Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 8

Edit request on 18 July 2012 (3)

I find:

"or after his assassination, Kennedy's successor Lyndon Johnson"

Please insert comma after "successor", because "Lyndon Johnson" does NOT narrow it down any further.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Height

He was 5ft 11 & 1⁄2 inches.--andreasegde (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes Regarding Chile

Greetings, Wehwalt. I'll address your concerns below. The truth is the current single paragraph about Chile is very misleading to the reader and needs to be corrected in some manner. Because this article is about Nixon and he and Kissinger are most responsible for the loss of life these issues need to be addressed somehow. I disagree that the loss of lives of 1000s of individuals, their exile, their torture, etc. is not worth adding two more paragraphs to the existing section.

The declassified documents do indeed establish the facts I maintained. They are there for all to see in various archives and in the 114 declassified documents reproduced in Kornbluh, Peter, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, The New Press, 2003. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.

So let me respond to your specific points.

Veritas Aeterna seems to be misrepresenting what the declassified documents say:

• "After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish."-Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. Public Affairs. pp. 921–922. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1.

I'm sorry but that is totally incorrect. It is misleading to say the US did not play a "direct" role. They played a very extensive covert role:

Nixon authorized $10 M dollars, the USG sent submachine guns via diplomatic pouch, 50K was provided to coup plotters, police equipment was provided to Pinochet, the coup plotters were encouraged to take action leading to Allende's overthrow, etc. There is mountains of evidence, overwhelming amounts.

In contrast to what you cited:

"Indeed, the documents contain new information on virtually every major issue, episode and scandal that pockmark this controversial era. They cover events such as: Project FUBELT, the CIA's covert action to block Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile in the fall of 1970; the assassination of Chilean commander-in-chief Rene Scheider; U.S. strategy and operations to destabilize the Allende government; the degree of American support for the coup; the postcoup executions of American citizens; the origins and operations of Pinochet's secret police, DINA; CIA ties to DINA chieftain Manuel Contreras; Operation Condor; the terrorist car-bombing of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C.; the murder by burning of Washington resident Rodrigo Rojas; and Pinochet's final efforts to thwart a transition to civilian rule. ... A comparison between what was said and done in secret and the official statements, testimonials, and memoirs reveals, in stunning detail, the mendacity that accompanied U.S. policy." [Kornbluh, p. xvii-xviii]

*"Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it."-Frank Church et al. (18 December 1975). "Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973". US Government Printing Office.

The Church Committee information is out of date as the declassified documents show that the Church Committee was lied to.

"The initial Orwellian response to the CIA-ITT scandal set the stage for a protracted cover-up, made possible by a display of official mendacity virtually unparalleled in the annals of foreign policy. Outright deception--of the public, of Congress and even other sectors of the U.S. government--permeated the administration's effort to contain and conceal the facts of Track I and Track II. The CIA, State Department, and the NSC sought to obstruct the Senate Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations investigation. Cooperation was severely restricted; evidence was withheld; government and corporate witnesses committed perjury. In its commitment to hide the truth, and contain the inquiry, the administration even assisted ITT in defrauding the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)--and by extension the U.S. taxpayer--in order to collect a $94 million political risk insurance claim for its expropriated Chilean properties." [Kornbluh, p. 100]

I could go on, but just adding, "The CIA's own internal file review concluded "there is reason to believe that perjury [by various witnesses] was committed and that the Agency was aware of the fact." [Kornbluh, p. 102] should suffice unless you would like even more detail.

"On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter."-CIA (19 September 2000). "CIA Activities in Chile". Chile Documentation Project. National Security Archive. p. 13.

I see you are quoting from the CIA's 2000 report, "CIA Activities in Chile", using a National Security website that Peter Kornbluh provided. He says, regarding that report, "...on the question of helping Pinochet to power, the report hedged on the details of multiple covert operations that assisted the regime in consilidating its repressive rule." [p. 486] The CIA was essentially forced to write the report and declassify documents it did not want declassified.

What is stated above is misleading given that the US provided 50K and submachine guns, and actively encouraged the coup, letting military leaders know the US would welcome it.

