hill (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"American Politican"

The lead should include "American politican," per consensus reached on similar articles. See Barack Obama archived talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81#%22American_politician%22.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's one article. There is nothing in the MOS that requires it. Many articles do not, many of which are featured. The idea is that "President of the United States" conveys both nationality and profession without need for repetition.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the link you provide, it looks like there was discussion between a very few editors, and further discussion was to be had but it seems did not occur. There was no discussion of the merits, it was just "other recent presidents" have it. (in some cases, of course, because they've been changed). That is hardly "heavily debated". Until the other articles were pointed out, it looks like sentiment was to keep the "American politician" out of the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't read the entire page, and there was in fact extensive discussion on this precise issue. The consensus reached was that in a biographical article, it should be noted what the subject IS and not just what their position was. The page I linked (Barack Obama) page offers a perfect example of a well-written lead for a former U.S. president.

Furthermore, can you explain why the preponderance of articles about U.S. senators, congressmen, and other elected officials begins with "American politician" or a similar descriptor? If Nixon had never been elected president, was never VP, and had only been a senator, THEN would it be justified to describe him as an "American politician?" I maintain that the best lead for this article should identify Nixon as such.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand you prefer that phrasing. But nine presidential articles I've taken through FAC lack such things, plus probably a couple of vice presidential article. So the people the community trusts to look at articles and see if it is top-level content is on board with it.

My objection is to wasting words. We have a couple of dozen words to get the reader's attention. We should not waste them from what is clearly a repetition of meaning.

Regarding other offices: it depends. I've written them without, I probably have written them with that or a similar construction, I'd have to look. Whether or not there is a "preponderance" one way or the other, it's worth remembering that most congressional articles, on some worthy of the 1840s, are easily changed. Featured content is less so, where objection is raised. Therefore, numbers don't show anything, even if you are right, it just means someone has spent time changing them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikieditor, I looked again for the further discussion you mention. All I see is the brief discussion concluded by MelanieN. Is there a further discussion? Note that it is often helpful to cite diffs, if you are familiar with the term. Despite what you may think, I am very interested in reading what editors have written on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt You can't deny there has been more discussion by the community and far higher traffic on the pages I linked (Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford). It's not just me who thinks that the words "American politician" should be included, and it's not just preference. I think that for a biographical article, the lead sentence should indicate more about the person than just their most notable position. Bill Gates's page's opening sentence doesn't read, "Bill Gates is the founder of Microsoft." That's because for a biographical article, that type of description is awkward and omits important information. I argue that the same applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't find your example pertinent. Being the founder of Microsoft does not carry with it any information on nationality. "President of the United States" does. This article is in full compliance with MOS:OPENPARABIO, the relevant guideline, and from the examples you will see there, it is permissible to structure the lede sentence in various ways. As for amount or quality of discussion, I like to think high quality discussion goes on at FAC. God knows there's a lot of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that Barack Obama is a featured article right? And second, can you cite one of these "high quality discussions" that led to consensus favoring your version of the lead i.e. not including "American politician?" And finally, the template you cited does in fact indicate nationality as something that should be identified in the lead sentence.23:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)

The discussion postdated the featuring. I notice you haven't replied to the substance of what I've written. Nationality is presently disclosed in the first sentence as saying "President of the United States" means that he is American.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. Don't see the need for it. Prez carries enough of that. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually addressed your point earlier with the following hypothetical: If a U.S. senator (most pages on U.S. senators begin with their nationality) is elected president, then is the subject's nationality removed from the lead? I think most reasonable people would say no. It doesn't matter if nationality is implied: the nationality and profession ("American politician") are appropriate for the lead to a biographical article. The consensus on the vast majority of articles about U.S. presidents and ALL modern U.S. presidents supports including the version I proposed.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt can you explain how what you're doing is not WP:STONEWALLING? Consensus for the changes you reverted has already been established other presidential FA's and it took two editors to point out a grammatical error to you before you stop reverting both. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I would not say I am. There is a yes/no answer to this without a great deal of wiggle room. We disagree. You, on the other hand, could be seen ss acting as if you are trying to force it through even though you lack consensus--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I just linked you the consensus for the change. You seem to think that no longer changes or improvements to the article are necessary now that it's reached FA status and that it's your role to automatically revert other's edits. That doesn't lend itself to a productive editing process. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus at Barack Obama would be a local consensus, that does not bind other articles. I think we've discussed this. There are any number of presidents with similar phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Except it's also the consensus at every other article on a contemporary president (see Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, JFK, and LBJ)) as well as just about every article on a U.S. senator or representative. The articles I cited are arguably the highest traffic and where the most discussion has occurred by far and serve as far better reference points than your limited selection of WP:CHERRYPICKed examples on pages where there is comparatively far less discussion and attention.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot poor Jimmy Carter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Doubtless you changed some of them as you came to Nixon. It is easy to change, sometimes. The Manual of Style requires neither. It's not a vote. But if it was, why is contemporary different from others? Is there one standard for post-19XX presidents and another for before? For as you know, many, including Harry Truman, Warren G. Harding, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, James A. Garfield, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, James K. Polk and John Tyler do not have that language. And yet each and every one of them are FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I went and edited all of those articles to read "an American politican etc.," because that wouldn't be absurdly easy to verify, right? No, each of them reads that way and has read that way for some time because that was the consensus reached on each of those pages. And like I said, even though the articles you linked are FAs, there has been relatively less (by a lot) discussion on each and the primary contributors are apparently a small group of editors. The articles that I linked are all high-traffic with each sentence painstakingly pored over by dozens of editors, and that process resulted in the articles leading sentence being worded as XXX is an American politician (or other occupation) who served as the Xth president.... Based on that, the articles I linked would indicate a much broader consensus than those you linked above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not how things work, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't respond whatsoever to my argument. The examples I linked above show conclusively that there is greater talk page consensus and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for the changes I and other editors have proposed in the leading sentence. Your argument seems to be that whatever exists on an FA is perfect and should never be changed. And by the way, Barack Obama and Gerald Ford are FA's. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as greater talk page consensus. None of that changes the MOS, which is what we are to follow, and the MOS, as I've said, does not require such a formulation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It might not require it but it absolutely does not prohibit it. And our disagremeent earlier was about consensus, and I maintain that there is greater consensus for the above-proposed language. I believe the pages I cited support that position. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wife-beating allegations

