Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Bangladesh

1971 Bangladesh War was one of Nixon's great foreign policy mistakes.The struggle for liberation of Bangladesh was opposed by President Nixon whose administration stood by its long-term ally Pakistan, overlooking the latter's gross Human Rights Violations and genocide. Please see this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War 76.169.183.174 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very opiniony to me. In addition, we cannot possibly cover Nixon's foreign policy for every country on Earth in the limited space we have. All we can do is give highlights. Thank you for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

I've noticed that we have two redirects for the classic "Not a crook" line. I'm not a crook redirects to this article, while I am not a crook redirects to Watergate scandal. Not a crook is not a redirect. My question is this - these should clearly point to the same article, but which one? the "I'm" version was re-targeted to Nixon in 2010, and was previously pointed at the Scandal article. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Watergate, I'd think. Less to wade through for the reader and they can easily come here if they want biographical information.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead length template

I think the template that says the lead is too long should be removed. The lead is 4 paragraphs. The manual says the lead should be 3 or 4 paragraphs if the article is more than 30 K characters long. This article is 127 K bytes long. --Ettrig (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of "ignore all rules" is that we should use common sense, and not just say "the manual of style says no more than 4 paragraphs, and this only has 4 paragraphs, so it's fine." The manual of style also says that the lead should be "accessible", and I think that the amount of information in this lead is more than is necessary and makes it less accessible than it could be, so there is room for improvement. Three of the four are very long paragraphs, some of which probably should be divided up or at least shortened. Paragraph 2 covers his life from birth to 1968. Paragraphs 3 and 4 go into more depth with more specifics than is needed for a lead. I am not saying it needs to be drastically reduced in size, just cut down a little. It's 558 words long. Compare that with Lyndon Johnson's article lead, which is 327 words long, and which I think is a more managable size for a president's article lead. Johnson's doesn't go into too much detail in the lead that should be left for the body, Nixon's does. I am restoring the template. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. Have you considered this article is basically unaltered from when it passed FAC, recently?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote from Article Development:

Featured articles are well polished, but there are usually small improvements that can be made. Do not ever be afraid to correct mistakes or update information when you see an opportunity; few articles are perfect, even though perfection is always our goal. We have a formal procedure for encouraging Wikipedians to review and improve featured articles: Featured Article Review.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. I think the current lede is adequate. If you have specific changes you'd like to suggest, we can discuss them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As I told you, nothing drastic, just a little simplification and trimming of the fat to improve readability and leave some of the details for the meat of the article: Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California. He graduated from Whittier College and Duke University School of Law then practiced law in California before working for the federal government in Washington, D.C. in 1942. He subsequently joined the United States Navy, serving in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. His pursuit of the Hiss Case established his reputation as a leading anti-communist, and elevated him to national prominence. Nixon served for eight years as vice president under Dwight D. Eisenhower. He narrowly lost his first presidential campaign to John F. Kennedy in 1960, then lost a race for Governor of California in 1962. Following these defeats, he announced his withdrawal from political life until his successful presidential bid in 1968.

Nixon initially escalated the unpopular war in Vietnam before completely withdrawing American forces by 1973. Nixon's ground-breaking visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union the same year. In domestic policy, his administration generally sought to transfer power from Washington to the states. In an attempt to slow inflation, Nixon imposed wage and price controls. He enforced desegregation of Southern schools and established the Environmental Protection Agency. Though he presided over Apollo 11, the culmination of the project to land a person on the moon, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972.

Nixon's second term was marked by crisis: first, the Arab oil embargo, then the Watergate scandal, which led to him resigning on August 9, 1974 to avoid impeachment and removal from office. After his resignation, he was controversially issued a pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford. In retirement, he authored several books and reinvented himself as an elder statesman. Nixon suffered a stroke and died four days later four days later on April 18, 1994, and at the age of 81.

Here is another set of possible cuts: --Ettrig (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California. After completing his undergraduate work at Whittier College, he graduated from Duke University School of Law in 1937 and returned to California to practice law. He and his wife, Pat Nixon, moved to Washington to work for the federal government in 1942. He subsequently served in the United States Navy, serving in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. His pursuit of the Hiss Case established his reputation as a leading anti-communist, and elevated him to national prominence. He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party presidential nominee in the 1952 election, the first of five national nominations he received from his party, a record he shares with Franklin Roosevelt. Nixon served for eight years as vice president, traveling extensively and undertaking major assignments from Eisenhower. He waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy, and lost a race for Governor of California in 1962. Following these defeats, he announced his withdrawal from political life. However, In 1968 he ran again for the presidency and was elected.

American involvement in Vietnam was widely unpopular; Although Nixon initially escalated the war in Vietnam, he subsequently moved to ended the US involvement, completely withdrawing American forces by in 1973. Nixon's ground-breaking visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union the same year. In domestic policy, His administration generally sought to transferred power from Washington to the states. In an attempt to slow inflation, Nixon He imposed wage and price controls, enforced desegregation of Southern schools and established the Environmental Protection Agency. Though he presided over Apollo 11, the culmination of the Apollo program that land a person on the moon, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972.

Nixon's second term was marked by crisis: 1973 saw an Arab oil embargo as a result of U.S. support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War and a continuing series of revelations about the Watergate scandal, which began as a break-in at a Washington office. The scandal escalated despite efforts by the Nixon administration to cover it up, costing Nixon much of his political support, and on August 9, 1974, he resigned in the face of almost certain impeachment and removal from office. After his resignation, he was controversially issued a pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford. In retirement, Nixon's work authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his image. He suffered a debilitating stroke on April 18, 1994, and died four days later at the age of 81. Nixon remains a source of considerable interest among historians, as they struggle to resolve the enigma of a president of great ability who left office in disgrace yet subsequently reinvented himself as an elder statesman.

I like the last one best, though they are all decent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I like Ettrig's even better than mine, I think we should go with that. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Homosexual Relationship?

The Daily Mail and other news outlets are mentioning a biography by Don Fulsom where a question is raised regarding a homosexual relationship with Bebe Rebozo.

Since this is sourced, should this be mentioned?

I am not going to touch this article unless I get agreement; I don't want to be reverted or get into hot water. I figure here in the talk page is a safe place to start a discussion. Allyn (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't bite, or at least not often. However, even though it is sourced, "raising a question" is not enough. I would say it would have to be accepted by at least a significant minority of the scholarly community before I would concur with adding it. And especially since Nixon had a very strong reputation for fidelity to Pat.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I read a couple of the articles. One of them says he was estranged from Pat for most of their marriage!!! I think it is unlikely we will want to add this, but I will continue to watch the coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose adding this in; it would have to be generally regarded as a fact to include it, or at the very least, as Wehwalt said, it would have to be accepted by a significant number of the community of scholars or historians. This same author, Don Fulsom, alleges that Nixon beat Pat regularly as well... For what it is worth, the state (or states) of the Nixons' marriage has been long debated, and generally the following is accepted: he was smitten with her when they met, she not so much; his persistence and desire to "go places" wooed her and they were married, very much in love; they had two daughters; they were very close during the vice presidential years; their marriage was strong but personal "closeness" during the presidency years waned because of the strain of his job and life in the White House; after the White House they spent more time together and were closer than ever before.

We would need significant concurrence from many, many other sources to even consider including something like this. My guess is that this is going to pass quickly. Happyme22 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up about vandalism attempt

As it may or may not already have occured yet, in the 30 Rock episode "Subway Hero", Tracy Jordan announces that he is going to remove some unmentioned information from the present article in accordance with the wishes of Richard Nixon (whom he encountered in a vision). __meco (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? Fortunately we are semi protected for another 11 months or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

College football?

