Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Large Pictures?

Is there any reason certain pictures on this page are predominantly large? I was reluctant to reduce their size without finding out if there is a reason for them being singled out.--KMJKWhite (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as this is a long article, they are useful as prose breaks, in addition to setting a theme for the following section. These photos were approved by passage of FAC, and by consensus after discussion on this talk page (see archives).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it distracts more than attracts. Certainly unique to this page in my experience, so I am curious about the discussion. Can you post a link to the long archived FAC? My search for it was not successful. Thank you.--KMJKWhite (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If you go to the "article milestones" above here, and expand it, you will find a list, and the last is "featured article candidate". It is there, but to make life easy, here is a link. There have been other discussions and you can search the archives for those, but here is one to start you. FAC is a consensus process, and includes the appropriate use of images.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

While there is consensus, I was hoping for a discussion about the style. Thank you, though. The article is well researched and written. BZ! --KMJKWhite (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

new evidence that Nixon sabotaged peace talks? (Jan. 2017)

This is highly significant. I don't see how there's anyway we don't go with this, and I mean probably in the first sentence or two of our lead. Although perhaps not immediately, perhaps we build up to that.

And on the question of whether opinion pieces in the New York Times are fact-checked and to what extent, opinion pieces should not be our primary references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show, New York Times, Politics Section, Peter Baker, Jan. 2, 2017.

' . . . “Any other way to monkey wrench it?” Mr. Haldeman wrote. “Anything RN can do.” . . . '

' . . . The notes Mr. Farrell found come from a phone call on Oct. 22, 1968, as Johnson prepared to order a pause in the bombing to encourage peace talks in Paris. Scribbling down what Nixon was telling him, Mr. Haldeman wrote, “Keep Anna Chennault working on SVN,” or South Vietnam. . . '

' . . . and it is unclear that the South Vietnamese needed to be told to resist joining peace talks that they considered disadvantageous already. . . '

See also . . .

H.R. Haldeman's Notes from Oct. 22, 1968, NY Times, Dec. 31, 2016, which reprints four pages of Haldeman's notes.

This is a straightup news item in the NY Times. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Hope you are doing well. This is not new material, it's been sitting in the Nixon library for years. I don't mind adding a sentence, likely inline cited to the 1968 section. The NYT is reporting on its own guest columnist, and I'd like to see historical interpretation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Despite the sensationalism the notes do not prove what came after. We do not know if Haldeman was scribbling down what Nixon said, or making his own notes as to a course of action. We still do not know that Nixon actually did anything, or that anything done had any effect on the South Vietnamese. To give it more space in the lede than Watergate seems ill-advised. I have reverted your addition to the lede pending discussion. Your addition to the 1968 section seems fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Hi, Wehwalt, I am well! I hope you are well, too. And this just might be one where we disagree. For starters, the fact that Nixon wasn't proactive. The fact that he didn't tell Mitchell, make damn sure Anna Chennault doesn't visit the embassy, or any other contact which might be misconstrued . . . . . Heck, if it was a dicey peace treaty that might doubly benefit Nixon. He could blame the bad parts on Johnson but then get the benefits of the good parts. And the possibility that Haldeman was jotting down his own ideas as he also wrote instructions from Nixon, to me that's a stretch. We got to go with what's probably the case.

I guess I do agree with the conventional view that this is worse than Watergate. Of course, I'm all in favor of getting a variety of references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So what do you propose? We are limited to four paragraphs by WP:LEDE.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should include one or two sentences, and early at that. We don't want to go off in the wild blue yonder. For example, South Vietnam President Thieu wasn't real crazy about a potential peace deal anyway, basically because it would mean giving up his job. I didn't include that because that's not what our current source said. But I did include South Vietnam didn't need much encouragement to opt out . . .

I will help out where I can. I have a full slate of projects, both wiki and other, as I'm sure we all do! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Ditto. I would say that to add something early would be to say that Nixon's presidency is delegitimized. Please remember Johnson was far from a disinterested party, and was trying to rush together something amorphous, a deal to make a deal, to ensure his veep's election. There is a certain point of view in saying one side was noble and the other side was wicked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Johnson was a real work of art, too! I've heard a historian on C-Span say that he was convinced that President Johnson was bipolar. Neither a disinterested party nor a guaranteed font of accurate information. At this point, I'm not ready to push for including this at first mention of presidency. Let's keeping looking a variety of good references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

older 2013 evidence

The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason', BBC News, Magazine, David Taylor, March 22, 2013.

"Declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls provide a fresh insight into his world. . . "

" . . . At a July meeting in Nixon's New York apartment, the South Vietnamese ambassador was told Chennault represented Nixon and spoke for the campaign. If any message needed to be passed to the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, it would come via Chennault.

