Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Place of birth

Nixon began his memoirs by stating "I was born in the house my father built." However, his mother told the Los Angeles Times, in an article published Jan. 10, 1959, that he was born in a hospital. The published statement in a major newspaper is casually dismissed by another blogger. Silly. Lmharnisch (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I find the contention that "Mrs. Nixon was mistaken" even more amusing and so typical of wikipedia. Lmharnisch (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've placed it in a footnote. Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon gained great respect as an elder statesman

This sentence seems like a WP:NPOV violation. Also, I went to the referenced cite and it doesn't actually say "great" or "respect". How about we change it to just "Nixon gained respect as an elder statesman" (IOW, omit "great"). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Happyme22 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon in animations.

I think it should say something about Richard Nixon's Head being the Earth President from 3002 in Futurama. Also I think it's coincidental that his middle name is Milhous(e). Made famous by the the recurring character in The Simpsons which both animations are relatively close. (Also he made a brief guest appearance in The Simpsons.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.85.195 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That would fall under WP:TRIVIA. Unless it is detrimental to our understanding of Richard Nixon, it should be omitted. Happyme22 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A Few Quick Suggestions

Unfortunately, someone forgot to mention the new movie Frost/Nixon as a possible view to the more modern opinions of Nixon. Also, none of the caricatures mentioned as depicting Nixon are shown. Is there some reason why not? Finally, in the presidency category under his first term, the line from Isaiah is misspelled as "prunting hooks" instead of "pruning hooks". I know that it is small but it is quite annoying.

Frost/Nixon is mentioned in the post-presidency or later life section with the Frost interviews themselves. I'll fix the spelling. Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this help?

At home (i.e. no access to it for a least a couple weeks (at college)), I have a copy of The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon by Jerry Voorhis. While the book is, ah, slightly anti-Nixon, would any info in there help? Ask away, and I will hunt down citations for what you ask when I next go home. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, it just may. I'll check into that later tomorrow and get back to you. Thanks for the offer! Happyme22 (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Recently I changed the image at the top of the article, or the main image, from Image:Richard Nixon - Official Portrait (1969).jpeg to Image:RichardNixoncrop.jpg, a scaled down version of Image:RichardNixon.jpg.

User:Rockyobody reverted, saying that the 1969 photo was Nixon's official photo. Probably true, but this 1971 photo is his official photo as well. There can be more than one official photo; in fact, that is usually the norm. The source is located at the National Archives.

The image from 1971 seems much more appealing to me for many reasons, namely Nixon is smiling, the color and condition of the photo is better than the other, and there is an American flag in the background (a feature common to other official presidential photos).

On account of this clarification, I am reverting the good faith edit because there doesn't seem to be a problem. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Image:Richard Nixon - Official Portrait (1969).jpeg is far superior to the one you replaced it with.--Fizbin (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I be honest? I don't really like both of them... he looks weird in the old one, and the orange curtain in the second bugs me. Maybe it's just that he is ugly though. (:D) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer this one, which is owned by the US so is probably fair game: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/2166009504/ --Fizbin (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Fizbin, I respectfully disagree with your first comment. Nixon looks unhappy, the photo is bland, the backdrop is an eyesore, etc. In response to your second comment, that photo is not Nixon's official White House portrait, rather it is one done by Norman Rockwell. Either Rockwell's estate or the Nixon Presidential Library porbably onws the rights to it, but we surely cannot use it. In response to TheEd, we can only use free official portraits, so these are the ones we have to choose from. Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any more portraits? Pleh. Well, I'd go for the second one then...at least he's smiling. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The new picture is very unflattering compared to the old one. His eyes are wandering, it emphasizes his nose (not his best feature) and the orange background is hideous. And as for the Rockwell portrait, according to the text on that page it was donated to the People of the United States of America by the Richard Nixon Foundation and currently is housed at the Smithsonian. That should be easy enough to confirm and should open it up to use around here.--Fizbin (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. I guess we will agree to disagree. The background is actually the Oval Office curtains, plus there is a flag in the background (which I like). I just think the second picture looks more 'presidential', so to speak, than the first. If we can prove that the Rockwell portrait is property of the United States, then feel free to upload it. But I would disagree with placing that atop the article because it is a painting, not a photo. Happyme22 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We'd agree more is you undid the addition of this hideous picture . . . --Fizbin (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to do that until some sort of consensus is reached. Happyme22 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. An editor unilaterally makes a change that is immediately objected to by another editor, and the objecting editor has to wait for a consensus to develop? In deference to your extensive work on this article I am not just making the reversal on my own, but in my opinion you should undo this update until said consensus develops.--Fizbin (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Face it gentleman, Nixon wasn't very photogenic, so any picture is going to look bad. Just use the earliest official picture, regardless of the way it looks.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Fizbin: The 1969 photo replaced yet another photo prior to me replacing that one. I was trying to find the one that looks the best, which I believe is the 1971 pic. Believe me, my intentions are good. So let's just hold off and wait to see if anything develops. Happyme22 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that your intentions are good, but in this case I believe your judgment as to the qualities of the two pictures to be bad.--Fizbin (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nixon_30-0316a.jpg) get removed from the info box? It is far superior to either one of the two we are discussing here.--Fizbin (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[arbitrary break for editing ease]

Due to some recent edits regarding "consensus" (or lack thereof) I am going to list all available pictures of Richard Nixon, and hopefully the community can determine which to use.

• 
  1
• 2
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6

Please indicate which you prefer.