Why is this article in the scope of WikiProject College football? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Nixon played college football at Whittier College, and was a very big college football fan, even calling in a play while in office Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

But there is no mention of that anywhere in this article. Shouldn't there at least be a mention somewhere? Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I"m currently away. I can add when I get home that he played football. Well, was on the football team, more accurately.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the long delay. I've added the information. He did not in fact play, but he was on the team. By the way, the "calling a play" thing is quite possibly apocryphal and supposedly involved the Redskins.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nixon's impromptu early a.m. trip to Lincoln Memorial and meeting with peace protestors

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S14zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=M_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4206,2555827&dq=nixon+protesters&hl=en

Nixon Up Early, See Protesters, UPI, Beaver County Times [Pennsylvania], Saturday, May 9, 1970, page one [presumably late edition].

I think this is probably worth including. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What about something like "Nixon's responses to protesters included an impromptu, early morning meeting with them at the Lincoln Memorial"?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think something like that would be good. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is a pretty good book source I think I'll include as a reference. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Before The Fall: An Insider View of the Pre-Watergate White House, with a 2005 Preface by the Author, William Safire, Originally published: Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1975 (new material 2005), pages 205-209.

Ground invasion of Cambodia announced to American public on April 30, 1970.
8,000 Move Into Cambodia, St. Peterburg Independent (now The Evening Independent), AP (Saigon), May 1, 1970, page 20-A.

And increases in May 1970. Fresh Yanks Join Action In Cambodia, Milwaukee Sentinel, UPI (Saigon, South Vietnam), May 9, 1970, Page 2, Part 1.

I added some of the above. Please tell me what you think. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, though I may play with the citation. I need to check Nixon bios for that. Obviously the significance of it is clearer if biographers pick up on it. The text looks fine--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've sourced it to Black's bio of Nixon, which was the first that came to hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally prefer a variety of sources. And I really think this incident gives such a window on RN's personality that I would like to re-add both, esp. the William Safire book, which gives an excellent and detailed account, but also that news article is pretty good.

Is the Black bio even partially available on line? If not, by being cumbersome for us wiki writers and researchers to check citations, we might lose much of the benefits of the group approach, multiple eyes, all that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Put them back then.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does article currently over-rely on Black's bio (Feb. 2012)?

For example, there is the following criticism of Black's bio:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/richard-milhous-nixon-the-invincible-quest/2007/08/06/1186252588654.html
“ . . . Black distorts at regular opportunity the incontestable truths of what transpired not only in Watergate but in Vietnam and Cambodia, not only in Nixon's many races for office but also in some important historical events. . . ”

Maybe, maybe not. Look, when someone writes a substantial biography on a major historial figure with controversy, there's going to be all kind of criticism. That's a given. All the same, we are currently relying on this one source rather heavily, and perhaps over-relying on it. That's the question. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, not terribly. All of Nixon's biographers have issues. In my opinion, Ambrose was the best, but he didn't have the advantage of a lot of material later biographers had. I tried to jump from one to the other, depending on the period in Nixon's life. Black had the advantage of writing after Nixon's death. I was also sensitive to the fact that Black has personal issues. That being said, Nixon's life is a fairly well-worn tale and we really don't have time in the article to dig into the detail. I was also trying to make the article noncontroversial with an eye at FAC. One of the things I liked about Black is that he gave dates and specific statistics more than other biographers, thus you'll sometimes see him cited in passages involving them. A lot of what I think they are talking about is the commentary he puts in there, and he clearly does feel Nixon did no or little wrong in Watergate. I do not cite him for his opinions, except where specified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I do see how we reference Ambrose's biography a number of times, too. So, that's good, we have a mix of sources. And I like the distinction you say about Black, that he gives a lot of dates and specifics, and then separately, puts in commentary. Now, the above critic says he wasn't able to maintain this distinction, but then again, that's exactly the kind of thing critics are going to say. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Biography today seems more chatty and opinionated than it used to be, and every author has a perspective. I'm pretty comfortable about everything in the article. I keep all the sources around, this is always going to be an active talk page. Right now, there's the upcoming 40th anniversary of the China visit. Between one thing and another, Nixon will always be with us.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I read that Conrad Black was born in Canada and later moved to England and became a member of the House of Lords. If so, that's a potentially good thing, for it gives his writing a different flavor, as it were. And a potentially really interesting book might be one by a Chinese writer, say a person who was only a teenage girl or boy during Nixon's visit. Now, I don't think there would end up being that many direct disagreements on factual matters, one person saying A, another saying not-A. But on what a writer chooses to emphasize, that might be different. Sometimes in the most interesting books, the author is trying to write a straightforward narrative, but because they're coming at it from a somewhat different angle, it ends up being a fascinating book. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, in this top level article, we have so little time to dig into those details. This article really doesn't do more than scratch the surface in over 130K. However, I was able to start more leisurely specific articles focusing on individual events in Nixon's career, like United States Senate election in California, 1950 and "Bring Us Together". I suspect there is more written about Nixon than about any 20th century president.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RN calling for more research on both cancer and sickle cell anemia?

This is from our lead: " . . initiated wars on cancer and drugs, imposed wage and price controls, enforced desegregation of Southern schools and established the Environmental Protection Agency. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972. . "

Space permitting, and I know it's not much, maybe we could do a little bit more regarding his efforts against cancer. And from his same speech on Feb. 18, 1971, RN also called for more research on sickle cell anemia.
http://fondationpierrefabre.org/docs/communication/brochures/brochure_fondation_GB.pdf page 4

As people might remember from college biology, sickle cell anemia disportionately affects persons of African descent because one sickle-cell gene is advantageous against malaria whereas two are harmful. And so, regarding Richard Nixon, this shows a side of his personality of siding with the underdog which I think he sometimes like to do. This was part of his complex personality.

And frankly, we might want to modify this "enforced desegregation of Southern schools." I think ol' RN was big against school busing. In fact, I think this was part of his "Southern strategy" in 1968. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

---

“ . . In February 1971 Republican president Richard Nixon surprised many Americans by making sickle cell anemia part of his health message to Congress, thus putting it into the bright spotlight of presidential politics. . ”
http://books.google.com/books?id=mtya18oC2EMC&pg=PA165&dq=%22surprised+many+Americans+by+making+sickle+cell+anemia+part+of+his+health+message+to+Congress%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ghtYT67nMrHLsQLfhbzDDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22surprised%20many%20Americans%20by%20making%20sickle%20cell%20anemia%20part%20of%20his%20health%20message%20to%20Congress%22&f=false

---

http://books.google.com/books?id=r2qRyBmB15EC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=%22cannot+rewrite+this+record+of+neglect,+but+we+can+reverse+it%22&source=bl&ots=BuRV_GgICk&sig=vFyy3m1OmUCM71yAFCbzOSOnwVc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dhZYT7q8NcSPsAK3vtSvDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22cannot%20rewrite%20this%20record%20of%20neglect%2C%20but%20we%20can%20reverse%20it%22&f=false

I do not have any great objection to an appropriate and brief (that is, a sentence, not a paragraph) mention being placed in of the domestic policy sections, if it can be placed in proper context (presidents propose lots of stuff, was there congressional action in response)?. I don't think it should go in the lede. As for the lede and busing, RN was probably personally against it. However, his Justice Department did enforce federal court orders for busing when called upon to do so. There is some discussion of his civil rights policy in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken. Presidents do propose lots of stuff. How much forward momentum did the Nixon Administration really give to sickle cell treatment? That would be the question.

And I'm almost equally interested in what this tells about RN's personality. Did he try and pitch in and help the underdog, and are there other examples of this?