"The United States did play a role in Chile, though not precisely the one ascribed to it. It attempted--unsuccessfully--to forestall Allende's confirmation by the Chilean congress. But once he was in office, the thrust of U.S. policy shifted to sustaining a democratic opposition and an independent press until Allende could be defeated in the presidential elections scheduled for 1976. To the extent that this opposition was able to survive under extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances--winning control of the Chilean congress in March 1973--one might even credit the Nixon administration with preventing the consolidation of Allende's "totalitarian project" (to use the apt expression of Eduardo Frei). What then followed--a right-wing dictatorship that crushed not merely the Allende regime but Chilean democracy itself--was not and could not have been predicted, partly because of the military's own apolitical traditions and partly because, by mid-1973, the opposition to Allende was dominated by forces of proved democratic provenance. To the contrary, Washington's presumption--that in the 1976 elections, if they were allowed to take place, the opposition would win decisively--was amply supported by the facts. It was only the savagery of the subsequent Pinochet dictatorship that in hindsight altered the historical picture."-Falcoff, Mark, Commentary, 2003

Again, this commentary came out in 2003 and Kornbluh's analysis of the 24,000 documents did not come out towards the end of 2003. It is inaccurate in several ways. The US did not support an independent press as it paid El Mercurio to present black propaganda. Nixon himself authorized funds for El Mercurio. He did succeed in making Chile's economy scream by numerous financial machinations, withholding of loans, etc. Economic, psychological, and political warfare was a three-pronged approach to foment a coup. All this and much more is covered in Kornbluh's analysis.

The sources sited against the edits I made are all conservative sources that have a vested interest in maintaining a favorable image of Nixon. On the Wikipedia article on Conrad Black, the description of his biography of Nixon says...

Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full:[79] Continuing in the vein of Duplessis, Black's 1,152-page 2007 biography of Richard Nixon sought to rehabilitate the former U.S. President's legacy. This approach was criticized by some reviewers, who felt that it attempted to exculpate Nixon of some negative aspects of his time in office.[80]

FrontPage Magazine is described in its Wikipedia article, "FrontPage Magazine (also known as FrontPageMag.com) is a conservative online political magazine,...

FPM's 2011 "Man of the Year" was the Wounded Warrior Project[1]

FPM's 2010 "Person of the Year" was the Tea Party Movement[2]

FPM's 2009 "Man of the Year" was radio and then-Fox News host Glenn Beck[3]

...

FPM's 2004 "Man of the Year" was John O'Neill, the head of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." My point here is just that it, of course, has a very conversative take on events, and as I mentioned before I doubt the author read Kornbluh's analysis of the 24,000 declassified documents as his book came out in the same year.

The U.S. did try to buy off the Congress to hold a new election--while telling Chilean military officers that it would welcome a coup--in 1970, but it never pledged direct assistance to a coup.

I'm afraid the declassified documents show we provided 50K, the submachine guns, and later hush money for one of the conspirators that escaped.

The coup three years later was not made in the USA.

It was largely shaped by US black propaganda, economic and psychological warfare

You could argue that U.S. funding for large strikes destabilized the country

Yes, but much more was done than that.

(more than Allende did by arming left-wing terrorists, torturing prisoners, violating the Constitution, and wrecking the economy?)

I don't know what you are referring to here, but certainly the US wrecked the economy more than Allende ever could. Even if you could prove these things about Allende, it does not change what the US, under Nixon, did. I would suspect that more likely these sources are ultimately derived from the US black propaganda planted in El Mercurio and other sources. But I am open to other evidence, but that would be for Allende's article, not Nixon's.

, but you can't prove that lead to the coup.

We can prove that the US actively made intense covert efforts to foment and encourage a coup, while denying that it was doing so. True, it was not direct military action like our invasion of Iraq. Rather, it was similar to doing everything you can to sabotage a car, and then denying culpability when the car crashes.

The Congress blamed Allende, not Nixon, for destroying democracy in Chile.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging, are you referring to the Chilean Congress or the US Congress, and at what time? As you can see the release of the declassified documents changed our understanding of what was happening then.

That's my thought from my readings. And remember, Church was a Democratic senator from Idaho and very much on the enemies' list ... we try to keep these sorts of things out of the top level article and stick to undisputed facts, that's one thing that made it possible to get Nixon to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you the discussion. I agree with sticking with the facts. Although I think what you call the "imprecations" show the strength of Nixon's commitment to overthrowing Allende, which helps counter misconceptions that the US had no involvement, I'll remove those as the point can be still be made with Nixon's statement "We're going to smash him", which is also the chapter title of Chapter 8 in Overthrow, cited below.