• Either 4 or 6. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 2 and 3 are the best. 3 would be a definite winner (with the flags and library background) if it were cropped a little closer - for the location in the article it is a tad distant. Next would be image 6. Images 1 and 5 are inappropriate (1 is too young, 5 too casual). Of the age-appropriate portrait photos 4 is the worst from an artistic compositional standpoint - bad look on Nixon with a horrible orange background.--Fizbin (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like pic 3, but would settle for pic 6 as a compromise.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support pics 3, 4, and 6. Of those I prefer 4 because Nixon looks the best though the orange is annoying. 3 is a bit grainy and would need to be cropped a little, and 6 is fine but is not upright. I agree with Fizbin against 1 and 5. Strong no to 2; I want a photo, not a painting. Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  Huh? All six of the images displayed above are photographs. —David Levy 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm being stupid. When it is very small image 2 looks like a painting because of its uniform background. I don't really like it. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the background on 2 leaves a bit to be desired, but it is an excellent picture of Nixon and the background is far superior to the orange on 4.--Fizbin (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So far the consensus picks would appear to be 3, preferably a cropped version, and 6.--Fizbin (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a cropped version of number 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nixon-crop.jpg--Fizbin (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a nitpick, but if the consensus was #3, why is #2 still up, or did I miss part of this disscusion?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd wait a little longer for a true consensus to emerge, folks. It seems like 3 and 6 are the favorites, but two days of voting is a short time. I'd wait at least five days to a week before closing the vote to enable more editors to share their viewpoints. Of the two favorites, 3 and 6, I'd go for 6. As Reywas92 said, 3 is very grainy and of a poor resolution size. It always looked like a painting to me, too. I'm trying to find a larger, upright version of 6. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have found an upright image of number 6 and have uploaded it over the cropped image. Hopefully this will take care of concerns related to that. Also, on account of this discovery, I believe that image 6 is far superior to image 3. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your new number 6 works for me. I would prefer a cleaner cropped version of 3, but the new 6 is fine.--Fizbin (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Six looks great. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Milhous Nixon

This article has had his full name for nearly three years. All of a sudden it became a problem when Obama was elected, and there was a discussion about using his full name in the info box. A consensus was reached on that page, but the consensus here was to keep Nixon's full name. I still agree with that. I do not want to see a precedent of making decisions about all articles on a single talk page. This page is independant of Obama's and it always will be.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True, Joj, but do you not agree that this article deserves to be like every other article on a U.S. president and should be treated the same when it comes to details such as these? What makes this article special and exempt from all the others? There wasn't any consensus on whether to keep Nixon's middle name or not for the past three years, rather someone added it and it stayed because the middle names of all the other presidents were present atop theirs. Now, consensus was reached to change that; consensus can change. So I say remove the name in accordance with all the other U.S. Presidential articles. Happyme22 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point on consistancy, but there is no policy that says that they need to be the same, nor would I want one. This article is not exempt from policy, but it is its own article and should treated as such. Any consensus reached for this page, should be reached on this talk page, and not on Obama's. Wikipedia policy states that if someone makes an edit and it is not changed, then there is consensus. The longer the edit remains, the stronger the consensus. 3 years sounds like a pretty long time for a consensus to form.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should have the full name in the title. It sounds truncated without it.--Fizbin (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate: there wasn't any consensus on whether to use the middle name. Someone added it and it stuck three years ago. Then Obama was elected and the consensus changed; I don't necessarily share the viewpoint of the consensus, but I am willing to abide by it because I have a real problem with this one article standing alone from all the others.

We also have to take into account what policy has to say: the use guideline at Template:Infobox_person#Parameters, the section on the name, reads: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name)." His common name was Richard Nixon, not Richard Milhous Nixon. How it sounds carries no weight here. Happyme22 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum the article should be titled Richard M. Nixon. This is in keeping with many other Presidential bio pages, including Grant, Arthur, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and others.--Fizbin (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Break)That template that you are describing is not policy and was changed a while back ago, without discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's there and because it's there we have to adhere to it. If you truly disagree so much with what it says, you should start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person. Until then, we have to go by what it says. Happyme22 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To use current Presidential articles as a standard for inclusion/exclusion of middle names or initials in the title is ludicrous. There are 14 Presidential bios which use the middle initial in the title and three more that use the full middle name. As I said earlier, at a minimum the Nixon article should be titled Richard M. Nixon.--Fizbin (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Richard M. Nixon, which is common, and I'm willing to put that up. But for those who are very much concerned about middle name vs. not-middle name, I would still start a discussion thread at the template talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two different conversations going on here. This section started out talking about the title of the article, while the subject of the info box got inserted later. My comments have been geared towards the title of the article. I think the info box should have his full name, while the middle initial is appropriate for the title of the article.--Fizbin (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As for as I know, there is one thing being discussed here. The title of the article is good and should not change, period -- I'm sorry that you got the wrong impression. Richard Nixon is what he was known as, occasionally Richard M. Nixon and rarely if ever Richard Milhous Nixon (except at his funeral). I am not in any way supporting changing the title of the article. As for the infobox, I support using the common name, which is what Template:Infobox person says to do. His common name was Richard Nixon; Richard M. Nixon was less common. I'm trying to reach a compromise here and that's why I am not fully objecting to Richard M. Nixon, though I do object to using the middle name. Happyme22 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what consensus is. It has nothing to do with the length of time that an edit stays in an article. Earlier on my talk page you claimed that there was consensus for using the full name, yet looking through the discussion archives, I find nothing of the sort (and no discussion of it at all, much less a consensus). Perhaps I missed it, can you point me to the earlier consensus discussion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to go back and reread the policy on consensus. One paragraph says Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. That means silence=consensus. Nearly three years of it. Go back and take a look. There is and never was consensus to change it to just Richard Nixon. If no consensus forms to change it, it must stay as the full name, and any discussion on the Obama page is not binding on any other page. If there is a new consensus (Which there is not at this time), then by all means lets do what is right, but until then, there should be no changes. See WP:BRD for how this is actually suppose to work.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Per template guidelines: "common name". That would not be "Richard Milhous Nixon"...probably not even "Richard M. Nixon", though that was a compromise solution. Hence my reverting. Now, please watch WP:3RR. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TheEd. Happyme22 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The template is not policy and it was changed without consensus to what it says now. It needs to stop being used as an argument, becuase it doesn't hold water.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I have great respect for you and for all your work on this article, so please respect what I am about to say: Let us stop complaining, whining about what we perceive to be correct, and let's do something about it. All this bickering isn't getting us anywhere. I am not going to repeat myself again so read my above posts if you don't understand where I am coming from. Start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person but we can longer sit here and argue about who is right and who is wrong. This goes for all of us.