Okay, about civil rights. I think during the '68 election, Nixon criticized the Supreme Court for "coddling criminals." And other things, so that people who majorly against the Court and wanted to roll back civil rights, could certainly end up thinking Nixon was on their side. That is, he may have been acting, not as a leader, but as a politician. And the whole situation with Haynsworth and Carswell being nominated, not merely conservative, I think one of them had a segregationist background. Question of whether he was then currently a segregationist, etc, etc.

And then, as chief executive officer for the United States, I'm not sure how much credit we should give Nixon for simply doing his job and enforcing the law.

With the busing, it wasn't like he was trying to bend the path. It was more like he was trying to put a wall in front of continued progress.

Going to have to think about it, look at it a couple of times, but I might feel better with our opening section reading "mixed record on civil rights," or something like that.

And I think our article has a serious ommission that President Richard Nixon nomimated four---yes, Four---Justices to the Supreme Court who the Senate confirmed. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

At one time, this article had a standard statement as you'll see in many presidential articles. I took it out, I felt it said nothing that couldn't be said in a sub-article. The circumstances of Nixon's appointments would need more time then I feel we have to spare in this article. At least a paragraph each. The circumstances of Burger's appointment means discussing the Nixon/Warren rivalry and also the Republican refusal to confirm the nomination by Johnson of Fortas as Chief Justice. The Blackmun nomination after two failures is another issue, and then the whole balancing thing by appointing one conservative and one liberal. It seemed very long, too long. If you like, I can add a footnote at the point where I mention the two southern conservatives mentioning the successful noms.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As for Nixon and the underdog, he certainly always considered himself an underdog, even as president. As for him helping other underdogs, well, I think Nixon's record as president on civil rights suffers because remember the things he said on the tapes. His civil rights policies were moderate, certainly by comparison with Reagan. He at least wanted to calm the civil rights issue down, and mollify both blacks and whites.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I distinctly remember reading that one of the two, Haynsworth or Carswell, had a background as a segregationist. Or at least that claim was publicly stated by some opposing the nomination. Now I wouldn't dare put this in our article just on my bare memory, even though I do have a good memory. But if we can find a good source stating this, I probably think we should go ahead and include it, including the discordant word "segregationist." The word "conservative" has much more positive or neutral connotations, certainly in our current political climate. If a sitting judge and/or high judicial nominee was in favor of maintaining segregationist policies, that is quite a bit different matter.

Now, the part about balancing with one conservative and one liberal, Wow, that would really surprise me. Actually, this was the premise of one of my favorite episodes of West Wing when the fictional President Bartlett got won over to Josh's idea of this. But I really think all four of Nixon's successful nominees, including Blackmun, were on the conservative side of the spectrum, although perhaps some more than others, sure.

PS I will need to further think on the subject of whether Nixon helped other underdogs. Probably the most common thing is that once someone makes it, they kind of forget about other underdogs. Will similarly need to think about Nixon vs. Reagan on civil rights. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Carrswell. Judging by his article, he advocated segregation in a Georgia legislative race 20 years previously, or at least so it was said. I will have to research it a bit. And Nixon did do the balancing bit. With two seats on the Court vacant, he nominated Rehnquist (a conservative) and Powell (moderate to liberal).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how someone running in a Georgia election circa 1950 might end up saying all kinds of things. Although even here things get complicated. I think it was in the 20s or 30s that a southern Governor gave a Christmas radio address in which he asked, Are we really doing right by our black citizens? So, the human spirit can come through, and in a good way.

I read Lewis Powell liked to have a liberal clerk (plural?) because as he put it, that kind of reasoning didn't come as easily to him. This impressed me, that he was a intellectually honest person trying to do a good job.

One of my big criticisms of the Court is the absence of practical-minded persons and having a healthy interchange between theory and practice. Other people have essentially made this same criticism, saying that in previous times a governor or senator might be nominated (or maybe even a notable laywer?). But now, it's all appellate judges all the time.

Winding back to RN, didn't he take the two rejections hard? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk)

Not sure, and I'm away from home for two weeks so hard to check, Certainly the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate was always a factor in nominations. I argued a case in front of a 4th Circuit panel that included Powell, sitting by designation. Only time I ever was there (I lost, but it was an appeal case which I took over that had been screwed up at the trial court level). They have a nice custom where the panel comes down to shake hands with the lawyers, so I shook his hand. I said, "It's an honor, sir." He said "Don't squeeze it" (his hand, which was bandaged. I didn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you didn't hurt the guy's hand! And he seems like a decently direct fellow. I always enjoy hearing the human side about politics and people.

Okay, I read The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. There was also a Newsweek or Time article (I think Newsweek) about Lewis Powell from the mid-80s describing how he was often a swing vote on the Court.

And I think you're entirely right that the Nixon Administration put forth Rehnquist and Powell as a package deal. And I'm surprised the Senate went along with this. The obvious conclusion seems to be that they wanted to avoid institutional conflict with the Administration. Now, even with a package deal, Powell still might be on the conservative side of the spectrum all things considered.

And I guess here we get to the point, liberal-conservative isn't even a cardboard caricature, for a cardboard caricature has two dimensions! Whereas the supposed liberal-conservative spectrum is a single dimension, as if we could reduce all the complexity of life to just one dimension. Okay, supposedly the judicial conservative prefers to stand pat and doesn't like to overrule state or federal law, whereas a judicial activist is more likely to overrule. And on something like a state law on gay marriage, this may play to type. But on economic regulation, it often seems the reverse. For example, I think there was a case around '95 where the California legislature passes a law pertaining to credit cards and the Court ruled, Oh, no, you can't do that. And on a number of cases, the supposed conservatives seem to be activist in favor of corporations. Interesting world! Yes, indeed, we live in an interesting world. And I think Justice Scalia could be viewed as libertarian? And it seems like other justices are siding with existing powerful interests and/or the status quo, and not so much with the rights of the average ciizens . . or at least seems that way to an ol' country boy like myself ;)

And with the above southern politician, I'm pretty sure it was "Big Jim" Folsom from 1949. I'll try and find a transcript of the talk. I remember reading it in a book of famous American speeches and it really was remarkable. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Dying in the city of the blues: sickle cell anemia and the politics of race and health, Keith Wailoo, University of North Carolina Press, 2001, page 165:
“ . . In February 1971 Republican president Richard Nixon surprised many Americans by making sickle cell anemia part of his health message to Congress, thus putting it into the bright spotlight of presidential politics. . ”

Yeah, after reading the text, I can see putting something in about it. Just because it would not be deemed a Republican issue, for obvious reasons. And say that this was an example of him co-opting liberal issues. It's sort of like the wage and price controls, where Congress granted him the power thinking he wouldn't use it and he did. He was prepared to use whatever he could to advance his agenda against a Democratic Congress.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Richard Nixon, 1971, Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Feb. 18, 1971, pages 180-81:
" . . It is estimated that one out of every 500 black babies actually develops sickle cell disease. It is a sad and shameful fact that the causes of this disease have been largely neglected throughout our history. We cannot rewrite this record of neglect, but we can reverse it. To this end, this administration is increasing its budget for research and treatment of sickle cell disease fivefold, to a new total of $6 million. . "

Plan Proposed to Battle Sickle Cell Anemia Cases, Tri-City Herald [Washinton State], AP, Monday, Feb. 22, 1971, page 4:
' . . "It is a sad and shameful fact that the causes of this disease have been largely neglected throughout our history," President Nixon said last week in announcing a $6 million request for concentrated research on the anemia as part of his special health message to Congress. "We cannot rewrite this record of neglect, but we can reverse it," he said. . '

Pres. Nixon signs 1972 National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act

155 - Statement on Signing the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act, May 16, 1972: “ . . . In February 1971, I pledged that this Administration would reverse the record of neglect on this dread disease. To accomplish that end, $10 million was used to expand sickle cell programs in fiscal 1972, a tenfold budget increase over fiscal 1971. In my March 1972 health message, I proposed that we raise the funding level of sickle cell anemia activities for fiscal 1973 to $15 million. . . ”

Sickle Cell Research for Treatment and Cure, National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Sept. 2002, on page 2 (after introductory material) graph traces NHLBI research funding from FY 1972 to 2001, totaling $923 million for these thirty years, starting at $10 million for ’72, then about $15 million a year through ’76, about $20 million for ’77, etc.