I can find no reference in this article, or in Pat Nixon's, to the allegations that he was abusive towards her. See [6] for example. Of course, the allegations are unproven and by their nature cannot be verified, but the article should at least reflect the fact that they exist. --Viennese Waltz 07:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No, allegations are not sufficient, we would need much more high quality sources for such extraordinary claims.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are reliable sources which state that wife-beating occurred, and reliable sources which state that it did not. I don't see the problem with including both of these in the article. The criterion is verifiability, not truth. --Viennese Waltz 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

They are fourth or fifth hand hearsay. What we generally call "rumors".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, but OK. I look forward to seeing you change your position when other sources emerge, as they surely will. --Viennese Waltz 07:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.254.1.7 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy with date of founding of Nixon Center

Near the end of the "author and elder statesman" section - this article gives the founding date as January 1991, while the main article for the center says January 1994. If anyone has a reference and can see which is correct, one of them needs to be changed.

Bomb319 (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Good catch! It has been corrected. Happyme22 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

New top. It would be easier to understand.

Richard Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States.

• Vietnam - The President Nixon’s reelection campaign said he did everything in his power to bring peace to Vietnam without sacrificing the South Vietnamese in the process. He brought home 500,000 men . . . reduced casualties by 98% . . . and cut spending by two-thirds. He took strong steps to end northern aggression and make peace. When he took office in '69, there were 543,400 U.S. Troops in Vietnam; by '72 there were 39.000.

• Drugs - The President won an agreement from Turkey to place a total ban on the growing of opium poppy . . . made an agreement with France to assist in halting the traffic of drugs . . . and stepped up arrests of pushers. He spent 6 times more for rehabilitation and 5 times more for drug education than ever before. Combined these actions were to “turn the tide against the drug scourge.”

• Health Care - President Nixon earmarked massive amounts of money to find a cure for cancer and sickle cell anemia. Federal outlays for health care and research in 1973 were planned to reach $25.5 billion, and the President proposed a National Health Insurance Standards Act, a Family Health Insurance Plan, and the National health Education Foundation, all aiming at better health care for EVERYONE.

• Older Americans- President Nixon submitted proposals to Congress which increased Social Security benefits to the nation's elderly by more than one-third from 1969 to 1972 - a greater increase than in any period in history till then of similar length. The President also advanced programs to enable more of the elderly to live in their own homes, and to improve nursing care and increase jobs for these same citizens.

• Revenue Sharing- In order to relieve the burden of taxes at the State and local level – i.e. property, sales, income and other taxes - the President proposed a program to make more monies available to local governments by sharing a portion of Federal revenues with them. Offered with no strings attached, this program was to encourage problem-solving at the local level where many of the problems are.

• Crime - The president's vigorous law-enforcement policies cut the increase in the nation's serious crime rate to 1% in the first quarter of 1972. Eighty (over half) of U.S. major cities had actual decreases in crime, and Washington, D.C. achieved a 30% decrease during 1971. This decrease in crime increase was credited by Nixon to his program of increased aid to states and localities.

• Young Americans - President Nixon signed into law the bill giving 18-year-olds the right to vote . . . overhauled the selective service system with the goal of establishing an all-volunteer army . . . and proposed an education program that would guarantee a college education to all who qualify, and vocational education training for those who do not wish to attend college.

• Foreign Policy - President Nixon went to Moscow in May of 1972 where he negotiated agreements with the Soviet Union to jointly explore space and combat the diseases plaguing mankind and to limit development of antiballistic missiles. In March, he visited Peking where he made a start toward improving relations between the U.S. and the People's China. The President called a halt to crisis diplomacy, seeking to reduce tension in such troubled areas as the Middle East.

• The Environment - President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, the first Federal unit ever set up to protect U.S. quality of life. He increased funding for environmental improvement by over 500%, and initiated a Legacy of Parks program to bring increased recreational opportunities to cities. No less than 25 separate environment bills were proposed by him before his reelection.