That said, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't adhere to what the policy/guideline says to do. It is the guideline, after-all. Happyme22 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You know Happyme22, I was thinking the same thing about you too. It is difficult for me to disagree with you because you too have done so much for this article that you are one of the few who I think can really chime in on this article, and I know that you really care about what happens here. I understand what the template says, but my problem with the template is that it was created and changed with absolutly no discussion. One person decided to change the name in the infobox information. In fact the template was changed against the policy at the time. Policy at the time of the change said full name. Please see the current wording of the policy here Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). A previous consensus was reached on that page to make the common name optional. That discussion is still available to view and has not yet been archived. The previous version was to have the full name, but we decided to make it optional to accomadate everyone. I still don't think that a consensus has been reached here, yet I do see that a compromise was proposed, but I do not agree with it. That being said, although I will not change it from its current wording of Richard M. Nixon, at this time, I want to be on record that I still prefer the full name. My reasons are many, but I will not go into too much detail at this time. I will again try and track down the changes that were made to the template and show everyone the pattern that was created by just one editor who made a change to the template. (Who by the way I don't think even edits any more, at least not under the same name.) Thanks and I hope that you have a chance to look at the infobox policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, Jojhutton. The same most definitely goes for you, too. Your point is a good one -- a very good one, in fact. If you want to bring up the discussion again regarding names and such, I would do so on a much broader scale than simply this article. I suggest taking to the template talk page. For now, I'll check out what you were saying about the naming. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd say that a good source of what the name should be (for both the article title and the info box) is the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon/. For the most part wiki articles match up with the list on the right, but there are some glaring exceptions.--Fizbin (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your Nixon argument and I raise you a Clinton one. By your logic, the Bill Clinton article sould read William Jefferson Clinton--Jojhutton (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton - my most recent argument (using the White House page as a guide) would have us using Richard M. Nixon and William J. Clinton (no Jefferson). As I indicated, mostly wiki and the WH match up, but with a couple of glaring exceptions. Clinton was the most glaring. --Fizbin (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to change the Clinton page then as well? I will be watching intently to see how that goes.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much interested in Clinton's page, but there are good arguments that it should be William J. Clinton. And so far in deference to those who have worked and are still working so hard on this page I have not changed anything here. That does not mean that there is not room for improvement, but there is a lot of current upgrade activity going on that I am staying out of the way of, other than providing suggestions here. The suggestion of using the White House page to guide us in how to address our Presidential bios is valid.

Conrad Black quotes and citations

Conrad Black is used as a source for lengthy quotations in four different places in this article, twice being referred to as an "historian" and once as an "author," but there is no link provided to the article about Black himself. His unusual viewpoint, even enclosed within quotation marks, does not exactly fulfill the spirit of WP:NPOV, in my opinion. I presume all of the quotes are taken from his revisionist biography of Nixon:[1] Intuitively apparent (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think Black is not reputable.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Black is certainly a reputable source. His biography of President Nixon is probably one of the most thorough in modern times, and over 1000 pages in length. It has been derided by a minority because it is not overtly anti-Nixon, as so many publications on the 37th president are. I am going to make a trip to the local library soon and check out another book, one which I hope can help the article further. Happyme22 (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be more apt to say that Black is certainly a controversial source. His Nixon bio is revisionist, he is far from impartial, and the fact that he is a felon does not help. This does not mean that his book cannot be a source at all, but the preponderance of citations back to his book gives the article the appearance of being slanted. This could easily be mitigated by citing the sources Black used for much of what is discussed, or any one of a hundred more reputable sources that are available. Nixon is one of our most-chronicled recent ex-Presidents - there is plenty of other source material to cite.--Fizbin (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And that is what I am going to soon do (I believe I said that a few lines up, forgive me if I didn't). As I said, I am going to take a trip to the library, check out some books, and set to it. Black's is the largest of the biographies that I have of Nixon, however, and covers his later life in great depth, one of the reasons why I chose it. Happyme22 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"one of the first and most persuasive advocates of containing Soviet Communism?"

This statement is referenced to Conrad Black. However, I was under the distinct impression (supported by the article on containment)that Nixon came at the very end of the era of containment policy. Indeed whilst presidents Truman and Johnson were very much in support of this policy, Nixon all but ended it as an official foreign policy of the United States. Thus it would seem ridiculous to include this snippet of information. Further, when looking at the reference section of the Article is appears the original author has made heavy dependence on Black's biography: not helpful in what is supposed to be a balanced article, especially when errors such as the above are included. However I am inexperienced with Wikipedia editing and would appreciate feedback from others on these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.203.40 (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Truman's policy of containing communism was supported by Richard Nixon when he was in Congress during the Truman years. I'll reword. Please see my comments above on Black. Happyme22 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow very quick response! I guess it was only a small thing but is now much better. Also my criticism of Black's over usage is perhaps unjust however it is important to realize that he is a revisionist and there are opposing views, that's all. Otherwise, well done on an impressive article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.203.40 (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor?

Is there any interest in factoring out the Presidency section into Presidency of Richard Nixon? I am aware that there is an active GAN.--Spellage (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I really do not think that it is necessary. Other presidential articles retain the presidency information, such as FA Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I support, at the very least, making the article "presidency of Richard Nixon". What makes the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush so much more notable than his that they deserve articles? I think Presidency of Richard Nixon and Presidency of George H.W. Bush should be created for consistency's sake. While information about his presidency should certainly be retained in this article, it should also be available in a seperate article 71.113.244.168 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that presidency articles for both Nixon and Bush should be created, but I do not agree with forking out the presidency information from here into a Nixon presidency article and simply providing a link from this article to that one. As is done with the Reagan page, information from this article's presidency section can be a summary of what the new presidency article will include. In other words, make the presidency article more detailed, and then that would conform with WP:SS. Happyme22 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Create a page, but do not remove information from this page. Thats my feeling.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Happyme22 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case what would be the point? It just makes two places to edit every time something comes up. Unless we summarize here in this article and expand in the new one it makes no common sense. Personally I'd keep things as is in the Nixon article and skip the creation of the new one.--Fizbin (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Caption of the Image of Nixon Leaving the Helicopter is Hilarious

It totally is. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.65.6 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon was (also) an accomplished author.