SCDAA, Legislative Initiatives, History, Advocacy Update: 'The Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act was first signed into law in 1972 by President Richard Nixon. In 1971, President Nixon pledged that his Administration would “reverse the record of neglect on the dreaded disease”. Ten million was provided to expand sickle cell disease programs in fiscal year 1972, with a goal of increasing funding in 1973 and expanding SCD-related activities at the Veterans Administration. Over 30 years later, the Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003 (SCTA) was signed into law under President George Bush. . . '

So, apparently this 1972 law is kind of a big deal (and/or it's hard to pass legislation on sickle cell), but probably a big dose that it is a big deal. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

but the plot thickens ------

Dying in the city of the blues: sickle cell anemia and the politics of race and health, page 170: "The targeting of sickle cell anemia for special legislation was in part a result of growing Democratic Party pressure for health reform, but it also reflected Nixon's political shrewdness and his overall fiscal conservatism.[22] As part of his "New Federalism"--a plan to limit the expansion of government--the president proposed to scale back spending, but he needed to do so in a politically feasible manner. In the case of medical funding, Nixon embraced research on a few important, high profile diseases like cancer even as he instructed the National Institutes of Health to reduce overall research expenditures. To pay for these initiatives, the president advocated no new expenditures, only a massive shifting of funds within a reduced NIH budget. By championing both the war on cancer and (surprising both his supporters and opponents) new research on sickle cell anemia in his February 1971 health message, he gained positive political attention for these bold initiatives while remaining true to his conservative ideals."

"Note 22. With the cost of medical care, Medicare, and Medicaid growing rapidly, politicians had drawn attention to a burgeoning health care crisis. One political response to the crisis, by Senator Edward Kennedy, called for a national health insurance plan, which would control costs more strictly than Medicare. Nixon had countered with his own proposal, an employer mandate for private insurance. At the same time, both Congress and Nixon embraced the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1972 as a further step along the road to controlling costs. For a discussion of these and other trends, see Don Madison, "Paying for Health Care in America," in The Social Medicine Reader, ed. Gail Henderson et al. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1997), 415-46."

With a Democratic Congress what in fact happened to the overall National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. Let me look over this stuff tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I went to Google books and used the search function for inside the books for both National Institutes and NIH.

Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, Conrad Black.

Nixon: Volume Two, The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972, Stephen Ambrose.

Nixon: Volume Three, Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990, Stephen Ambrose.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves.

Before The Fall: An Inside View Of The Pre-Watergate White House, William Safire.

Abuse Of Power, The New Nixon Tapes, Edited with an introduction and commentary, Stanley I. Kutler.

And, no hits. For all six of these books, apparently no mention of either National Institutes [of Health] or NIH. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the context of the times when the biographies were written, when health care was not as important a political issue. Are there recent scholarly papers that you are aware of? I have access to JSTOR, if it happens to be there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So far, only the above. And please bring me up to speed on JSTOR. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. JSTORE (http://www.jstor.org) has scholarly papers. Anyone can search, but you need membership, usually through a school or library, to retrieve papers. I have membership through a local library. I was suggesting you check there. i can email you copies, if you send me an email first as Wikipedia's mail system doesn't allow attachments..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/workshops/Sickle_Cell_Disease_Workshop.pdf

This has some good information, too, especially page 5. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I also saw a couple of articles on JSTOR that at least touch on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the 1972 law was THE legislation for sickle cell and presumably the prime vehicle for funding for 30 years. That's huge. The Clean Air Act, also signed by President Nixon, was discussed being renewed under Pres. Bush, Sr., and there was controversy, are these updates watering it down, strengthening it, a bit of both, etc, okay, so that's about 20 years.

I think we can say when Nixon called for increased sickle cell funding, when he signed it, that it led to 30 years of funding (maybe with the cumulative total), to be superceded by Pres. Bush, Jr.'s 2003 legislation. And about whether Nixon's sickle cell and cancer initiatives merely redirected existing NIH funding, what if we simply write: "One writer on sickle cell states . . "

That is, we just keep it simple and straightforward, and at the same time we share with our readers the information we currently have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll look over the sources over the next few days. Remind me if I forget.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, the plot thickens even more------

African American Women’s Health and Social Issues, Catherine Fisher Collins, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers (an imprint of Greenwood), 2006, pages 76-77:

“ . . . Although the Sickle Cell Treatment Act was passed in 2004, only $200,000 was appropriated to establish a demonstration program and a National Coordinating Center. Senator Jim Talent (R-MO), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) are currently seeking support to include at least $10 million in the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill for grants to create the forty treatment centers to provide medical treatment, education and other services for individuals who have sickle cell disease and included in P.L. 108-357. The fight continues!”

Good for our author! I often like writing which combines both technical information and advocacy. Of course, it can’t be our only source. So, at this point I’m thinking, let’s leave the Bush complications to the side (for another article potentially) and just include that the bill RN signed got the momentum going on thirty years of funding. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nixon calling for more money Feb. '71:

Dying in the city of the blues: sickle cell anemia and the politics of race and health, Keith Wailoo, University of North Carolina Press, 2001, page 165.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Richard Nixon, 1971, Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Feb. 18, 1971, pages 179-182.

President Nixon signs the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act on May 16, 1972. This gets the ball rolling on thirty years of funding totaling $923 million (from 1972-2001).

155 - Statement on Signing the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act, May 16, 1972.

Sickle Cell Research for Treatment and Cure, National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Sept. 2002, page 2 (after introductory material), graph traces NHLBI research funding from FY 1972 to 2001, totaling $923 million for these thirty years, starting at $10 million for 1972, then about $15 million a year through 1976, about $20 million for 1977, etc.

I am delayed by pressure of work and other commitments from looking at these so far. I haven't forgotten. Sorry to be so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I've been pretty busy, too. And this is a pretty serious part, and I kind of feel that I need to have the right kind of energy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC) And I'm busy with other projects equally important.

One writer on sickle cell states that will Pres. Nixon called for increased spending on high-profile items like cancer and sickle cell, he also sought to reduce overall research spending at the National Institutes of Health as part of his general conservative approach to government.

Dying in the city of the blues: sickle cell anemia and the politics of race and health, Keith Wailoo, University of North Carolina Press, 2001, page 170.

added summarized part

To our Governmental initiatives and organization, I added this part:

"As one policy initiative, Pres. Nixon called for more money for sickle cell research, treatment, and education in Feb. ’71[160] and signed the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act on May 16, 1972.[161][162] However, one writer on sickle cell states that while Nixon called for increased spending on such high-profile items as cancer and sickle cell, at the same time he sought to reduce overall spending at NIH (National Institutes of Health) as part of his general conservative approach to government.[163]"

Citing with these references:

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Richard Nixon, 1971, Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, "New Actions To Prevent Illnesses And Accidents," Feb. 18, 1971, pages 179-182.

155 - Statement on Signing the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act, May 16, 1972.

Sickle Cell Research for Treatment and Cure, National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Sept. 2002, see especially page 2 (after introductory material) in which a bar graph displays NHLBI research funding from FY 1972 through FY 2001, totaling $923 million for these thirty years, starting at $10 million for 1972, then about $15 million a year through 1976, about $20 million for 1977, etc.

Dying in the city of the blues: sickle cell anemia and the politics of race and health, Keith Wailoo, University of North Carolina Press, 2001, pages 165 and 170.