• Kinzer, Stephen (2006). Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Times Books. pp. 361. ISBN 978-0-8050-8240-1.

and in the spirit of civility towards fellow Wikipedia editors.

Finally, regarding the length of the contribution, I am only proposing adding two paragraphs. Compare that to 5 paragraphs on the 1960-1962 elections. I think the damage the US did in Chile and to many people's lives, warrants coverage in just 3 paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Aeterna (talk • contribs) 08:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits in the Latin America Section

Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging, I wanted to explain my edits. I think all of us are moving this section towards more accurate and complete coverage than what was present before, and we can do so without adding too much length, as I know Wehwalt has expressed concerns.

I'm changing the description regarding the arms to clarify that a kidnapping was intended, or at least the attempts to remove Schneider were presented in that way in cables. It is not clear that an assassination was intended but it is reasonable to infer that if you attempt to kidnap a general, and you also have submachine guns, that there will be deaths.

I'm also aware there were two groups of coup plotters -- Viaux and Valenzuela, and the extent of collaboration was unclear: "We know that Gen. Valenzuela was involved ...but cannot prove or disprove that execution of attempt against Schneider was entrusted to elements linked with Viaux" [Kornbluh, p. 28]. Valenzuela's group received the weapons but Viaux's group did the kidnapping attempt / assassination [Weiner, p. 361-362]. I also know that it is not clear the submachine guns were used in the actual assault even though the CIA later recovered them, threw them in the ocean, and also (forcibly) recovered the 50K money for the kidnapping [Kornbluh, p. 30].

So there was an intended kidnapping, which I would also argue is an intended attack, as I would consider a kidnapping a kind of attack. I could change "apparently for an attack on Chilean general René Schneider." to "which was designated for kidnapping Chilean general René Schneider, but led to his assassination in the attempt [143]." but this is starting to get lengthy, and to address Wehwalt's concerns, I'll just change it back to removing the word "apparently". We could go into more detail here, if you like, but I would think that is more appropriate on other pages, not focused on Nixon but instead the coup itself.

Similarly, I could balance any discussion of the merits of Allende, vs those of Pinochet with lengthy, lengthy discussion of Pinochet's murderous reign, the Caravan of Death, numerous torture centers, first car bombing assassination in the US...need I go on? Instead, I am merely deleting the comment about the accusations against Allende to address Wehwalt's concerns about length. If the Allende statement is reverted back in then at least a sentence or two about continuing support for Pinochet's regime, and the consequences of that, should be added and I'd be glad to do that.

I also removed the part about Pinochet not requesting direct aid as the citation was to the 2000 CIA report, in which the CIA selectively presented the story to cast itself in a better light. Also, the military officer who the report says requested aid was not identified as Pinochet himself, just a military officer. Again, much more could be said about the extensive aid that Pinochet did indeed received after the coup, but I'm trying to keep it short in line with Wehwalt's concerns.

I approve of linking to 1973 Chilean coup d'état page, I think that is the right approach, we just present the key facts here and then let readers pursue the detail elsewhere if they so choose.

Overall, I think this is a good discussion and improvement of this section.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Refinements to Edits in the Latin America Section

I clarified in the final sentence that the troubles in Chile leading to the coup were extremely widespread and not limited to political disputes, such as those that might have occurred between the Chilean Congress and President Allende. The US was instigating a three-pronged approach:

The three "thrusts" for the "creation of coup climate" consisted of "economic warfare," "political warfare", and "psychological warfare." If successful in heightening tension through these three sets of operations, the CIA strategists suggested, a pretext for coup would somehow present itself --"the one act that will force massive Communist reaction and/or public outrage," as Broe and Phillips hoped and predicted. "We can be looking for the opportunity and when the time comes spark it." [Kornbluh, p. 17]

The covert approaches even involved use of terrorism:

Political warfare, in the form of propaganda placements and mobilization of CIA-controlled organization and assets also accelerated. The CIA effort was intended to isolate Allende’s Popular Unity coalition by directing and financing negative statements by political and civic leaders, anti-Allende rallies, and hostile media, through CIA-owned or –supported newspapers, radio stations, and television assets. In addition, the Station was also directed to conduct multiple “black propaganda” operations – planting false but provocative information about Allende’s plans in the press and inside the military. In early October, for example, the Station was told to create and plant fictitious intelligence reports on how Chile’s intelligence services would “be reorganized along the Soviet/Cuban model thus creating the structure for a police state.”