"In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

"Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. . . "

" . . . The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. . . "

" . . . He orders the Nixon campaign to be placed under FBI surveillance and demands to know if Nixon is personally involved. When he became convinced it was being orchestrated by the Republican candidate, the president called Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate to get a message to Nixon. . . "

" . . . Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon. . . "

So yes, a fair amount of evidence from 2013. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've regrettably reverted you. I do not agree that the matter, on the thin reed of the NY times, deserves placement in the lede. I don't dispute that the Nixon campaign at some level tried to disrupt it, but whether they had any effect on events is less than certain. I think the matter is adequately covered in the article body, and again I point out, that it is unfortunate to present Nixon as in the wrong when both sides were using the Vietnam issue to try to win the election with. And I think we can agree that had Nixon done nothing, the South Vietnamese might still have held out to see what Nixon was offering.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the thin reed of the NY Times? Well, they do reprint four pages of Haldeman notes and each of us can make up our own minds. Now, I think one area where we agree is that more references, up to a point, is a good thing. We now have this BBC article saying that Nixon set up this secret intermediary, how's that going to turn out to be a good thing?

And, as it currently stands with a paragraph in our lead beginning "Nixon ended American involvement in the war in Vietnam in 1973 . . . ," it's a down-the-rabbit-hole type of situation. Yeah, maybe he brought peace in '73, pretty much doing what he could to wreck it in '68.

And I don't think it's our job to answer the big questions of history, except for kicking around ideas here on Talk :-) which I view as potentially coming up with ideas we might search for. Okay, I'm all in favor of moving slowing and deliberatively. Let's see what we might find. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Times is interpreting; as I pointed out, the claim that he was writing down what Nixon said. We have ... four pages of notes. What goes beyond that is interpreting. I'd be curious to see what historians who have written about the 1968 campaign and reviewed the files at the Nixon Library have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will mull it over and consider your points. Let's please talk later. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm always here :) But the bottom line to me is that really, the notes leave us no further ahead than we were. There was a strong suspicion Nixon knew of the efforts, and this gives proponents of that position more material. But certainty is elusive, as is whether the efforts had any effect on the South Vietnamese.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, have mulled things over. And yes, it's 4 pages of notes, which is a heck of a lot more than we have in many historical situations. And not just the New York Times, but I think others have concluded, an assistant writing down instructions from boss. And this is what I view as the straightforward conclusion. Now, I personally like conversations, do we really know for sure? It reminds me of my philosophy classes and readings. And perhaps it reminds you of your legal studies. But at the end of the day, I think we have to go with the most straightforward.

To me, the fact that Nixon set up the secret channel in July '68 is highly significant. Although reading the BBC source very carefully, even though the meeting was at Nixon's apartment, it doesn't directly and specifically say that Nixon was at the meeting. So, we get back to the Watergate question, how much was Nixon personally involved vs. an administration out of control? In either case, I think we should cover it.

The sequence:

July '68: Nixon (or campaign) sets up secret channel

Oct. '68: Johnson energetically pursues peace talks, some concessions from the North Vietnamese, but also in large part to help Humphrey

Oct '68: Anna Chennault (perhaps others) communicate to South Vietnam, hold off, you'll get a better deal under Nixon.

To your concern that Nixon will be presented as wicked, while LBJ presented as pure as the driven snow, I also share that concern. So, before we add to the lead, let's have the source(s) that Johnson's motives were very mixed and definitely included a big chunk of helping Humphrey. And then, we'll let the chips fall where they may. We'll go with the sources we have right now, and if historians in the future add to our understanding, we or someone else will include that at that time. Seems like that's all we can do. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's just that I'm not convinced that this should be addressed in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either. I'm going to look at a couple sources and a couple of ways of presentation. No guarantee as to time frame. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

older evidence published in 2000

Our Vietnam: The War 1954-1975, A. J. Langguth, Simon & Schuster, 2000, pages 524-27.

' . . . But [Bui] Diem was the missing factor in Clifford's equation. In frequent contact with Anna Chennault, he was cabling Thieu often and on October 23 passed along what he had just heard. "Many Republican friends have contacted me and encouraged us to stand firm. They were alarmed by press reports to the effect that you had already softened your position." . . . '

this is the source we're already using. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

additional sources

Richard Nixon: Campaigns and Elections, Miller Center, "a nonpartisan institute that seeks to expand understanding of the presidency, policy, and political history," University of Virginia, Consulting Editor Ken Hughes.