Please help to further research and improve this part if you have the time and/or more general topics such as RN co-opting liberal policy proposals (?). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What you added looks good, I'll probably tweak it and I've asked Br'er Rabbit to conform the citation style to deal with it. Remember that one Democratic issue Nixon co-opted was ... price controls. It's in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Source of considerable interest"

I removed the generic claim, "Nixon remains a source of considerable interest among historians and the public," from the lead section. Does this really add anything? Aren't a lot of subjects of interest? That is why this article exists in the first place. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that we've had several discussions over the lede, I did not wish to see it changed significantly (I've tweaked the text a few times as part of my continuing efforts to improve the prose) without discussion here. I have no great objection to a change, but feel that just deleting it would make the reader feel like he'd stepped off a cliff. I am open to some other way of ending the lede, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I just rewrote the last paragraph of the lead. I think it flows a little better, but I'm not married to it. Slx03 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC) I was also going to add 'indisgrace' just before Spiro Agnew, but I'll leave that to you.

I've reverted so we can discuss it. You said Nixon was the first modern president. We never say that in the article, and you even put modern in quotes. Some of your changes were fine, but I think we need to discuss a version, you had a redlink too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're discussing this diff, which I believe we are, I'd like to add my two cents. While the intentions of Slx03 were and are good, I in fact believe that the changes made the lead read worse. Here's my reasoning:

• Congress' investigating of Watergate surely contributed to the erosion of Nixon's political support, but really the exposure by the media fueled the scandal and highlighted what was going on in Congress; my point is that there were multiple factors contributing to the loss of Nixon's political support, too many to name and I don't believe we should just single out the Congress. I think the more general description in the current version is fine.
• It's repetitive to note that he is the first U.S. president to resign; in fact, the very first paragraph of this article says just that.
• I have a problem with the word 'transformed' -- it makes it appear as if he was all of a sudden magically considered to be an elder statesman, which was not the case as it in fact was a concerted effort on his part consuming roughly 10 years. I think that the current version notes this properly, whereas the proposed changes make the connection seem too circumstantial.
• I've heard the modern president argument before, but, as Wehwalt notes, we don't even have that in the article, so it's probably best to leave it out of the lead. In addition, he remains a considerable interest to historians and the public for many reasons other than just that, so we shouldn't do injustice to ourselves -- or our article subject -- by limiting the scope of that statement. I'm not saying that you are intentionally doing that -- in fact I feel the exact opposite -- but it does limit the scope of that statement.

I think that the intentions were good, but the lead paragraph seems in good shape to me and, as the old adage goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Best, Happyme22 (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A mixed-record on civil rights?

Nixon, Volume Two: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972, Stephen Ambrose, 1989.

Page 330:

‘ . . What a strange man was Richard Nixon. Subtle and skillful in his approach to the Chinese, he was stubborn and spiteful in his approach to the Senate. He had vowed, when the Senate turned down his nomination of Judge Haynsworth, that he would “show them.” He did. On January 19 [1970], he nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell for the Supreme Court vacancy.
‘There were all sorts of guesses as to how Nixon could have made such a choice. One was that the President told Mitchell to find a southern judge who owned no stocks, and who would thus be free of any conflict-of-interest charge. In support of that guess, there is a telegram in the Nixon archives from Senator Robert Byrd (D., W.V.) to Nixon, urging the appointment of a strict constructionist and predicting the Senate would never reject a nominee “whose personal financial matters are not open to question,” no matter how conservative the man. . . ’

‘ . . Carswell had everything going against him. As a candidate for the Georgia legislature in 1948, he had said, “Segregation of the races is proper and the only practical and correct way of life. . . . I have always so believed and I shall always so act [ellipses in Ambrose’s book].” His rulings, as a circuit judge in Florida, had reflected those views (although he renounced the statement itself). . ’

Page 331:

‘ . . Bob Finch and his people and his people at HEW insisted on moving ahead on desegregation . . . Some staffers at HEW resigned to protest the undermining of their efforts to desegregate, and 125 other HEW employees signed a letter to Nixon expressing “bitter disappointment” over his policies. . ’

‘ . . In March [1970], Nixon released a statement on civil rights. He came out against segregation and against busing to achieve integration. He pledged to support the law but indicated that his primary reliance would be on cooperation with local authorities in the South; he called for voluntary compliance with the law rather than federal involvement and enforcement. . ’

This and with the above discussinon on RN's Supreme Court nominees ('RN calling for more research on both cancer and sickle cell anemia?'), I still think our section Civil rights in our article is too laudatory. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The major problem with Ambrose is that he wrote before a lot of papers were available ... We could certainly expand the short reference to the rejections by naming them and saying why they were rejected.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this whole saga, both actions in his official capacity as president and shows some facets of his personality (and certainly, none of us are perfect). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble following the argument above... I don't think there's enough context for either of the two examples. Let's take them one by one: So Nixon nominated a judge, Carswell, who was once a segregationist. Carswell's rejection in the Senate does not necessarily reflect on, or impact, Nixon's civil rights record. The defeat was contributed to really by three things: 1) Carswell's former stances on segregation (Ambrose notes that he retracted the statement), 2) Carswell's alleged stances against equal opportunities for women, and 3) the toxic, extremely partisan political environment that Nixon had to deal with in the Democratic-controlled Congress, as both houses opposed nearly everything he attempted to pass through them. So it's more than race and civil rights and I'm having trouble seeing how this truly reflects on Nixon's civil rights record.

In regard to the second passage, what policies were the HEW staffers who signed the letter referring to? It also says "some" staffers resigned; some could mean anywhere from two all the way up to the whole department, and with no way of knowing we have no idea how big of an issue this was. FWIW, I've studied Nixon inside and out and I've never heard of this episode before. So we don't know what the policies were and we don't know how many people resigned.

I happen to feel that the section not too laudatory, and in fact as controversial as Nixon was, his attention to civil rights matters is generally an area that historians agree was one of his best and at the forefront of his domestic priorities. Consider the following from PBS:

Among the most pressing civil rights issues was desegregation of public schools. Nixon inherited a nation in which nearly 70% of the black children in the South attended all-black schools. He had supported civil rights both as a senator and as vice president under Eisenhower, but now, mindful of the Southern vote, he petitioned the courts on behalf of school districts seeking to delay busing. Meanwhile, he offered a practical New Federalist alternative -- locally controlled desegregation. Starting in Mississippi and moving across the South, the Nixon administration set up biracial state committees to plan and implement school desegregation. The appeal to local control succeeded. By the end of 1970, with little of the anticipated violence and little fanfare, the committees had made significant progress -- only about 18% of black children in the South attended all-black schools. [1]

Those statistics are worth adding, IMO. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have a medium threshold. I would be ready to including the statement " . . and nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell for the Supreme Court. Carswell had made pro-segregation statements when running for the Georgia legislature in 1948, although he later renounced these statements. . "

That's temperate, down-the-middle, based on the information we have. Now, Ambrose does also say, "His rulings, as a circuit judge in Florida, had reflected those views (although he renounced the statement itself)." But that's likely to be expected from a stand-pat, pro-status-quo judge. He or she is not likely to have too much opportunity to demonstrate non-majority viewpoints.

I'm more concerned about the broader context in two ways, (1) that in a relatively short period of time RN successfully nominated 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, that's huge, and (2) subtle and agile with the Chinese, but with the Senate, he just wanted to "show them." And I guess he did. (An example of RN having a lot of seething anger, risking damaging the court to prove a point? Maybe.)

I don't know if we should sing praise and hosannas that as chief executive officer, Richard Nixon actually did his job and enforced the law. And actually, it sounds like he opposed the courts. The courts are going in the direction of busing, he's putting up roadblocks.