Shouldn't the end of the article give a roster of the various books that Nixon wrote? I realize there is (apparantly) a link for this, But don't other articles list the subjects various acomplishments, ie: Trophys or titles for sports figures, albums for recording artists, books for authors, and so forth? I have read a few of Nixons published books. They were quite good. Six crisis, Leaders, 1999, and No more Vietnams. All were very well written, and showed Nixons considerable insight and intellect.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.92.10 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congressional career

I'm thinking of expanding the section on Nixon's initial congressional campaigns and House/Senate career, which I think is slighted in the article. I've started by expanding the article on Jerry Voorhis, which wasn't much, and ordering some references, such as "The Contender" about Nixon's time in Congress I think would be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, a couple of things. The article clearly needs a good copyedit with an eye to the thing FAC reviewers look at, whether or not there is any thought of taking it to FAC. I'll give the article some attention as time permits. Also, I'd like to see less reliance on the Nixon Library's bio of Nixon, because the library was attacked for downplaying Watergate in its exhibits and had to make changes. There are plenty of bios of Nixon, some of whom probably have limited previews at Google books, and I can always consult the NY Times archives. I would also pretty much lose the judicial appointments/pardons section, and integrate a couple of sentences on the difficulty Nixon had with his first appointment. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything is "slighted", it was unintentional. Feel free to expand the article. I agree, it does need a thorough copyedit by a set of eyes that's not a regular to the page. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant by slighted that it is passed over quickly. And it always helps to have a fresh pair of eyes look at a work. I'll go through the article as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Happyme22 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Satiricidealist is busy with it and don't want to step on his toes, so I will wait until he is done. And the book hasn't come yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't bother me a bit if you joined in, as long as we weren't edit conflicting; I think it's going to need more than one copyedit anyway, and if you've also got access to sources you can do some rewriting at a level that I can't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chilean coup

Hi, I think there should be some discussion of the Nixon/Kissinger decision to overthrow the Allende government in Chile in 1973. This was justified as part of the Cold War policies, but the threat Allende could ahve posed was really very small and might have been dealt with through negotiation. The military junta that took over, featuring General Pinochet, was very brutal. Deaths resulting from Pinochet's repression have been variously estimated at anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000. Also the coup interrupted Chile's tradition of vibrant democracy.

Meanwhile, the article notes Nixon's controversial bombing campaigns in Vietnam, but does not mention the bombing campaigns into Cambodia, which helped to destabilize that country's pro-US monarchy and paved the way for the Civil War that brought the Khmer Rouge to power.

I would agree that Richard Nixon does not deserve to be remembered as a Right Wing fanatic who did only harm. On the ohter hand, in his partnership with kissinger great evil was committed

Thanks

Mark

Hi Mark, thanks for your comments. Do you have a citation to back up any of your assertions? Also, the secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia are indeed mentioned, under the Vietnam War section. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Happyme,

The US Intervention into Chile Article in Wikipedia has a wealth of documentation.

Mark

Also, the Operation Menu section of the Cambodia page diuscusses this matter of the effect of the incursion which is not dealt with in the Nixon article. the incursion itself is mentioned, as you point out.

Small Change

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hiss campaign was aided by turmoil within the Democratic party

should be

His campaign was aided by turmoil within the Democratic party

Got it, thanks for the heads up! --Happyme22 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion

Renowned British academic and political commentator, Professor Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University, has a very interesting hour-long lecture overviewing Nixon's presidency available on the web: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=794 It seems that this would be a very good addition to the external links here. (I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfranklingresham (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw talks with China

I edited the discussion about the Warsaw talks. The original text was said that the talks had only started in 1970. But newly declassified material has a different story on when the talks occurred and why they stopped.

Here is a transcript of Winston Lord

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7980/history_declassified.html

And here is a memo from Kissinger.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-02.pdf

Roadrunner (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed statement that it was unknown to Washington that Mao had personally ordered the ping pong team to be allowed to visit. There was enough diplomatic traffic in 1971, so they may indeed had known.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also the statement that no American had visited China is incorrect. Edgar Snow had often visited and did an interview earlier that year.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Murray Chotiner article at FAC

The article on Murray Chotiner, one of Nixon's oldest advisers, is currently a Featured Article Candidate. I'd be grateful if those who are knowledgeable about Nixon to take a look at it, leave comments, and otherwise participate in the process. I think it is an excellent article, giving a balanced view of Chotiner. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Biological weapon ban and the BWC

Nixon signed an executive order banning biological weapons in the US. Seems like a major thing considering the potential destructive power of biological weapons and the fact that it was unilateral move during the cold war tit for tat era. This was a good thing that he should be remembered for and not ignored just because he is unpopular. 85.220.78.150 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

As an aside to this discussion above : concerning the relevancy of Wehwalt’s arguments about primary sources : in the sections about “Primary, secondary and tertiary sources” in the following Wikipedia policy and guideline articles : Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources - policy and guideline articles whose arguments are relied upon by Wehwalt - I haven’t found any primary, secondary and tertiary sources cited in these policy and guideline articles to support the view that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources”. The section on “Primary, secondary and tertiary sources” in Wikipedia:No original research has 6 references which only describe what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are but they do not support any argument that “Wikipedia articles SHOULD be based on reliable secondary sources”. In contrast, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline article states: “This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” and the Wikipedia:No original research policy article states : “This page in a nutshell: - Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. - Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.” Am I the only person who finds this contradictory or is there a double standard among Wikipedia contributors that Wikipedia guidelines should NOT “be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” and that Wikipedia policies SHOULD “publish original thought” and that all material in Wikipedia policies must NOT “be attributable to a reliable, published source” and that Wikipedia policy articles SHOULD contain “new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by” any sources ?

Basically my question is this : why should the Wikipedia policy and guideline articles on reliable sources be exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources ?

Armando Navarro (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the venue for that discussions. You should, perhaps, to WT:RS. We're just working editors here, the policy wonks hang out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

36th President

I just noticed the 36th President stated is actually the 34th. I am now a confirmed user and weirdly enough I cannot change this myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmich (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

edit

"Due to his uptight image, many were surprised at his swearing and anti-Semitic comments seen on the transcripts his White House tapes." should probably read "Due to his uptight image, many were surprised at his swearing and anti-Semitic comments seen on the transcripts of his White House tapes."

So, uh, fix that shit.