• The Economy - President Nixon took strong action to flatten inflation and increase employment. He initiated a 90-day wage-price freeze, followed by more flexible controls, and introduced a package of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The inflation rate was cut in half, and the Gross National Product expanded at a yearly rate of over 7%. Housing starts were up as well.

He resigned for spying on the Democrats during his re-election campaign. He died in 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvola (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

FROM: In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program.[

TO: In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program. He also pushed for African American civil rights and economic equity through a concept known as black capitalism. FOOTNOTE: Frazier, Nishani (2017). Harambee City: Congress of Racial Equality in Cleveland and the Rise of Black Power Populism. University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1682260186. pgs. 184-207) 216.196.231.130 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Thinker78 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Outsized images

The giant centered images on this page go against MoS policy on size and placement, and are unwarranted. Per MOS:IMGSIZE, extra large images are useful on pages like Baroque, where viewing detail is important, but there is no need for that here. The purpose of the MoS is to provide consistency across pages. It is also based on consensus, of a larger pool of editors than this page. So deviating from policy should only be done for a reason. I've worked on the image layouts of almost every U.S. President page, and none of the others has oversized images like this. Why should Nixon's? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts all have MoS style layouts, but the guy who resigned in disgrace gets extra large images? Please explain. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

They are useful, as has been pointed out in the past, as a text break and as setting a theme for the sections to follow.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We have section headers to accomplish that. Why would this page use a completely different layout style than other like pages? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd contest whether there are "like articles", but in any event, the matter has been discussed, and I feel obliged to defend talk page consensuses reached.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert about possible segregation policy

I reverted Wehwalt's revert because I did not write my opinion as possibly indicated in the summary, but tried to synthesize the information contained in the source and at the same time acomodate it with the apparently contradictory preceding info. If the editor was referring that the sourced info is an opinion of a writer and does not agree with it, then that would be editorial bias, contrary to WP:NPOV. I added info per an edit request which I tried to balance with other info, so it wouldn't be undue weight on a certain point of view regarding motivations or actions by Nixon. Thinker78 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that Rjensen has reverted you too, you don't seem to have consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen, I wrote in the article, "which may have been a segregationist political strategy", referring to black capitalism. You said in the edit summary of your revert, "source does NOT say black capitalism was 'segregationist' -- he says Nixon gained 'the full-throated support of many [Black] activists'". But the source says, and I quote, "The southern strategy, as it became known, opposed overt forms of race discrimination but rejected any government effort at integration [...] The notion of 'black capitalism' was another part of this strategy." I think that when the source says "rejected any government effort at integration" it indicates that was a segregationist strategy. In the article I attempted synthesizing what the article said, I did not quote verbatim. Thinker78 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a mixup here regarding "segregationist" it usually means white racism in the South. But here it means Black power. Nixon promoted "Black capitalism" and for that has been strongly attacked by people who deeply distrust capitalism, and strongly supported by lots of others. However there is no support for the synthetic conclusion that it may have been designed to appeal to white segregationists. That is NOT stated by the cited source--an essay by Mehrsa Baradaran. She firmly believes that the American banking system, which Nixon promoted, is antidemocratic and bad for blacks, as seen in her book How the Other Half Banks: Exclusion, Exploitation, and the Threat to Democracy (2015). That is a strong attack on American capitalism and I think a minority viewpoint among scholars. Her cited essay describes Nixon's policy: Black business and black banking, the theory went, would be the “key to black economic progress” because they would allow black communities to use their own money to create a “beneficial multiplier effect.” She states: This move allowed Nixon to neutralize black resistance—indeed, to enlist the full-throated support of many activists....By discouraging welfare dependency in the name of “black enterprise,” he was able to undermine black demands for economic redress and reparations. “People who own their own homes,” he reasoned, “don’t burn their neighborhoods.” In terms of scholarship, the Journal of Black Studies September 2001, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p66-83 argues that Nixon responded to the Black Power movement by instituting a new policy of black capitalism during, designed to contain and channel Black Power so that it supported capitalism and offered blacks economic empowerment. He set up The National Black Economic Development Conference in 1969 to lay the groundwork for black capitalism. It came under heavy attack from Jesse Jackson and never accomplished much. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Title vs. office capitalization

@Wehwalt, while titles that appear with, or in place of names, should be capitalized, they should not be when merely denoting the name of the office. WP:JOBTITLES gives the use-case scenario for each; there should be little room for confusion as the exact example given in the MOS is: "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." That's different than saying he was "serving as President of the United States" or "was President of the United States", in which the title stands in for a name. However, when the name of the office appears as having been occupied by many different people, e.g.: "Nixon was the 37th president", then it shouldn't be capitalized. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point as a technical matter; as a matter of what the reader expects to see, I'm not so sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Technical or not, the MOS gives the exact use case; it is even Nixon in the example. According to the WP:MOS lead, it should take precedence whenever there's a contradiction. Therefore, all the articles should match the MOS (or if in error, the MOS should be changed). UpdateNerd (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Legacy section expansion

Just a heads up that I plan to expand the 'Legacy' section over the coming weeks. Nixon's legacy remains so overarching and so vast today, the section could use more juice. The content may even manifest itself into an entirely new article, depending on how much information I can pull together. Hope to work collaboratively with all involved. Happyme22 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Historical Ranking

There is no statement on Nixon's general ranking among historians at the end of the intro, as there is for virtually every other president. This should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.254.1.7 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Views section?