Now, busing is generally viewed as a mistake (?). But an analogy would be with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Maybe, truth be told, the majority of the country wasn't really ready back then. Now, the black families who wanted a quality education for their children, most of them were probably ready. But maybe most other people were not. But the Supreme Court ruled that segregation needed to come to an end. History might have gone far better if Eisenhower had taken the view of leadership, well, it's my job to help make this work and help make this a success. (Justice William O. Douglas wrote that President Eisenhower missed a real opportunity in not spending his political capital in favor of desegregation.) In a similar way, RN could have taken this view regarding court decisions in favor of busing.

Okay, the part at the end with the PBS show, that by the end of 1970 only 18% of black kids in the South were in all-black schools. One, I just have a hard time thinking any institution can improve this fast even if it really wants to. So, there was a handful of white or Hispanic kids? What were the teacher salaries at the predominantly black schools vs. the predominantly white schools, have much quality science equipment was there, etc, etc, etc? In the book Black in Selma which is a heck of an interesting personal autobiography by the attorney J.L. Chestnut, Jr, way after initial desegregation like in the 1980s there was a brief season of substantial community activism because too many black kids were being shunted to special ed and not getting extra help like they were supposed to. And, very much to his credit, Gov. George Bush, later Pres. George Bush, talked about this in his 2000 campaign, "the soft bigotry of limited expectations," I think that was his phrase. And I think this is a very valid question and issue to raise. Special ed is supposed to be about providing some extra help. Instead it often becomes a holding pattern and an excuse for the school system to try less hard. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay a few points here as we seem to be discussing several issues at once. One, I would be open to including any and all info deemed relevant to Nixon RE: Carswell, but in a section about judicial nominations and the Supreme Court. I'm not necessarily advocating for the inclusion of such a section, I'm saying if there were one I would support that statement in that section. I just fail to see how Carswell reflects on RN's civil rights record. If Carswell had been confirmed and began a trend of voting on the bench against Nixon's desegregation efforts then that would be something to add; but alas, it all boils down to the fact that he renounced his prior views and he was not confirmed. I do agree that it is huge that RN appointed four justices in five and a half years, so that would be a significant incentive to add more on RN and the Supreme Court, perhaps in the section dealing with domestic policy.

I'm not sure where you're getting this seething anger, hoping to damage the court, etc.... and I'm also not sure how it's relevant to the civil rights manner at hand, with all due respect. He, like presidents before and after him, had to nominate justices that the Senate would approve; because the Senate was controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats, he had to choose more moderate justices. That has nothing to do with trying to stick it to the court.

It's not our job to make up our minds that because RN enforced the law it's not worth mentioning; quite on the contrary, it is our job to report the facts of what happened in a given situation relevant to Richard Nixon and then allow the readers to make up their minds. I just cannot see how anyone can think that because he was required to do it and did it, that it's not worth mentioning. Our job is simple: report the facts with proper context and with all due neutrality and weight, and that is what we need to do in regard to his civil rights record. His strategy was this: desegregation of schools and an end to busing. He wrote, "In formulating my policies I tried to strike a moderate balance. Inevitably I dissatisfied the people on both extremes" (RN, Memoirs, p. 436).

In regard to desegregation, we have no reason to question the significant numbers about the desegregation of schools given us by PBS; PBS is a reputable, reliable source and is only the tip of the iceberg on this matter. A Cornell professor writes of it, all kinds of books have been written about this, and interestingly enough, the Nixon Foundation and National Archives recently jointly hosted a panel discussion with George Shultz, J. Stanley Pottinger and Paul O'Neill -- all involved in the desegregation efforts under Nixon -- which focused on the quick results. And Nixon bucked his own party, as most of the GOP really opposed his federal government intervention in this area, which caused the criticism from the right. In fact for what it's worth Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- a Democrat -- wrote Nixon in late 1970, saying, "There has been more change in the structure of American public school education in the past month than in the past 100 years" (RN, Memoirs, p. 445).

In regard to busing, RN wrote in Memoirs: "I wanted to eliminate the last vestiges of segregation by law, and I wanted to do it in a way that treated all parts of the nation equally. I was determined that the South would not continue to be a scapegoat for Northern liberals. I was not willing, however, to impose wholesale busing because I believed strongly in the neighborhood school. Even more important, I do not believe that schoolchildren should be torn from their home environments and, solely because of their race, be forced to go to distant schools where they might not be welcome or even safe. Compulsory segregation was wrong; but compulsory racial balancing was also wrong" (p. 439-440). This is where those on the left attacked him, particularly because they felt that busing was necessary. In 1972 Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger issued a memo for the guidance of courts across the country which explicitly stated that the Supreme Court did not require busing to ensure racial balance; in 1969 it allowed it but did not require it, so it was never a nationwide policy though many lower courts began requiring it, which caused disarray and caused Burger to issue his memo. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that unless school districts were gerrymandered to keep blacks and whites separate, the law did not require busing to ensure racial balance. Chief Justice Burger wrote that "no single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control" (RN, Memoirs, p. 445). So the left attacked him for not enforcing busing nationwide to ultimately achieve integration but throughout his presidency the Supreme Court was on his side in regard to busing, and explicitly stated so in 1972 and again in 1974.

And, again with all proper and due respect, I don't see how your critique of the educational system is relevant to RN. As the saying goes, "hindsight is 20-20." And I really don't mean any disrespect -- all this long winded-ness is because I'm just trying to understand your argument and provide more citations and information so that we can use it to work together! I'm sure that our answers to these issues we're discussing are not far off. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We probably disagree on some of this. All the same, thank you for really putting the time into it and engaging in good argumentation. Okay, please notice in the above, I said RN was risking damage to the court to prove a point. That's different than hoping for damage. And from Ambrose: "Subtle and skillful in his approach to the Chinese, he was stubborn and spiteful in his approach to the Senate." Notice "spiteful." That's pretty strong language and that's language Ambrose is using.

Okay, as far as a source, I think PBS is well above threshold. I think we should use it, including the part about substantial improvement in two years. And you also include two other sources which might be fine additions as well.

On the face of it, voluntary compliance and biracial committees, this many years after Brown seems weak. Or . . perhaps this is a point where Martin Luther King, Jr., really hits it out of the park: people hate each other because they fear each other, they fear each other because they don't know each other, they don't know each other because they're kept separate from each other. So maybe, you get people in a room working to solve a problem, maybe even if initially they aren't sincere about making compromises and really solving it, maybe simply spending some time together and hearing public testimony about real problems, maybe they end up becoming sincere and trying to find real solutions. I don't know. The psychology is probably interesting, even though it probably doesn't work the same way every time.

But still, the part where we move from 70% of black kids in the South being in all-black schools and to only 18%, and we do this in a scant two years, that is phenomenal. Or, at least I find it phenomenal. But, we go with the sources we have and let people make up their own minds.

Still the issue that central Philadelphia schools struggle with funding, whereas Philly suburbs do fine. Or my own experience growing up in the greater Houston area in the 1970s. HISD (Houston Independent School District) was considered a lousy district, whereas suburban districts like Spring Branch were considered "good." So, the fact that the issues haven't really been solved, I think is relevant.