Thanks for the heads up. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the source for this information, (citation number 210), there is no mention of anti-Semitic comments. Only of swearing. If someone could read and validate this that would be great so it can be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chijikusama (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

The section states that "No American has served as long as Richard Nixon did in a national office." The wording is vague, and as it stands, is blatantly untrue. Many Senators and Congressmen have put in more time. Should it be changed to "in the executive office" or removed altogether? Kaiguy (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Senate and House are not national offices. They are federal offices, but they represent their districts and states, not the nation. 99.16.16.190 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixon campaign sabotage of Paris Peace Accords during 1968 U.S. elections

In the chapter "1968 presidential election" the following should be added at the end of the 2nd paragraph :

"But in secret the Nixon campaign set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. On the eve of the election, South Vietnam withdrew from the negotiations, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democratic campaign was based."

These facts are mainstream as show the references to mainstream news outlets such as ABC News and The New York Times, among others, on this page : http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/Dictabelt.hom/highlights/news.shtm Also in the Guardian : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-8127602,00.html

Furthermore, FBI wiretaps, Johnson recordings, Chennault statements, cannot be brushed aside as mere "allegations".

These facts cannot be considered as part of a fringe theory as show references to authors such as: Robert “KC” Johnson, Jules Witcover, Clark M. Clifford, Richard C. Holbrooke, Anthony Summers, Seymour M. Hersh, Christopher Hitchens and Thomas Powers (backed by publishers such as Johns Hopkins University Press, Random House, Viking Press, Alfred A. Knopf) in the more extended article on the subject that can be found on the wikipedia article on Anna Chennault : Role in the Nixon campaign sabotage of Paris Peace Accords :

"Chennault played a crucial role on behalf of the Nixon campaign which attempted to sabotage of the 1968 Paris peace talks which could have ended the Vietnam War. She arranged the contact with South Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem whom Richard Nixon met in secret in July 1968 in New York. It was through Chennault's intercession that the Nixon campaign advised Saigon to refuse participation in the talks, promising a better deal once elected. Records of FBI wiretaps show that Chennault phoned Bui Diem on November 2 with the message "hold on, we are gonna win." "The tactic ‘worked’, in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign. " Before the elections President Johnson “suspected (…) Richard Nixon, of political sabotage that he called treason”. No one was ever prosecuted for this crime."

After reading all this, those who still insist that this is a fringe theory should produce solid references to support this argument.

Armando Navarro (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! Near as I can tell by the Guardian article, these were suspicions of LBJ. You state it, however, as fact. Suspicions do not equal fact. I do not think it should go into the article in the way you've stated it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I should also note for other editors that AN did a similar inclusion at Paris Peace Talks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And at Anna Chennault. I haven't had time to research where else. Saying that a crime was committed is definitely questionable, and may present BLP issues, as a number of Nixon aides remain alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also United States presidential election, 1968 and John Tower and John N. Mitchell. When challenged he says that the tapes cannot be brushed aside as mere allegations.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, instead of deleting my contribution, should we not work together to establish the truth on this matter ? I ask you : are you not, in your response to my arguments, cherry picking one reference which is only used here on this Talk Page and not in any of my contributions to actual Wikipedia articles ? In any case, shouldn’t you quote precisely from the reference in question before making a conclusion about it ? Is not this imprecision making you jump to a false conclusion about what this reference actually states ? And more importantly, are you not using only one reference among numerous others to shed doubt on all of the references and the facts as a whole ? Are you not therefore judging without making any real effort to read and analyze the references ? Shouldn’t you take into account FBI wiretaps, Johnson recordings, Chennault statements, Robert “KC” Johnson, Jules Witcover, Clark M. Clifford, Richard C. Holbrooke, Anthony Summers, Seymour M. Hersh, Christopher Hitchens and Thomas Powers, and the authority of Johns Hopkins University Press, Random House, Viking Press, and Alfred A. Knopf in order to determine if this is a case of "suspicions", "allegations" or "fringe theory" ? Can you seriously affirm that all these references do not constitute an authoritative and authenticated historical account ? Shouldn’t you be looking for reliable sources that can seriously defend your point of view ? So far, isn’t my case the strongest ? If, as you say, you “do not think it should go into the article in the way” I’ve stated it, please point out the passage in my contributions that you find is biased or inaccurate, please tell me and I will try to improve it or improve it yourself if you can. Deleting my contribution will not solve the problem. Please balance it with what you think is neutral.Armando Navarro (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not deleting it. An editor adding contentious material has the responsibility to build consensus for his addition, the default is not to add. Until you build consensus, you can't add it. I'm happy to discuss it, and also Happyme22, who is the lead editor on this article (I'm just here because I'm working on related articles and am keeping an eye here) has told you the same thing. This strikes me as a matter where people may disagree. Are there any Nixon biographers who say this? A major bio of Nixon came out last year; what does Conrad Black say? Some reference may be justified; but I doubt if you can justify a bald statement that a crime was committed. Come on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if this is true, which I still have reservations about, this article is about Richard Nixon the man, not the 1968 presidential campaign. Details of the 68 campaign, such as this, should be inserted in the United States presidential election, 1968 article per WP:SS. It is a pretty simple solution, I think, because WP:SS surely has to be taken into account. That said, when inserting it into the 68 campaign article, I would suggest rewording it as not to implicate Richard Nixon definitively, according to WP:NPOV. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He already put it there, and also put it in the Chennault, Tower, and Mitchell articles, all full strength. And he's opened a RFC. Nice guy, plays well with others.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Include Since no one has articulated any valid reason not to. Not necessarily this specific wording, but it should be in the article. And by the way, there is no such thing as a "lead editor" on a Wikipedia article. Dlabtot (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not include for the following reasons:

  1. Many of the sources are transcripts of LBJ tapes, and are thus primary sources, disfavored by WP.

  2. AN goes well above the sources in his insertion, and much of what he says is not supported by them. He refers to a "crime", the sources don't say that . Look at the Guardian article, then look at what AN says about it. And AN is bordering on BLP issuesThere are living Nixon aides whom he's accusing of "crime".