“The key is the psych war within Chile,” CIA officials stressed. “We cannot endeavor to ignite the world if Chile is itself a placid lake. The fuel for the fire must come from within Chile. Therefore the Station should employ every stratagem, every ploy, however bizarre, to create this internal resistance.” (Doc 7) ...In another, and far more sinister, cable dated the same day the Station was ordered to consider instigating “terrorist” activities that might provoke Allende’s followers.

Almost all references to the use of terrorism have been redacted from the declassified CIA records, but they do contain enough information to show that terrorist acts were part of the effort to create a coup climate. The Task Force Daily logs show that the Agency was monitoring and providing small amounts of funding for the actions of a neofascist group, Patria y Libertad. An October 6 CIA status report noted that the Station had contacted “a representative of an anticommunist group intent on organizing terrorist activities” … [Kornbluh, pp. 19-20]

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned, not only about length, but about possible POV, but given that you guys know more about the topic than me and appear to be listening to each other as you discuss it, I'm content to sit back and watch for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Party affiliation

Why isn't Nixon's party affiliation mentioned in the first paragraph?Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Section deleted on 13 December 2012

The following section was added on 01:07, 11 December 2012‎ by User:Mitchumch. The section was deleted on 10:52, 13 December 2012‎ by User:Wehwalt. The reason given is "rv, no consensus, unsourced, please discuss on talk"

To address the concerns listed by user Wehwalt:

• rv - I do not know what "rv" means.
• no consensus - I have placed this deleted section on the talk page to encourage consensus on this section. However,I did not know I needed a consensus before adding content to an article.
• unsourced - For the names and positions of the cabinet members, please see the Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, click on the link to their names. For the image of Nixon's cabinet, please click it for source information. That image is in the Wikimedia Commons. For the judicial appointment, please click on the names and links for source citation.
• please discuss on talk - This is why I placed this matter on the talk page for this article.

Please share your thoughts on the reasons listed by user Wehwalt for deleting this section. Also, please state your desire for this section. User Wehwalt has been notified on his talk page. Thank you for your input.

Mitchumch (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Administration and cabinet

Expand to see content removed and being discussed.

Richard M. Nixon's cabinet The Nixon cabinet Office Name Term President Richard Nixon 1969–1974 Vice President Spiro Agnew 1969–1973 Gerald Ford 1973–1974 Secretary of State William P. Rogers 1969–1973 Henry Kissinger 1973–1974 Secretary of the Treasury David M. Kennedy 1969–1971 John Connally 1971–1972 George P. Shultz 1972–1974 William E. Simon 1974 Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird 1969–1973 Elliot Richardson 1973–1974 James R. Schlesinger 1974 Attorney General John N. Mitchell 1969–1972 Richard Kleindienst 1972–1973 Elliot Richardson 1973–1974 William B. Saxbe 1974 Postmaster General Winton M. Blount 1969–1971* Secretary of the Interior Wally Joseph Hickel 1969–1971 Rogers Morton 1971–1974 Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin 1969–1971 Earl Butz 1971–1974 Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans 1969–1972 Peter Peterson 1972–1973 Frederick B. Dent 1973–1974 Secretary of Labor George P. Shultz 1969–1970 James Day Hodgson 1970–1973 Peter J. Brennan 1973–1974 Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Robert Finch 1969–1970 Elliot Richardson 1970–1973 Caspar Weinberger 1973–1974 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development George W. Romney 1969–1973 James Thomas Lynn 1973–1974 Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe 1969–1973 Claude Brinegar 1973–1974 *The Postmaster General Cabinet department was reorganized by Congress into the United States Postal Service in 1971. Blount's final year as a Nixon cabinet member ended in 1971, but he continued to serve as Postmaster General until 1972.

Judicial appointments

More content being discussed, collapsed for ease of viewing.

Warren E. Burger was Nixon's pick for Chief Justice. Further information: Richard Nixon judicial appointment controversies Supreme Court Main article: Richard Nixon Supreme Court candidates Warren E. Burger - 1969 as Chief Justice Harry Blackmun - 1970 Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - 1971 William Rehnquist - 1971 Other court appointments Main article: List of federal judges appointed by Richard Nixon Nixon appointed 231 federal judges, surpassing the previous record of 193 set by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these were four Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (including one Chief Justice), 46 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 181 judges to the United States district courts.