I'm running out of time. Hopefully later, I can address the idea of leadership, and making something better rather than simply opposing it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, on leadership, let's suppose in 1957 at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas, there was a football player and unofficial school leader mature beyond his years, and let's suppose he talked to his friends and said, You know, I think it's a mistake that they're letting black kids in, I don't even think it's good for the black kids themselves, but that is a decision by a judge. Let's don't hold it against these kids. Or it might be the parents pushing the kids. Again, let's not hold it against these kids. Let's be courteous and respectful, like we would for any other students. Let's be builders . . . [that is, he advocates making the best of a policy that he might disagree with]

So, when RN geared up to take the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1969, he could have talked to a couple of people he was going to appoint in the Justice Dept.: Okay, a couple of individual federal courts have ordered busing. So be it. Now, personally, I think it's a bit of a long shot, but I hope it works. Let's take the tact, a school year is a long time in the life of a child, even half a school year is a long time. So, let's help people get the information, how well is it working? Without shading it to one side or the other. We'll just honestly lay it on the table. . . [what in later ages might be called transparency and short-cycle feedback] FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I have a little more time now, but generally I can only participate once or twice a week. So that everyone can know what I'm doing, here's my game plan. And step by step, plenty of time for other people to participate, in fact I want other people to participate.

1) Trim a little of the post-Nixon Ford material.
2) Add part on sickle cell
3) Mention RN's successful appointments of Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell.
4) Include that Carswell had made statements in favor of segregation which he later renounced. And maybe also why Haynsworth ran into trouble. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no great trouble with #3, #2 I think we should all reach consensus on that, #1 I would rather not, but am willing to discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

With sickle cell, we have Nixon's Feb. '71 statement and now, per above, him signing a law in May 1972. I think it's now well worth including. I'm still going to try and find a little more information. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with 3 or 4, 2 I'd support with consensus and 1 is being discussed below. In regard to the civil rights stuff above, it sounds like we've mostly gotten all of that resolved and I'll draft revisions soon. Happyme22 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we do agree regarding RN and Civil Rights, but it's probably okay. Each of us can do our own best work, and hopefully there'll be enough overlap in the middle. And it might even be advantageous to come at it from different directions. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambrose as a source

As far as some papers not being available in '89 . . . I guess viewing Ambrose as one of several sources being fully cognizant of the limitations. And I'm assuming some of these papers had something like a twenty-five year wait period? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

More that a lot of it was the source of litigation over who owned the papers, Nixon or the nation. Most of it became available in the early 1990s, as these issues were resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. An out of court settlement? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of it's at Nixon Library. It's all rather complicated, but what it amounts to is that when Ambrose was writing, a lot of it wasn't publicly available yet, and he did not have Nixon's cooperation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My first reaction is that an unauthorized biography is better! Of course that may or may not be the case. And then, I think, wow, Steve Ambrose kind of picked an inopportune time to write his work. But it's a three volume work, not necessarily our primary source, nor even our best, but as one additional source, sure. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is why I tried for a broad array of sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Successfully, I might add.  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't think I used Ambrose very heavily for the presidential section. I'm anxiously awaiting the publication of Professor Gellman's second volume in his series on Nixon, The Apprenticeship, about his vice presidential years. His volume on the congressional years was very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That does sound good. And I know artists struggle for their work. Hopefully, Prof. Gellman can get to the presidential years in the next five years? No obligation of course. I caught a snippet of Richard Reeves on C-SPAN, I think he was talking about his book a biography of the physicist Ernest Rutherford. Reeves said that he was most known for writing biographies of presidents, and then he basically said he was finished with presidents. It really was remarkable and surprised me at the time. Maybe he had written one presidential biography too many. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A change is as good as a rest, as they say, and I can see that a physicist would be a change of pace after wading through government papers.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)

Can someone add a mention of Nixon's Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)? Source here: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx 66.66.149.221 (talk)

The problem is, it was not enacted. It seems interesting now because of present day events, but it was only a proposal and by February 1974, Nixon and Congress were not seeing eye to eye.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM

Any objections to changing "Richard Nixon rests..." to "Richard Nixon is buried..."? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "rests" fits the tone of the section better. It's a common usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a common usage. My question is, is it optimal? "Rests" is certainly used as a euphemism for "is buried". "Passed away" is a common usage; perhaps more so than "died". But it isn't proper to use in a formal encyclopedia. I feel the same way about "rests". You obviously disagree. I'm curious as to what others think. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on. "Resting place" is even an example of something not to use on WP:EUPHEMISM. Of course we shouldn't have it in the article. If it "fits the tone", then the tone needs to be changed.—Chowbok ☠ 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a guideline.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Chowbok; long-time. I'm going to clean up the other recent bit in this article (↓). I'm gonna go with 'rests', too, as it is quite reasonable and surely passed teh FAC that way. Meet Wehwalt, a good editor (Wehwalt, Chowbok is known to me;). Jack Merridew (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Howdy'a do--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a guideline, which we should follow unless there's a very good reason not to. And there isn't in this case. Just because it passed FAC doesn't mean the article can't be improved. Using "rests" is sloppy and unencyclopedic.—Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"very good reason"? Well, that allows you to shoot down any reason I proffer, ("not good enough"). Fortunately that's not what it says. It leaves it in the hands of writers, and the several reviewers who looked at it at FAC all accepted it. And no, it's not sloppy. It fits the prose better, whereas, "was buried" does not, it's much too abrupt.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm having a hard time with this. WP:EUPHEMISM seems very clear on how this should be handled. I don't consider rests to be "sloppy", but I don't feel that it fits the prose better either. Is buried is honest, direct language, while rests sounds like he's taking a nap. Jack calls Wehwalt "a good editor", which is something of an understatement; he is an outstanding editor, and his opinion should be taken seriously in any discussion. That he is largely responsible for this article reaching FA is all the more reason to give pause to his thoughts. Still, I'm not seeing any compelling reason to ignore guidelines here. With that having been said, if Wehwalt truly feels that this is an IAR situation, then I will defer to him while remaining quietly opposed. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have no objection to seeking a wider opinion before we reach that point. And thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with "outstanding editor". Chowbok's no fool; ya should mellow. User:Br'er Rabbit. 00:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that he was. Am I missing something here? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I know both users; this is all tempest in a teapot. All this over a few words? Welcome to Wikipedia. Anyway, I wasn't trying to imply that you were knocking on Chowbok (nor was I). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cause friction. Yes, I feel strongly about this, but I'm not edit-warring and I'm not even making BRD edits. As Wehwalt agreed to seek wider input, I was going to initiate an RfC about the wording, but if it's going to make me look like a troublemaker I'll happily drop the issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the RfC. As you can see by looking up the talk page, I've often yielded to other editors on questions involving this article (I should add that Happyme22 deserves equal credit for this article). However, I'd like to see what other people think. I don't consider this a major issue, I'm hopeful for guidance about community feeling which will aid me in future articles as it's a phrase I tend to use. It comes in handy when people are in mausoleums.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

plan to trim some of the post-Nixon Ford material

for example. .

" . . won by Ford in a close fight at the convention in Kansas City, at which Nixon (who had been nominated by five of the previous six conventions) was not mentioned once. Ford lost narrowly in the general election to Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, which led to suggestions that Ford would have been elected had he not pardoned Nixon. Nixon biographer Black points out that had no pardon been issued, Nixon would likely have been on trial in November 1976, causing a GOP loss by a much greater margin.[sfn|Black|pp=1009–1010]"

And maybe just describe it as a close primary battle. I want our article to remain alive and not a dead museum piece, as I'm sure we all do. So, if you have something good to add, please, just go ahead to add it. And if you see something to trim, feel free to do that, too.

At 132K, in a sense, our article is 30% over budget. Yes, even though most connections are faster these days. Now, I wouldn't get real worried unless we are 50% over budget. So, we have some time and space left.

And this is potentially good material, on Ford, or Reagan, or American politics, which is why I want to save it here. Hold it in reserve so to speak. And perhaps for one of those articles.