  3. Happyme22 (who does not own the article, but whom I respect for what he has done to improve it) points out that this really belongs in the campaign article, not in the article about Nixon the man. He's right. Not every Presidential article (and this is a looooong one) can have everything everyone wants in it. This one is over 110Kb. This is no different then the nutjobs proffering the latest denigration of Obama (I use that noun cautiously, by the way) and demanding it be put in the article. This is an article on the man, not the campaign. There is an article on the campaign, AN has been kind enough to put this exact language there. We write in summary style, this is especially true for Presidential articles, which are (at least for modern presidents) at the top of a pyramid of articles, as you go down the pyramid, you get increasing detail. It is properly in the campaign article, though I will probably raise questions there about the sources and language in due course.

  4. I asked AN what Nixon biographers, such as Conrad Black, or for that matter Roger Morris, have to say about this. His only reply was to start this RFC. If this is well within the fringe, then surely Nixon biographers will have covered it. Black's book is only a year old.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Include

Wehwalt states that “Many of the sources are transcripts of LBJ tapes, and are thus primary sources, disfavored by WP.”

This is not completely accurate : as the references provided point out, in fact these transcripts appear in a secondary source : Robert "KC" Johnson. “Did Nixon Commit Treason in 1968? What The New LBJ Tapes Reveal”. History News Network, January 26, 2009.

Because this is a secondary source, Robert "KC" Johnson’s evaluations could easily be cited if ever there was a consensus that this is what should be done : such as in the following passage for example : “…representatives from the presidential candidate of the party out of power did seek political advantage by involving themselves in diplomatic negotiations. The story of Richard Nixon’s surreptitious contacts with the South Vietnamese government is quite well-known: fearful that a last-second peace deal would give Hubert Humphrey the election, Nixon agents—chiefly Anna Chennault—reached out to the South Vietnamese government of Nguyen van Thieu. The message: a peace settlement under a Nixon presidency would be more favorable to the South Vietnamese.”.

Wehwalt states that “AN goes well above the sources in his insertion, and much of what he says is not supported by them. He refers to a "crime", the sources don't say that . Look at the Guardian article, then look at what AN says about it. And AN is bordering on BLP issues There are living Nixon aides whom he's accusing of "crime".”

The issue of whether a reference should be made to a “crime” or not could be raised, but as far as the discussion on this Talk page is concerned, it is irrelevant since this discussion serves only to determine by consensus if and how the Nixon campaign sabotage of Paris Peace Accords during 1968 U.S. elections should be added to the article on Richard Nixon.

And as can be read above, all I have proposed is that in the chapter "1968 presidential election" the following should be added at the end of the 2nd paragraph :

"But in secret the Nixon campaign set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. On the eve of the election, South Vietnam withdrew from the negotiations, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democratic campaign was based.[4]"

The word “crime” does not appear in the proposition above.

Although discussing whether a reference should be made to a “crime” or not would be better suited to the talk page of a more in-depth contribution I made on the subject, I will briefly address the matter by quoting three sources :

“And Humphrey did a very decent thing. He decided not to raise the issue because Nixon had won, and he was fearful that there would be a constitutional crisis if he raised this issue because it would have been a violation of the Logan Act, which forbids a private citizen from interfering in diplomatic negotiations.” - The presidential historian, Robert Dallek (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/27/nfcnn.01.html)

“He (Nixon) clearly violated the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting national diplomacy, in his 1968 scheming with South Vietnamese president Thieu” In : “Heroes, hacks, and fools: memoirs from the political inside” by Ted Van Dyk Published by University of Washington Press, 2007, Page 149 :

"Whereas (compared to Johnson-Humphrey) Messrs Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell and Kissinger (only one of them so far unindicted for one abuse of power or another) would have been conducting a "diplomacy" with unaccredited interlocutors, illegal under the Logan Act, concealed not only from both the public and denominated negotiators of the country but also from its electorate!" In : Christopher Hitchens. “The Trial of Henry Kissinger“. Verso, 2002, p.144.

These quotes could easily be inserted in the footnotes of the contribution if there is a consensus that they should be.

Concerning the Guardian article I have already asked many questions above to Wehwalt about his assertions about the article - assertions which are not backed by any precise quotes from the article - and he has failed to answer any of these. On top of all the problems which my questions address, I would like to point out that the Nixon Campaign sabotage is not the only subject of the Guardian article : its main function is to report the release of the Johnson tapes and does not claim to be an in-depth analysis of the sabotage.

Wehwalt states “Happyme22 (…) points out that this really belongs in the campaign article, not in the article about Nixon the man. He's right. Not every Presidential article (and this is a looooong one) can have everything everyone wants in it. (…)This is an article on the man, not the campaign.”

This might be “an article on the man, not the campaign”, but in reality there actually is a section devoted to the "1968 presidential election" in this article “on the man” and, unless I am mistaken, I don’t think the subject of this discussion is to decide whether this section should be deleted or not.

An episode that involves such grave issues as “Treason” and the attempts to sabotage the Paris peace accords by the Nixon Campaign surely does merit a mention in the chapter on the "1968 presidential election" in the Presidential article.

The sabotage attempts are essential in helping to explain the Nixon campaign’s position on Vietnam. If one only reads what is written now in the chapter, one gets an incredibly unbalanced picture which raises serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues.

The sabotage attempts are as essential in helping to explain the Nixon campaign’s strategy as the fact that his running mate “became an increasingly vocal critic of these groups (hippies etc), solidifying Nixon's position with the right.”.

The sabotage attempts are as essential in helping to describe the main events of the election, as the fact that “His campaign was aided by turmoil within the Democratic party etc etc”

Wehwalt should explain why the sabotage attempts deserve less than these other facts to be in the chapter ?

At the very least, the sabotage attempts belong more in the chapter on the "1968 presidential election" than, for example, the following statements in the chapter which seem insignificant in comparison :

“Nixon waged a prominent television campaign, meeting with supporters in front of cameras.” (…) His slogan of "Nixon's the One" proved to be effective.”

Happyme22 states : “I would suggest rewording it as not to implicate Richard Nixon definitively”. I do not know what he is talking about. Could he please quote the words that supposedly “implicate Nixon definitively” in my contribution?