I believe this article would benefit from a section on his views. Anything he was focused on, such as communism and domestic issues, but also some more controversial things. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

map edit request

If i'm reading the article right, the map in the Richard Nixon#House of Representatives section belongs in the Richard Nixon#Senate section instead.

The map is color coded but lacks this explanation of the colors:
Nixon:      50-59%      60-69%      70-79%
Douglas:      50-59%

In fact, is there a way to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_Senate_Election_Results_by_County,_1950.svg to include that explanation?

Thank you.

71.121.143.220 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The map was made for the article 1950 United States Senate election in California and really isn't needed here so I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson quote

I think that the quote from Thompson's article "He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president... His body should have been burned in a trash bin" better reflects the overall tone of the article (described earlier in the paragraph as "scathing") than the quote "a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy." The second quote is less colourful and the second part ("very dangerous") could be misinterpreted as a compliment. The whole article is written in terms which correspond more to the first quote. Richard75 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the quote in question says more about Thompson than about Nixon. My view is that in a legacy section, we should say things that teach us about the subject, and avoid extremes and imprecations. We are not trying to be "colourful"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing to be colourful for colour's sake, but to be representative of what Thompson said. However you are probably right. Richard75 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood, and sorry about the rollback.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt on this one. Happyme22 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Resignation in lede

There's been a slow edit war on removing this statement in the lede: he resigned from office, the only American president to do so. The latest is by Happyme22.

There was an RFC related to this (#First sentence(s).).

In that RFC, I stated The goal of the first sentence of a WP article is to assure the reader that they have the right article, and not some other subject that has a similar name that they've got wrong somehow. A few famous people, like Benjamin Franklin, are notable in many different areas and it may be hard to reduce their notability down to a single phrase. But most famous people, despite the full list of all their varied activities, are primarily known for just one thing. Nixon falls into this group. The phrase for him is "the US President that resigned". Other editors in the RFC specifically agreed with this statement.

To remove the fact he resigned from the lede would require a change in consensus, which is not in evidence.

If there's no reason given in opposition, I will restore the resignation statement to the lede.

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say that Nixon is known for many other things as well, as the length of the article will testify.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is known for many things, and all the primary things go in the lede. That he resigned is what he's best known for, so it not only goes in the lede, it should be primary among the others. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 13:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur that the phrase "he resigned from office, the only American president to do so" belongs in the lede. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather baffled that anyone should think it shouldn't go in the lead. It's what he's best known for, it's what makes him stand out amongst all the other run-of-the-mill American presidents. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It was already in the lede. I have restored it at the start of the second paragraph, which as I recall is how it usually has been since it became FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit by Wehwalt is unhelpful. First, it attaches the resignation to the sentence about his previously being VP, which appears to either associate his resignation with his being VP, or is just a run-on sentence. Second, any change to text that's still under active discussion is normally seen as disruptive. Third, the change in wording is against the RFC consensus. I'll revert unless substantial support is presented. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The wording at present is that from the time of FA promotion, a consensus process at which better writers than I looked at it. That is itself substantial support. If need be, I can ping the reviewers from the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

FAC review state in no way prevents changes. Consensus in the RFC was after the FAC review. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent changes, but it requires consensus. The first sentence already notes that he was the 37th president of the United States, and is similar to many other presidential FAs: McKinley, Harding, among others.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What other articles do for other presidents might be relevant if any of them resigned.

What policy requires consensus for any change from the FA review stage?

Anyway, we have consensus for that change in the RFC. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was not to make a change. That's a little different from a consensus version being achieved as with a FAC. But I do see your point that both are cloaked with remoteness from the perspective of 2019.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. The FA state was brought up with the claim it required consensus to change; I noted that's not policy. I further pointed out that we have consensus anyway from the RFC. The RFC ended with consensus on wording specifically including resignation; that requires new consensus to change.

Removing text during discussion against consensus is, by definition, disruptive EW, unless the editors that do this realize their mistake and revert their edit.

Zero reason has been presented for why the resignation doesn't belong in a primary position in the lede. If that's not immediately forthcoming, I'll restore it per the most recent consensus. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, see my comments above. There was no consensus for a change. That was not the same as consensus for the resignation to be in the first sentence. If there was, you would not have had to go through deprecating Happyme22, and then my writing. You are trying to push your way to the result you want and generally that doesn't tend to go well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for any offense. My comments were about the evident effects of the edit, not the intent of editor, which I have no way of knowing.

To step back, we have several reasons given in favor of putting his resignation in the primary position in the lede. We have the consensus in the RFC on the wording that included the resignation (I don't see how anyone could claim it doesn't have that). If that wasn't enough, we have consensus in this discussion to include it that way. And the whole basis of this is Nixon is most famous as the one US President that resigned; that's most exceptional. Anyone reading this that doesn't already know that for sure would benefit from having that stated clearly and prominently, so they know they have the right article; it would be a disservice for WP not do provide this.

Against all this, the reason not include it is... what? There's plenty of comments picking on other comments here, but no actual reasoning that addresses why his resignation must not be mentioned in the lede sentence.