And incidentally, Reagan mounting a primary challenge is not what Ford held against him, and Gerald Ford is not really a man who holds grudges anyway. What Ford held against Reagan is that he (Reagan) didn't really help in any substantial sense with the '76 general election. But all that's for another article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather wait on other comments before speaking myself. However, you have to restore the election of Carter, or continuity is lost. Carter is now unintroduced.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be extremely cautious about trimming. The article reached FA status in more or less its current form. If there's something egregious that needs to come out that's fine, but I don't see anything like that here. As Wehwalt demonstrates above, even a losing single sentence can affect the article's continuity. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I really was not trying to step on anyone's toes. Okay, I thought most people know that Carter was president in the 1970s after Nixon and Ford. And the photograph identifies President Jimmy Carter in 1978. And I for one don't think photograph captions and text need to laboriously repeat the same information.

Now, all this said, I like the addition of including the '76 general election. I think it makes for better reading flow. And so, I'm happy to count this as a success in a collaborative work environment. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While it may be likely that most people in the U.S. know that Carter was president after Nixon and Ford, remember that en-Wiki is read by English-speaking people around the world who may not be familiar with what we Americans consider to be common knowledge. (I am certainly guilty of forgetting this fact myself from time to time.) And engaging in civil discourse on the talk page can almost never be considered "stepping on anyone's toes". Joefromrandb (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I too do not support trimming the material. Joefromrandb hit the nail on the head when he said that it reached FA in its current form, and, absent of serious problems, we should keep it. In regard to the size of this article, I have substantial experience working on the Ronald Reagan article, which happens to be longer. It reached FA past the guideline and there was discussion that went on then (in 2007) that disregarded the size guidelines. So I don't think that size should really be an issue here. Happyme22 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am glad our article has reached FA status. I still want us to be open to making a good thing even better. For example, just like the Everly Brothers were good rock-n-roll, and they really were, and I think overlooked, Zepplin in the late 60s and early 70s took it to a whole 'nother level. So, perhaps we can include what a biographer says about RN's style and personality, as we do, and I think we do a good job at it, but if this writer references a speech Nixon gives, maybe we could also include a video of the speech? And thereby readers could see for themselves and see whether they agree with the biographer. And/or be open to other good things we run across.

And if we stay civil 80% of the time, as we do here, I'm going to count that as success!  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Towards new section on Pres. Nixon and the Supreme Court?

Pres. Nixon's nominees to the Supreme Court who were successfully confirmed by the Senate include Warren Burger (Chief Justice), Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist.

Perhaps something like that, to be added to the Carswell and Haynsworth material we already have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No objection. If you want to do something up (including citation) and put it in, I'll polish it if necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My first reaction is, References? We don't need no references, um, um, it's common knowledge, um, we can just reference the wiki articles on each individual justice. And me, and I'm generally very much in favor of references, and good references, and a variety of references.

So, okay, I am pulling from a newspaper article. William Rehnquist was confirmed by the Senate on Friday, Dec. 10, 1971, and Lewis Powell earlier that same week on Monday. Now, with a book, an author can sometimes accidentally write 1972 when he or she means 1971. This is less likely to happen with a newspaper article. I think it helps to have both. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rehnquist Confirmed For High Court Seat, St. Petersburg Times, Times Wire Services (Washington), Saturday, Dec. 11, 1971, front page.

“The Senate confirmed President Nixon’s nomination of William H. Rehnquist to the Supreme Court Friday on a 68-26 vote. . . . ”

“ . . . . Confirmation of Rehnquist, the U.S. assistant attorney general, followed an 89-1 Senate vote last Monday approving Nixon’s nomination of Lewis F. Powell Jr., to fill a second vacancy in the high court. . . . ”

“ . . . . Nixon, in announcing the nominations on Oct. 21, described both Rehnquist and Powell as judicial conservatives and indicated that he hoped their appointment would strengthen the “peace forces” in society. . . . ”

---

From Richard Reeves' book, page 382, the Nixon Administration submitted a list of six potential nominees to the American Bar Association for evaluation, privately, but the list was subsequently leaked, either by White House or ABA.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves, 2001, page 382: “On October 14, someone--in the White House or from the American Bar Association’s committee for evaluating nominees--leaked a list of six Supreme Court finalists, names designed to please Southerners and women: Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia; Herschel Friday, the Arkansas attorney who represented Little Rock in its 1957 efforts to maintain segregated schools; two women judges, Mildred Lilley and Sylvia Bacon; and little-known judges from Mississippi and Florida. Photographs of the six ran across the front page of The New York Times, burying a story at the bottom of the page headlined: 'Horrors of East Pakistan Turning Hope into Despair'--as many as nine million East Pakistanis were already refugees in India as the Pakistani army continued a brutal campaign to crush local opposition.”

Perhaps the short list would be too much detail. I would suggest one paragraph on the three attempts plus the Burger appointment, and a second on Powell and Rehnquist.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is striking that RN considered Herschel Friday. And yes, yes, yes, Little Rock ISD deserves legal representation as much as anyone else and Friday might be a thoroughly honorable man as well as a good lawyer. But still, it sure seems like Pres. Nixon was trying to make a political statement first and foremost. This detail might be just too good to leave out, even though my feeling is also, yes, might make the section too long.

And maybe some credit for at least considering a female jurist. From page 384 of Reeves, apparently Pat was mad that he didn't pick a woman for one of these two final spots.

Another interesting thing, Powell and Rehnquist may be the last non-appellant justices placed on the Court? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. However, just because he put them on the list doesn't mean he was serious about them. The ABA was no friend of Nixon. He could have been playing games with them. As for Powell/Rehnquist, interesting but perhaps too tangential for this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the times, it was probably not exceptional. Which is why I think we should leave it out. Today we attach far more significance to it, so and the reader is likely to take it without reference to the context of the late 60s/early 70s.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a white guy. There's a lot about segregation and civil rights that I can probably partially understand, but maybe not fully in my gut. For example, southern police departments and the killings of African-American. Some (not all) of such police departments would acquiesce in the killings of black persons, sometimes the police officers were the main perpetrators. Now, "statistically" perhaps relatively few African-Americans were actually killed in this way . . . but the whole climate of threat and terror, that might take me a while to wrap my mind around. Not just the emotionally side, of what it's like to live this way, if a person stands up for his or her rights (and how brave the persons working for voting rights) of this threat being present. But even conceptually trying to understand it. Maybe something like the movie "Lone Star" where Kris Kristofferson plays the bad sheriff who periodically shoots people might be about the closest I come.

Point being, real progress was made in civil rights, and then Nixon's "southern strategy" promised a roll back. And the appointment of Harrold Carswell probably not exactly RN's finest hour. And I think we probably should say, Carswell . . ran for office, made pro-segregation statements which he later took back. And at least, to some degree, Nixon's consideration of Herschel Friday (and I agree, he may have been playing the ABA, may have been messing with them, whatever).

I mean, Nixon trying to put a pro-southerner (and not the new good South either!), has to be among the more assiduously followed promises of any politician, even though I think it was only an implied promised. In general, I think Nixon's "southern strategy" was pretty nasty business, maybe we can't say that. But I think we can include some of the details.

As well as the good parts, that he considered appointing a female jurist to the Court. (And maybe most of the details of the six names submitted to the ABA in a footnote?) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your edit of last week adding material to this section but I've been just snowed with work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite alright. We're all busy, and whatever time you have available is a gift. I'm pretty busy myself, plus keep getting drawn by side projects as usual :>) (which is of course both a blessing and a curse). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Warren Burger confirmed by Senate in June 1969.
Senate confirms Burger, Mid-Cities Daily News [Dallas-Fort Worth area], Washington (UPI), Tuesday, June 10, 1969, page 7.

Warren Officially Retires As Burger Takes Oath,St. Petersburg [Florida] Independent, Evening Independent, Washington (AP), Monday, June 23, 1969, page 12-A: “Warren Earl Burger was sworn in at 10:42 a.m. today to be the 15th chief justice of the United States. . . . ”