Discussion

16 December 2012

I think you are free to start an article about Nixon's cabinet, styled after Britannica's. As far as I know, none of the US presidents has a Wikipedia article written about his cabinet, but there is nothing to stop us from rectifying that lack. Or you could start a 'presidency' article about Nixon in the manner of Presidency of Bill Clinton and Presidency of George W. Bush. (Right now the Presidency of Richard Nixon wikilink redirects to this biography—there is no article yet.) Regarding this biography article, I don't think the cabinet details are prosified enough to benefit it. Instead, it adds clutter to a Featured Article, one with very high standards of readability. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet above that the info about the cabinet should go on the "Presidency of Richard Nixon" page, which I couldn't believe was a redirect to this personal page of Nixon's. Of all the "Presidency" articles that should exist, it would be this one!! I know this is a FA article, and I agree that the majority of stuff related to his Presidency, resignation, Watergate, etc., should be in the "Presidency" article, not on this personal page, which will be too long and unwieldy, if everything is included. There should be more items on this page about his life, and the "Presidency" page should be about the "job" and what happened there, during his terms. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an FA. Everything, as a practical matter, should be sourced, using the citation format in the article. Rv means revert. Additionally, I see no need to have a list of his cabinet members in the article. I know you've been adding them to every president you can, but that's not enough of a reason. This is a long article, with a lot of text. A long box containing cabinet members does no one any good. I'd be OK on the courts, if you cited it. And no, you can't just say "see the Brittanica." The reader needs to know where to go to verify.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I was pinged to this dicussion by the original poster. I don't know why I was pinged other than I have maybe one edit to this article. Anyway. This content does not belong in a broad overview biographical article; it is excessive detail. If it belongs anywhere, it would be Presidency of Richard Nixon, which would be summarized to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw :). I was also going to add (ec, I'm afraid) that the navbox occupies almost two screens vertically, can't be used to fill right-hand whitespace (even if there was a place it could go) because of the attendant image, isn't cited, and isn't collapsible. There's a real risk the reader will scroll down to see it, and assume there is no prose beneath it, navigating away from the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would also oppose it at Presidency of Richard Nixon because I hate infoboxes and vertical navboxes. But that's not the issue here. If the original poster converted it to a horizonatal navbox, it would be fine at the bottom of the Presidency article, but it is excess detail that doesn't belong here in any form. I see several dozen editors were spammed to come here; have fun with that ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I was pinged as well. Back in the day there used to be "Presidency of PRESIDENT NAME" articles that you could put highly detailed information about that person's presidency there. I don't know if they've fallen out of favor or what have you but that would be the perfect place for this information. Nixon's article is always going to be pretty long because of the unique facets of his presidency, it would be too bad to lose information that is accurate and useful just because of that. Has anyone any more information on the current state of those types of articles? --WGFinley (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please read the posts just above yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Administration and cabinet section should be included, per other US President bio articles. The Judicial appointments section should be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There's already a horizontal navbox in the article covering the identical information. this one. It should possibly be moved higher in the (lengthy) list of navboxes at the bottom, but I see no point in duplicating the information.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Another one of the pinged masses reporting in. I generally agree with whats been said already re: this section. Needs to be in its own article, and definitely needs sources. Good content but this is not the place. Adam Kriesberg (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And another of the pinged spam masses touching base: Support explanation of Wehwalt, and note Wehwalt and Sandy agree on this point, which is well worth taking seriously! Per their comments, this is a Featured Article, and as such needs to fit the criteria at WP:FA, which requires an appropriate style and format for which excessive navboxes will not fit. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a spinoff about the cabinet or other appointments, and that's where this sort of thing needs to go, not here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ibid on being pinged - One thought when looking at the proposed addition compared to the source material was that I was confused by the "terms." The source material had two tables, one for "January 20, 1969-January 20, 1973 (Term 1)" and the second for "January 20, 1973-August 9, 1974 (Term 2)". The editor combined this into a single table with a "Term" column. It was not immediately intuitive to me that "Term" meant the time a specific person held a specific office. It was also not clear which of those office-term dates coincided with the start/end of one of the presidential terms and which were people starting/ending in mid-term.

I agree with the comments by others that the proposed table takes up a lot of vertical space. Unfortunately, the table seems a bit too wide to safely use as an info-box that floats to the right of the article body. Other than the confusion caused by the term dates I love the general structure of the table though. Maybe we would float some more picture to the right of the table.