Seriously, without that, why do we go on with this? So, again, without a reason given not to, I'll restore the consensus, both for the readers' benefit to and allow us all to get on with useful WP work. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do I need to repeat myself? The no consensus for change result of the RFC did not preclude later changes. And I think it should remain consistent with other presidential articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Why indeed? With nothing left to say, and the only attempt at a reason not to state Nixon's resignation in the lede being a personal preference that this article, about the only president that resigned, might somehow follow the lack of mention of resigning used in the articles of the other presidents, none of whom resigned(!), and no counter given to the multiple reasons presented for consensus wording of resignation, I can only consider this closed, and will the restore consensus wording. Hopefully we can now all proceed to more useful and important work elsewhere in WP. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

In summary, this thread is about whether Nixon's resignation as president goes in the 1st sentence (about his term as president), or the 2nd sentence (about his term as vice president).

Despite consensus in this thread, one editor has edited against this, moving the resignation to the 2nd sentence, without presenting anything I can identify as a valid reason, and without further comment here. I'm at a loss to understand why a very experienced and valued editor would insist on doing this.

So, I'm asking for help. Instead of just edit warring, I'm seeking renewed definite statements on this issue to emphatically clarify consensus. I'm pinging the editors in this thread, Happyme22, Wehwalt, Thinker78, DuncanHill, as well as the additional editors in the RFC above that also established consensus for the 1st sentence wording, Nechemia Iron, BorisG, L3X1. Any other editors' are free to comment as well, of course.

I'm hoping doing this makes the consensus completely clear to all, without resorting to starting a full RFC, since that would just be repeating the last RFC, with no reason given to change it, then or since. Thus I believe a full formal RFC would just consume many more editors' time unnecessarily. This hopefully avoids that.

If this doesn't clarify consensus, I'll have to go ahead with a full formal RFC. Of course, if I'm completely wrong and consensus is for this edit, I'll accept that and just close this thread. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I would be more impressed if you hadn't begun by being insulting. You seem to change your arguments fairly often. Leaving that aside, the changes would be to exchange a comma and a period, so as to make it the end of the first sentence rather than the start of the second. The fact that Nixon was president, the years of his presidency and the number president he is, is the first sentence, like in many other presidential articles. Spiro Agnew, a recent FA, has his resignation in the second sentence. Is this really worth all of this?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Feeling insulted is not an argument supporting one's edit. If need be, it can be brought up before a drama board, but it's off-topic here.

Yes, I have added to my supporting arguments; there are many to make.

The change is indeed textually very small. If someone thought it was equally small in significance, they wouldn't bother to argue or edit against consensus.

Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't relevant in general, but articles about presidents that didn't resign are absurdly irrelevant.

Does this constitute the summation of reasons to put it in the 2nd sentence? If not, perhaps that can be added as a bullet point below, to more easily address the issue rather than the editors. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And why do you want people to participate in a discussion where you've already pre-stated you won't respect the outcome unless you like it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I just stated above, Of course, if I'm completely wrong and consensus is for this edit, I'll accept that and just close this thread. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• To restate my own reasoning here: The goal of the first sentence of a WP article is to assure the reader that they have the right article, and not some other subject that has a similar name that they've got wrong somehow. A few famous people, like Benjamin Franklin, are notable in many different areas and it may be hard to reduce their notability down to a single phrase. But most famous people, despite the full list of all their varied activities, are primarily known for just one thing. Nixon falls into this group. The phrase for him is "the US President that resigned". Nixon's resignation makes him unique. He had many achievements, and I think would be considered a great president otherwise, but according to sources, Watergate overshadowed it all. As with any article, the most notable thing about this subject goes in the most notable position in the article -- the first sentence. If we don't do this, we not only miss-serve our readers, we tacitly imply that WP has some shame or fear about this fact. Nixon's resignation of the presidency belongs in the sentence that states the years of his presidency -- the first sentence. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• And as I said, it's useful to have a uniformity among articles and this begins similarly to many other presidential articles, each known for their own distinction. It's also similar to the Agnew article, someone known even more for resigning, where the fact of his resignation is similarly placed. It's really no different from the editor who wanted to add "an American politician" after "was" in the lede sentence.

Just like we begin FDR, an article I have nothing to do with:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (/ˈroʊzəvəlt/, /-vɛlt/; January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), often referred to by initials FDR, was an American statesman and political leader who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. A member of the Democratic party, he won a record four presidential elections and became a central figure in world events during the first half of the 20th century.

His four terms make him unique bu it's in the second sentence. That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I would favor putting it in the second sentence. Keep the first sentence simple and non-controversial. There's no ambiguity as to which Richard Nixon served as president from 1969 to 1974. Orser67 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