Armando Navarro (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for spreading my name across your argument. I may or may not respond as you have mandated, but I'm still waiting for word from you as to whether this data is in reputable biographies of Nixon, such as Conrad Black's authoritative volume, last year.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I will respond and add comments tomorrow when I have more time. Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Include so long as the sources given are being fairly represented. If there is secondary reporting based on primary sources (such as a newspaper article based on tapes) that meets the WP definition of a secondary source and is not primary. If this is an RfC about the tone of that reporting, and whether or not it should be regarded as a fact or as speculation, then please clarify that soon. But if it's simply the question of whether or not this information should be included, I don't see the argument that it's WP:Fringe being made with any persuasiveness. Shadowjams (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Include one or two sentences that lead to whatever article has most information. Certainly a noteworthy action on his part, to whatever extent it can be attributed to him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Now for my comments: The two sentences you added imply that: Nixon surrounded himself with crooked people right off the bat, Nixon ordered a sabotage, this sabotage was a crime, Nixon committed an awful and attrocious thing and played very dirty to win the presidency, and that while Johnson was attempting to end the war through the Paris negotiations, Nixon set out to stop that purely for political gain. All of these are implications resulting from the sentences, and I have sources that give a little different perspective.

I've reviewed Conrad Black's biography of Richard Nixon, which cites many points in this article. Black does indeed talk about the Paris Peace Accords in relation to the 1968 election (pages 550-556). Contrary to what Armando says above, Black portrays all discussions and communications between involved parties as purely political rather than purposefully criminal. According to Black, Johnson was playing politics just as much as Nixon was. Here is the background:

Black describes it as the climax of the 1968 campaign. The N Vietnamese presumably prefered Humphrey to Nixon because they knew de-escalation by the U.S. would be almost irreversable (in domestic political terms); the S Vietnamese presumably prefered Nixon to Humphrey for the same reasons in reverse. For Humphrey to have any chance at winning, Johnson would need to get both sides into the talks in Paris. The co-chairwoman, with former First Lady Mamie Eisenhower, of Republican Women for Nixon was a lady by the name of Anna Chennault, a friend of S Vietnamese President Thieu and contact between Nixon and S Vietnam. Black notes that from here on, the story becomes very "tangled." Chennault was romantically involved with Thomas G. Corcoran, friend of Lyndon Johnson's and co-manager of Humphrey's campaign. Chennault spoke to Bui Diem and John Mitchell very frequently. The Nixon campaign waged an effort to restrain Thieu from becoming an agent in Humphrey's campaign by being overly credulous or cooperative in an election-eve Johnson peace plan. Chennault was overheard through wiretaps on phones talking to Saigon, uring against an early agreement of a peace plan. When asked if Nixon himself was aware of her call, she said no. Chennault then traveled to Saigon and was in frequent contact with the Ambassador. According to Black, "there was no doubt that Johnson was trying to give himself plausible cover for a peace move and deliver the election to Humphrey, and that Nixon was determined not to be robbed of the presidency by the Democrats again. To this end, Nixon, with no illegal dealings by him or his entourage, assisted Thieu in detecting his own self-interest... The Democrats were outraged at Nixon, but what Johnson was doing was equally questionable." On October 26, Nixon revealed a likely imminent bombing halt; his source was a contact inside the White House who said Johnson was about to make a last minute supreme effort to pull the election for Humphrey. The following day, N. Vietnam agreed to the Paris talks if the VietCong could join, which S. Vietnam rejected. Johnson and his staff blamed Nixon, but could not do so publicly because of the illegal wiretaps on Chennault.

So, I conclude that this is indeed a topic worthy of inclusion, but it must adhere to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and provide proper context, as the version proposed by Armando does not. "Sabatoge" is a loaded word. I propose something such as the following:

"Nearing election day, polls showed that Nixon was only ahead of Humphrey by a few percentage points. President Johnson was attemping to influence the outcome of the election in Humphrey's favor by encouraging both North and South Vietnam to join the Paris Peace Accords, but North Vietnam would only join if the Viet Cong was represented as well; South Vietnam was opposed to this. The Nixon campaign, via an aide friendly with the South Vietnamese president, encouraged South Vietnam not to join. On the eve of the election, South Vietnam withdrew from the negotiations, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democratic campaign was based."

That can be cited from Black, Conrad pages 550-556; other sources presented above by Armando can be used to back up points. My proposal might be a bit long, but it can go in the 1968 election article and maybe someone can take a whack at trimming it down further for this article. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent compromise, and once it is implemented here, suggest we insert versions of it in the 1968 article and also in the other articles where AN has inserted similar language.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Contributions that nixon did.

He sponsored many programs and increased the role of federal government. He created new agencies and laws. Some of them are The —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makara2 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Details about programs

The Occupational Safety and Health administration helped with regulating workplaces to make them safer for the workers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makara2 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image pending deletion

Please be aware that [File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg] will most likely be deleted from Commons as non-public domain; it is being retained as an image in the English Wikipedia because of fair use in Checkers speech, but a fair use rationale will be needed for continued use in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

McGovern's alleged 'gerrymandering'

From the section on the '72 election:

"McGovern, however, chaired a commission that allocated delegates based on an affirmative action plan, giving fixed weight to ethnic groups and gerrymandered the convention for himself"

Blatantly POV, no? I'd edit it myself, but the article's protected. RevengeOfTheMojoWire (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1969 - 1974 = "soon"? (Viet Nam)

"He initially escalated the conflict, overseeing secret bombing campaigns, but soon withdrew American troops"

I know it's just the lead, but really? He didn't end the war until his second term, calling that "soon" seems to be an amazing bit of whitewashing. </sarcasm re:Obama and Iraq almost saved but deleted, oops>Huw Powell (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He began gradually withdrawing American forces from the region in 1970 (I believe). It was in mid-1973 that treaties were signed which ended American involvement in the region. The escalation refers to the bombing in Cambodia. Happyme22 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ranks poorly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating

I have noticed how in articles about certain U.S. presidents, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, it says that they rank highly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating. For Nixon, shouldn't it say how he ranks poorly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating? Since certain articles about certain presidents say how they rank highly among other presidents in terms of approval rating, wouldn't it make sense to say how presidents like Nixon rank poorly among other presidents? --Joker123192 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to that. But it might also want to mention how his ranking among presidents has changed over the past 35 years. Unschool 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so open to it. Richard Nixon is viewed so differently by so many different people that I don't think that an extremely vague statement that his approval ratings are low would do anything beneficial.