I'm in favor of a split to "Presidency of Richard Nixon" which will make it far easier to work in the proposed presidential cabinet table. The present "Presidency (1969–74)" section contains 5,812 words (34,874 bytes) and the split will be larger once you include the infoboxes, etc. that you would duplicate.

FWIW, I constructed a partial list of the presidents that have separate "Presidency of" articles.

• Presidency of George Washington
• Presidency of John Adams redirects to John Adams#Presidency: 1797–1801
• Presidency of Thomas Jefferson
• ...
• Presidency of John F. Kennedy redirects to Timeline of the presidency of John F. Kennedy (no other presidents have "Timeline" articles other than Barack Obama)
• Presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson redirects to Lyndon B. Johnson#Presidency 1963–1969
• Presidency of Richard Nixon redirects to Richard Nixon#Presidency (1969–74)
• Presidency of Gerald Ford redirects Gerald Ford#Presidency, 1974–77
• Presidency of Jimmy Carter
• Presidency of Ronald Reagan
• Presidency of George H. W. Bush redirects to George H. W. Bush#Presidency (1989–1993)
• Presidency of Bill Clinton
• Presidency of George W. Bush
• Presidency of Barack Obama plus he had Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama which is a stub that points to sub-articles for:

• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009)
• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2010)
• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2011)
• Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2012)

--Marc Kupper|talk 21:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My view is that a split would be a bad idea. First of all, the Presidency section is written in a biographical tone, which I think would be rather different than how one would write about an administration. It's written entirely Nixon-focused. A split would not allow us to shorten this article appreciably, since we'd have to have a summary of the removed information in this article (we really can't send the reader elsewhere and cut out the presidency section) and most of the stuff in there has to be in any top-level article on Richard Nixon. It's not just about comprehensiveness, it's about reader expectations. Someone would add it back, probably badly, or else complain on talk. People still care about Nixon, he still means something to people. It's why the banner pictures work in this article, because the sight of Nixon evokes emotion in us. It wouldn't work in, say, McKinley. It can't be made significantly shorter, because I was very much aware in getting this article ready for FA that there couldn't be too much detail because the article is very long, necessarily so about a man who was in the public spotlight for almost half a century. My worry was always whether I had given the reader enough detail. If someone wants to write an article about the Nixon administration, that would be great, but there's no point to a split. It would harm this article, and we've got the centennial coming up and a likely TFA appearance, and that's going to be a challenge as it is without making major changes to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Wehwalt that a content fork is not needed. My own comment above may have not been clear; if a separate article about the cabinet or people appointed is written, that is entirely different from this biography and nothing here needs to be cut or altered to create a different article. I did a quick check of the "presidency of" articles (other than those on Obama, which are ever in flux) and it is clear to me that this is not a suitable solution here; none are GA or FA and none of the underlying core biographies are FA- class, with only the George Washington even a GA. This alone speaks to the situation; a solid WP comprehensive presidential biography that is FA class doesn't need a split of the most significant accomplishments of the person's life. But likewise, it doesn't require every last detail, either, particularly in a clunky vertical infobox that messes with the formatting of the article. The other articles seem to have these content forks due to other issues related in part to the lower quality of the articles. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, the information that no other quality President articles have "Presidency of" sub-articles is incorrect. At least Ronald Reagan, FA; Barack Obama, FA; Bill Clinton, GA; and the formerly featured version of Hugo Chavez, and these are ones I just happen to know of off the top of my head without even bothering to check further. All of these are very clearly linked in the main article, so Montanabw's check doesn't appear to have been thorough.

Further, other than those on Obama, which are ever in flux is misleading; Barack Obama was a Featured article well before Obama was President. Of course Presidency of Barack Obama was added to it later.

Also, the term "content forking" is beling used incorrectly here; FAs routinely use (even should use when necessary) Summary style; labeling the correct and appropriate use of summary style as "content forking" is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

18 December 2012

Should be placed instead under an article on the Nixon presidency, not under an article about the man himself. The article on Nixon himself would cover everything he did pre- and post-presidency, the Cabinet would go under an article on the Nixon presidency. IMHO Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the primary interest in Nixon is for what he did as president, I do not think it would be a good idea to send the reader elsewhere for that information.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

To address Wehwalt points:

1. the primary interest in Nixon is for what he did as president - how does any editor know what each reader is specifically looking for when they view this article?