I'd favor removing it entirely from the first paragraph, as I did several months ago, for it does not define Nixon's entire career except, perhaps, to the casual observer and 11th grade U.S. history student. Is the resignation part of his legacy? Absolutely. A big part? Yes. So was his equaling FDR in the number of times he was on a presidential ticket (five -- the most in history), becoming vice president before he was 40 years old, and becoming the second-most voted-for individual in American history after George H.W. Bush. For starters. Perhaps I'm coming at this in a different way, but what are all the editors' concerns here about the resignation being unique and therefore justifying its inclusion in the first sentence? That is a fallacious argument. Every president is unique for something, and their unique qualities (deeds or misdeeds) appear --rightfully-- with appropriate weight. Considering Nixon's with undue weight is just that. As Wehwalt writes above, FDR's unique four terms don't show up until the second sentence. Gerald Ford's unique accession to the Presidency isn't mentioned until the third sentence; he was, uniquely, the first person to become Vice President and president without having been voted in -- talk about unique! To treat Nixon differently is, well, biased. Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What's more -- I just re-read the lead -- the resignation now appears three times in the lead; twice in the first paragraph (!) and its uniqueness mentioned again in the final paragraph. I'm calling undue weight here, big time. It needs to be put in its proper context, as we consider how the articles on other presidents are currently written. Happyme22 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Personality and public image

@Wehwalt: After your remark on the history page: of course we can discuss things more further on this talk page, thanks for proposing. 🙂👍 I have to admit, though, that it’s getting rather late for me right now. However, let this be the beginning of a fruitful conversation! Let me know your thoughts and I’ll get back to you ASAP. 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'm willing to let it stand as now. I think we should not call someone paranoid on the basis of a newspaper report. I think that's a bit over the top. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Racism

On Nixon Tapes, Disparaging Remarks About Ethnic Groups, NYT, Dec 2010. I'm surprised to come to this article to find nothing on Nixon's racism. His disparaging of blacks and Jews is a thing of legend, with reliable sources backing it up. I'm also surprised that the Nixon White House tapes are not included in this article, since they were a big part of the ending of his presidency. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This definitely belongs. And it's frankly astonishing that it isn't in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, more should be made of the racial conservatism that the Southern strategy revolved around. Currently, the article just alludes to some vague attempt by Nixon to win the South. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What about saying something in the "legacy" section where we discuss the Southern Strategy?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, that's a good idea. But I think it'd also be a good idea to include more on the Nixon tapes in the Watergate section, including the remarks he made in the tapes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, My view on that is that it was not directly the source of his resignation and so it would be better off in the legacy or personality sections. I thought we had something on blacks/Jews in there. It may be in the history. Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, one of the articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee was drafting was specifically in relation to the tapes. The cover-up talk was what was leading to impeachment, though the tapes also included the racist talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, meant the anti-Semitism and racism.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There may be some relevant content for such a section in these sources (this is text I wrote on the Republican Party article - I can't say for sure whether the sources all specifically mention Nixon): Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Southern states became more reliably Republican in presidential politics, while Northeastern states became more reliably Democratic. Studies show that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism..

Snooganssnoogans, I don't think there's any dissent from the proposition that many Southern whites went Republican because the Democratic Party was supporting views on race they could not abide and they found a home in the Republican Party. Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: There is somewhat of a dissent....depending on how big of a defection one wants to ascribe to it. Recent scholarship ('The End of Southern Exceptionalism....', by: Shafer & johnson) makes a good case that there is more to it than meets the eye. (As someone who was there, I agreed with their thesis. It's packed with hard data.) In any case, sorry this has shown up here. This is basically a argument that came up on the Reagan talk page. (Due to the recent tapes that came out about him an Nixon talking.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Treason

I would like to add under 1968 Presidential election. The following as it demonstrates that Nixon violated the Logan act and engaged in activity that can only be called treasonous. However I do not wish to engage in polemics, revert warring and run afoul of admins who have a political bias. After all we all do, don’t we. The only thing found in the middle of the road are yellow strips and roadkill.