"Humphrey was buoyed when the North Vietnamese accepted President Johnson's proposal for peace talks in Paris in return for a bombing halt. Publicly, Nixon supported the bombing halt and the negotiations; privately, however, his campaign urged South Vietnam's government to refuse to take part in the talks. South Vietnam complied just days before Americans went to the polls and made Nixon their President. But before Nixon took office, he closed ranks with Johnson and insisted that South Vietnam take part in the peace talks."

okay, so this is an academic source. Don't want to say it's either better or less good than journalistic sources. It's kind of good to have both. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure things were that rosy between Eisenhower and Nixon

Our article currently includes:

'Biographer Irwin Gellman, who chronicled Nixon's congressional years, said of his vice presidency:

'Eisenhower radically altered the role of his running mate by presenting him with critical assignments in both foreign and domestic affairs once he assumed his office. The vice president welcomed the president's initiatives and worked energetically to accomplish White House objectives. Because of the collaboration between these two leaders, Nixon deserves the title, "the first modern vice president".[81]'

And yet, I think Eisenhower quasi-publicly said it was a mistake to send Nixon to South American. Even though a man in the crowd said, "El gringo tiene cajones." Talk about a great compliment! Just wonder how widely this was publicized. I think Evan Thomas includes this as the title of one his chapters in his Nixon bio.

And then during the Nixon-Kennedy election of 1960, when asked by reporters if he could name how Nixon had contributed to the administration, Ike said, give me a week. Wow, talk about damning someone with faint praise. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I do have Irwin Gellman's new book on the VP years, but I haven't read all the way through it due to one thing and another, and I think there is another book out fairly recently. I didn't see anything that had to be changed when I read, but I'll do some more reading. I admit to being more interested in how he characterized the Checkers Speech. From what I recall, Eisenhower treated Nixon as an officer being tested for leadership, but Nixon of course had a political base independent of Eisenhower, which complicated things. I agree it is not a simple subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take some time and look up stuff, too. I think there might be an issue in Eisenhower being luke-warm in his endorsement of Nixon, or maybe Ike didn't want to overplay the poker hand. There's that whole aspect, too. And then, we're looking at a time when newspapers may have been bigger than radio and TV put together? And plus, party loyalty may have been considerably more important than it is today. And thus Nixon, as a non-war hero and non-general may have done surprisingly good for being the minority party candidate. Maybe. It's really hard to look across 57 years of history and have a good feel for what was going on. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of recent books as I said. Presumably they have all the latest. I'll look too whenI get a chance. Nixon's honorable but relatively humdrum service was a bit held against him in 1960, with all the splash Kennedy's service got.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

72.225.6.147 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Eisenhower almost didn't pick Nixon.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Nixon is on Twitter!

https://Twitter.com/Dick_Nixon ... Just kidding. ;-) But semi-protecting the page might be a good idea, because Nixon might jump in there as an unregistered IP and spam his own page with an unofficial like like this. Ha! I just couldn't resist. OK, have a nice day. But in all seriousness, that account's generating some big buzz and a lot of laughs. archive and cache of the page, in case it goes down.96.59.138.30 (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Total Badass American Politician"

Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was a total badass American politician who served as the 37th President of the United States from 1969 until 1974, when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office. Please remove "total badass" and change "a" to "an" to make the line "was an American politician..."

AlternativeFactBuster (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC) AlternativeFactBuster (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlternativeFactBuster:
 Done
you posted this message while i was in the middle of doing it.

Note: Marking as answered.

@Usernamekiran: Please sign your post. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

DRAGON BOOSTER that was one in 1000 incident of me not signing. I apologise SineBot. Please dont be mad at me dumpling. —usernamekiran[talk] 06:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309074636/http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/Mosyakov.doc to http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/Mosyakov.doc

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard Nixon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811201550/http://millercenter.org/president/nixon/essays/biography/5 to http://millercenter.org/president/nixon/essays/biography/5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816114029/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-8.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131185453/http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/scd30/scd30.pdf to http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/scd30/scd30.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Violent protests?

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

Alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

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

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

War on Drugs - New Section?

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

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

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

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

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

Images

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

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

1968 peace talks -- redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Gerald Ford

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

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

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

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

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

Kings of Britain

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

Discrepancy with date of founding of Nixon Center

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

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

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

New top. It would be easier to understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"American Politican"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outsized images

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

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

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

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

Revert about possible segregation policy

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

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

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

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

Title vs. office capitalization

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

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

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

Add Books

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

notes

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

Legacy section expansion

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

Wife-beating allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Ranking

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

Views section?

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

map edit request

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

First sentence(s).

The consensus is to keep the first sentence as is.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Hunter S. Thompson quote

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

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

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

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

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

Personality and public image

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

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

Racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References