First off, there is a difference between reviews by historians and public approval rating. When it comes to recent polls by historians, Nixon is viewed as an average president with a 2009 rank of 27th overall, in the middle tier of presidential ratings.[2] But it goes deeper than that; in specific categories, Nixon was ranked: 21 in public persuassion[3], 23 in crisis leadership[4], 22 in economic management[5], 41 in moral authority[6], 11 in international relations[7], 23 in administrative skills[8], 37 in relations with Congress[9], 22 in agenda setting[10], 18 in persuing equal justice for all[11], and 33 in performance within context of the time.[12] Overall, these polls indicate that the historians tend to view Nixon as an average president. Disregarding the outliers of 11 and 41, most of his numbers are in the 20s, which is the average pack.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan have consistently ranked highly in terms of approval rating, though Nixon's has indeed changed over a time span of 60 years. He originally had a very high approval rating as a Congressman and Vice President, then also relatively high in his first presidential term. His approval rating was at rock bottom from about early 1974 to the early 1980s, but then gradually started rising. Many people saw him in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a true elder statesman and expert in foreign affairs (a well-documented fact which should be added to the lead), while others only thought of Watergate when they saw Nixon. So it varies.

In Nixon's case, I don't think an extremely vague and general statement that his approval ratings are considered to be low is appropriate, because they vary from person to person and have changed dramatically over time. Without proper context (which would take up way too much space than is justified in the lead), one cannot get the full story of Nixon's public perception and its change over many periods of time, and thus we would be misrepresenting the article's subject by adding this to the lead. --Happyme22 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Presidential Ranking article at Wikipedia, you will notice that although he does not rank quite as poorly among historians, he receives poor approval ratings in most public opinion polls you see in that article, if not all of them. Exactly why I think it should say "He ranks poorly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval ratings." --Joker123192 (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act

There is no mention of this in the article even though he signed it into law.

I believe that something about it should be added as it is a prominent document.

7-9-2009 by a concerned citizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.109.204 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Address to Commonwealth Club of California (1965)

Proposed addition to external links: "Asia after Vietnam," (1 Apr 1965). A speech by Nixon from the Commonwealth Club of California Records at the Hoover Institution Archives.

--Hoover.audio (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia & Chile

Why there is no mention of bombing of Cambodia and intervention in Chile in this article?Trace68 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

War on Drugs

Nixon's initiation of the War on Drugs is a subject that ought to be included in this article. I do not not too much about it, but might start a section after research. —a thing 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quakers and being COs

Maybe this question belongs on the Quaker page and I'll go their next, but do your parents need to be Quaker's as well in order to claim consentious objector status to recieve a military deferment? I was reverted on this point. TIA --Tom (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)ps, I asked the same question on he Quaker talk page and will wait for comment. --Tom (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be neceesary, but having Quaker parents and therefore having been raised in that faith would certainly bolster one's bona fides as a CO. Plazak (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have an opinion on whether the sentence in question should include his parents. Based on it not being necessary, I would leave it out since it implies that is part of the requirement. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for the quote I saw in my bios of Nixon on this point. Nixon was exempt both because of his Quaker religion and because he had an exempt job at the OPA. He didn't have to claim CO status. They weren't going to draft him.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So do you mind if I change that sentence? --Tom (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I remember seeing the words "Quaker parentage" in the description in one of Nixon's bios, let me look. Give me a couple of hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is from page 55 of Conrad Black's 2007 bio: "He certainly could have dodged the war if he had wished, he had a double exemption. He was excused as a cradle Quaker with two Quaker parents and a Quaker education through to his undergraduate degree. And as an OPA executive, he was in a draft-immune position." On balance, I think you can strike it. It's the religion that is important. Black is simply going up on his lines, as he tended to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Public approval of Nixon's economic policy

Source 77 is invalid as it links to another wikipedia article, rather than a source. Also, the assertion offered in the "link" cited directly contradicts the assertion made in the Nixon article.

Jpcl212121 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Overall, however, the controls were viewed as successful in the short term[77] and were popular with the public, who felt Nixon was rescuing them from price-gougers and from a foreign-caused exchange crisis.[73][78]"

^ a b c d e f g Hetzel, Robert L. (2008), p. 92.

You are mistaken. It's a print source, and doesn't link anywhere. This is acceptable. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reference 77 appears to be to page 92 of Robert Hertzel's book. I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's faithfully reflecting the material, but it certainly seems to be a reliable source. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

34th vice pres. not 36th

thats all

Myamarsh (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Senate website[13], he was the 36th. Dwight Eisenhower may have been the 34th POTUS, but Nixon was the 36th VPOTUS. Happyme22 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this article use too many sources from conrad black. The guy is a proven right wing biased criminal, currently in jail, therefore he should not be used as legitimate source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black I'm guessing he is the only historian who portrays nixon in a positive light and that is the reason for all the conrad black sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

From black's wiki: Black has written an autobiography and three substantial biographies of controversial twentieth-century figures. In each he casts his hero as a man of incorrigible intellectual strength buttressed and not weakened by partisan attack and personal malady. His revisionist works rescue Duplessis and Nixon from their status as moral pariahs, and portrays Roosevelt as an centrist who saved capitalism. Black writes in a highly erudite, if idiosyncratic, manner. His purple style and pointed criticism have been the subject of much derision in reviews, though his factual rigour is beyond repute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did not propose Universal health care.

The following sentence should be deleted, "He also explored creating a universal minimum income and universal health care, but was not able to realize either.[80]" is fabricated and should be deleted. The reference sited in the article contains no such information as it pertains to universal health care.

The source does mention the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) that was a Guaranteed minimum income. It does not mention his support of universal health care, which he also supported and a source should be found. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

External link

Please include the following external link to the external links for President Richard Nixon. It includes a respectful reminder of Nixon's commitment to eradicate the disease of cancer: http://www.geocities.net/Nixon.html If this link cannot be included, then please include the external link pointing to the National Institute of Health's Cancer research centers source of information also explaining President Nixon's commitment to cancer research as a historical footnote. http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/timeline/noflash/milestones/M4_Nixon.htm Thank You. Clinton Born II (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for adding in the government site over the geocities site, as geocities probably doesn't qualify in most respects as a reliable source. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)