Notes of H.R. Halderman, revealed that Nixon actively directed activities to sabotage the 1968 Paris Peace Talks by offering the President of South Vietnam (Gen Theiu ) a better deal Nixon feared that the peace talks would give, Vice President Hubert Humphrey an advantage in the upcoming election. Theiu did back out of the peace talks. Nixon disavowed this charge, however subsequent tape recordings of President Johnson and Halderman’s notes revealed his treachery. According to the tapes President Johnson told the Senate Majority leader Everett Dirksen –“this is treason” and Dirksen replied “I Know”. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html and https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 and https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason and https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006123Oldperson (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed on this talk page before and a consensus reached as to how to treat it. I did not entirely agree with the outcome, but that's often the case. I think it was fair enough, though, and I'm inclined to say it should stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So you've gone from "Reagan's Treachery" to "Nixon's Treason". And you think it's the admins who have a political bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu I have a bias for truth and a bias against whitewash. In case you might be interested I have a serious case against Bill Clinton and big criticism of Obama. I bow before no gods,not do I bend a knee. However the Nixon article is pure obfuscation, your "consensus" not withstanding and consensus changes as the composition of those consenting changes. Here is a major objection: " While notes uncovered in 2016 may support such a contention, the context of said notes remains of d" ebate.[123] It is not clear whether the government of South Vietnam needed much encouragement to opt out of a peace process they considered disadvantageous.[124]. Item one. Saying Notes is obfuscatory. Fact it was the four page notes of H.R. Halderman. Secondly, reference 123 is not a RS, it is from the (obviously slanted) Nixon Foundation. As an aside, democracy, the dignity of the U.S.A. and the future of generations born and unborn would best be served by fully disclosing the treacheries and crimes of our leaders, including the current one, rather than obfuscating, white washing, diminishing the same. So string me up because I care. As regards politics. I am not a cheerleader or a joiner. I care as much about political parties and games as I do about soccer games (which is -zero, well politics is a little more interesting than soccer, or golf, or watching paint dry or watching grass grow.Oldperson (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Funny I don't see you on the Obama or the Clinton pages screaming things like "treason" or other such derogatory statements. In any case, back to the point: it was not a violation of the Logan act (or the constitutional definition of treason) to contact South Vietnam. A technical/literal reading of the law is influencing an adversary. South Vietnam was not a belligerent of the US in the war. At this point is also highly questionable what influence (if any) Nixon's supposed contact had. In case you need a refresher: Nixon had to make all sorts of secret assurances (along with a lot of arm twisting) to get Thieu to accept the Paris Peace accords more than 4 years later. So we are talking a technical violation (of anything) at best.....more accurately something meaningless at the end of the day.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Funny, how inane comments start with "funny". FYI, Neither Obama or Clinton were guilty of anything like treason. There sins were strictly political, like betraying their base... That aside, as a recovering Catholic, I am well acquainted with the "art" of apologia, and know it when I see it. Fact is that Nixon at the time committed an act of Treason, he negotiated with Thieu behind the back of Johnson to thwart the Paris Peace Talks. Thieu's intentions or what he might have done is irrelevant and making such statements on a WP article would not be permitted. There are a number of Presidents guilty of chicanerry, a whole article could be written on the subject, I haven't even touched on GWB, he lied, and had men, otherwise respected, lie to support his grand design. A design that he mentioned in a biography before he became president. If I recall correctly (and it isn't worth the time wasted to cite it only to be met with obfuscation, that he said if he were elected president he would start a war with Iraq, because war time presidents always get re-elected, in the same vein he pointed to the failure of his dead in winning a war in 100 days and lost his re election bid. The man is heavily tainted with the blood of thousands of Americans and numberless Iraqi's, just to fulfill his personal ambitions, but again a major whitewashing, obfuscation and rationalization of his "crimes".Oldperson (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You said you had a "serious case" with Obama and Clinton.....and I don't see you proposing any of these "serious cases" on their page. (Just a comment about your objectivity. The fact that you see their only sins as betraying their bases speaks volumes.) In any case, Nixon didn't commit an act of "treason". The constitution clearly defines it.....and violation of the Logan Act does not constitute it either. (That is, even assuming he violated it.) Ergo, your proposed addition is nonsense. If you can get a RS (preferably a legal scholar) to say so....we can consider a addition. (And I doubt even such a person would call it “treason” as you have characterized it here.) That Thieu needed to be browbeaten into accepting the terms of the accords (4 years later) is anything but irrelevant. It shows how much (if any) anyone could have influenced the situation. I would suggest that you read WP:AXE.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

By the same token that I feel that Clinton and Obama betrayed their base. The fact that your edits have mostly been on Reagan, Nixon, Contras, Gary Webb, Southern Strategy, the CI,A speaks volumes likewise. People who live in glass houses...Oldperson (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to address urban legends. And as bad as the right's propaganda about some of the topics you mention can be......the left's can be downright nuts. I also want the factual/complete version given. Accuracy and NPOV is what we should be after here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request. I'm definitely in favor of a solidly sourced paragraph about Nixon's treason with regard to the Paris Talks. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

{{u|Binksternet))”. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html and https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 and https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason and https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006123 First is NY times, second is Christian Science MonitorOldperson (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Some are editorials (I'm not sure Common Dreams is a RS) and in other cases they simply repeat the allegation of LBJ (in a private conversation) that it was "treason". Again the challenge is: finding a RS that calls it that because violation of the Logan Act is not treason. It's violation of the Logan Act. If you want it added to the article.....find a RS calling it what it is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

for LBJ "treason" = opposition to LBJ. As president LBJ's job was to deal with real treason to USA which he did not do. (Treason = dealing with an ENEMY. in this case South Vietnam was an ALLY. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Editoralizing definition of treason, not valid. If LBJ was hyperbolic then so was Sen Everett Dirksen who agreed with LBJ that Nixon's action was treason. Nixon violated the Logan act, His action most likely prolonged the war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands young American men and untold hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Definitely treason. Is=f that isn't what is. Only an apologist or accomplice could quibble. Treason is not defined as "dealing with the enemy" There is A definition of Treason here: https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9DWfKpHldrrIAs6FXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3RpZ2h0cm9wZXRiBGZyMgNzYS1ncC1zZWFyY2gEZ3ByaWQDMVJnWUJlNG1Say5YUU5rQkg4ZWlyQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzIEcHFzdHIDdHJlYXNvbgRwcXN0cmwDNwRxc3RybAMzMgRxdWVyeQN0cmVhc29uJTIwZGVmaW5pdGlvbiUyMHVuaXRlZCUyMHN0YXRlcwR0X3N0bXADMTU2ODI1MzM1MwR1c2VfY2FzZQM-?p=treason+definition+united+states&fr2=sa-gp-search&fr=tightropetb&type=Y97_F13_162845_012319 "Definition of Treason"

   Noun. A betrayal of trust or confidence, a breach of faith, treachery
   Noun. A violation of one’s allegiance to one’s government or sovereign
   Noun. The criminal offense of acting to overthrow one’s government, or of assisting others to do soOldperson (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is editorializing here it is you. At no point in the Logan Act does it say violation of it is tantamount to treason. Again: the constitution clearly defines treason in Article III, Section 3. The Logan Act does not default to this at all and sets different penalties for violations. And (again apparently) it has to be said that this "treason" in no way likely delayed our exit in Vietnam. We are talking 4 additional years of negotiations. (With the North Vietnamese only returning to the negotiating table (in the end) after the Linebacker II campaign.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Iwonder whence the apologia. Four additional years of negotiating BECAUSE of Nixon's treachery.Oldperson (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This project is not about what you wonder or your opinions. The point is: if it couldn't be resolved until 4 years after he became president....what makes you think any alleged interference by him (during a campaign) was the only obstacle to the end of the war? Is this getting through to you?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Some folks here appear to be arguing their own opinion rather than pointing to sources to show what should appear in the article. A lot of sources discuss this point, and we should cover it in an appropriately full manner. Smithsonian magazine says Nixon very likely interfered with the talks, and confirms that LBJ sent Nixon a roundabout message telling him he was committing treason. PRI likewise. BBC too. There's a Pelican history book by Don Fulsom titled Treason: Nixon and the 1968 Election. Lawrence O'Donnell talks about the issue in Playing with Fire: The 1968 Election and the Transformation of American Politics. We have an obligation to relay this information to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that the article should call his actions treason based on what political opponents have to say (then and now). I am arguing that what should be included (in addition to what the opponents charge) is the opinion of legal scholars and so on. I cannot provide a objective RS saying violation of the Logan Act is "treason" because well, quite frankly, it probably doesn't exist. That's my point. If such a section was included in the article, it would have to state the belief that the Logan Act was violated (possibly along with people like LBJ making some charges such as "treason")......but it would also have to include the opinion of an objective, qualified RS on (A) whether or not this actually violated the Logan Act and (maybe) (B) if this really constitutes "treason" (Obviously if such an expert doesn't view his actions as violating the Logan Act than it is very unlikely he/she will call it treason. I doubt most serious scholars would even address such a preposterous notion anyway.) Does this make sense?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense except for the offhand doubt you express about "most serious scholars". Scholars writing before recent revelations, the ones from March 2013 and later, will not have had sufficient material upon which to base their conclusions. You will want to look instead at more recent scholarship such as researcher Ken Hughes' 2014 book Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair and the Origins of Watergate. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be another opinion piece by a journalist....which is not what is needed if the goal here is to start a section screaming "treason". (Which is what the person who started this thread wanted.) Of course, if what is desired (instead) is a (level headed) discussion of (if) Nixon violated the Logan Act.....that's a different story.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you pay attention? I'm talking about scholarly researcher Ken Hughes who researched the question and wrote a lot about it, in contradiction to your blithe misrepresentation about "most serious scholars". Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And nobody here cares what your analysis might be about the Logan Act. If you want to have any leverage in the discussion, you will need to point to published sources discussing this issue. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ken Hughes is a journalist is he not? No legal background whatsoever right? (And you say I am not paying attention?) That's the issue here. I can point to published sources discussing the issue......but to start a section (as the person who opened this section did) saying he wants a "treason" section......well, that's not NPOV. The Logan Act issue can be handled responsibly....but what he proposed isn't what we do hereRja13ww33 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Extraordinarily claims need extraordinary sourcing ... I'd expect something on the level of a law review article for something like this, and in-line attributed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Time permitting, I'm probably going to look for that myself. (No luck so far.) I have run across the occasional article on the constitutionality of the Logan Act itself....but nothing on this specific case. Putting aside the partisan nonsense, it actually is a interesting legal issue. The vagueness probably would assist any defendant. (IIRC, no one has actually been convicted under it.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's my understanding. That it's a Federalist-era statute that gets talked about some but no one has ever been convicted of violating it. Incidentally, I'm not aware of many public contemporary claims (whispers by LBJ don't count) so all this seems very ex post facto to me. The Democrats controlled Congress throughout Nixon's presidency and could have done what they liked with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, are you being purposely dense? Ken Hughes is exactly what I described, a scholarly researcher. He was at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia for years poring through a massive archive of tapes and other materials to arrive at his conclusions.[7][8] His book was reviewed in American Political Thought, a scholarly journal. Hughes says Nixon committed a crime: "This episode, known as the Chennault Affair, meant that Nixon took office needing to cover up the crime that got him elected in the first place." Binksternet (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

What part of legal scholar do you not get here? (The legal part?) Go back and look at my posts....that's what I said early on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Tricky Dick

There was an excellent documentary on TV last night, entitled Tricky Dick, which mentioned in detail Nixons treasonous actions when he subverted Johnson's Paris peace initiative, which probably cost America tens of thousands of lives, and Viet Nam hundreds of thousands. The subject demands more in depth exposition and there are plenty of RS in support, including transcripts and audio of a tape recording between Everett Dirksen (Republican and senate majority leader) and LBJ. This is far from a settled issueOldperson (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd ask the newcomers to simply scroll up to "1968 peace talks - redux". Happyme22 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)