2. I do not think it would be a good idea to send the reader elsewhere for that information - this claim has two parts.

First, 2a. I do not think it would be a good idea - How does one or a few editors know what is "a good idea" for any of these viewers? According to the Wikipedia article traffic statistics for the Richard Nixon article it has been viewed 275,676 times in the past 30 days. The "Page ratings, Current average ratings" at the bottom of the article provides editors with some idea. Of the 229 ratings for the "Complete" rating part, 4 out of 5 viewing participants thought this article was complete. This rating would suggest viewers think more information is needed, not less.

Second, 2b. send the reader elsewhere for that information. These are the current sections or subsections with content forks in the Richard Nixon article

• Congressional career (2 content forks)
  
• Vice president (1 content fork)
  
• 1960 and 1962 elections; wilderness years (1 content fork)
  
• 1968 presidential election (2 content forks)
  
• China (1 content fork)
  
• Vietnam War (2 content forks)
  
• Economy (2 content forks)
  
• U.S. space program (1 content fork)
  
• 1972 presidential campaign (1 content fork)
  
• Watergate (1 content fork)
  
• Death and funeral (1 content fork)
  

There are 30 (sub)sections in this article, not including the See Also, Notes, and External Links (sub)sections. There are 15 content forks in this article. Stated in another way, 50% of the article has content forks.

Lastly, to address Wehwalt's whole point rather than the parts of the users point. The choice to view more information about any aspect of Richard Nixon's life should not be deprived by one or a few editors. Particularly when participating viewers have expressed a desire for more content. Consequently, the power to delete content should be used sparingly and thoughtfully, not liberally and recklessly. Wikipedia is an electronic resource, not paper. Therefore, it does not suffer form the same constraints as paper. Why would we not expand the content when that option is available and desired?

Despite my refutations to Wehwalt's points, I sincerely believe this user strives to make the article on Richard Nixon the best it possibly can be. I share that goal. However, after this article has attained a FA status, does that mean 5 out 5 viewers will think the article is complete? We as editors must accept that as individuals or as a small group that we do not know what any person among the billions of people on the planet that access Wikipedia's content will be searching for. Consequently, should we not err on the side of abundance, instead of scarcity?

Mitchumch (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, they aren't exactly content forks, they are more comprehensive articles about aspects of Nixon's career that we only have time in this article to treat briefly. The hatnotes are there for reader convenience, and perhaps as a hint to let the reader know there's considerably more matter there, if the reader cares to click. That four of five readers think it's complete is what the focus should be on, not that one of five think it is not (adding matter to satisfy the one may not please the four, who could consider the article overstuffed). We also have to accept that some of them are from people who are clicking on all four thumbs down, for whatever reason.

I do not dictate what appears in this article. Read the talk page, and the archives. Stuff has gone in that I felt didn't need to be there, and which I opposed. Sickle cell anemia, Latin America, Cambodia. I've been on the short end of a couple of discussions about the lede too. This is a widely-watched article, and people tend to offer opinions. If there's a discussion, they tend to weigh in even without notifications. That's how this article gets fine-tuned.

However, what you are trying to do is add content which is already in the article. I've linked to the horizontal template which is at the bottom of the article which contains the Cabinet information. I've suggested it be made more prominent.

How does it help the reader to be confronted with two screens of a cabinet list he doesn't want? If he wants it, he can find it by searching or googling, or simply going to the foot of the article. I just don't see how it helps the reader to get a lengthy navbox in the middle of prose like that on the off chance he might want it. More is not better..

We have the information once. We don't need it twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think we need to agree on what is a fact versus an opinion or assumption. The reason you gave for deleting the edit shown above was, "rv, no consensus, unsourced, please discuss on talk." But you have made the following statements throughout this discussion,

1. "I see no need to have a list of his cabinet members in the article," 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2. "A long box containing cabinet members does no one any good," 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

3. "There's a real risk the reader will scroll down to see it, and assume there is no prose beneath it, navigating away from the page," 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

4. "My view is that a split would be a bad idea," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

5. "It's not just about comprehensiveness, it's about reader expectations," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

6. "People still care about Nixon, he still means something to people," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

7. "It's why the banner pictures work in this article, because the sight of Nixon evokes emotion in us. It wouldn't work in, say, McKinley," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

8. "It can't be made significantly shorter, because I was very much aware in getting this article ready for FA that there couldn't be too much detail because the article is very long, necessarily so about a man who was in the public spotlight for almost half a century," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

9. "My worry was always whether I had given the reader enough detail," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

10. "If someone wants to write an article about the Nixon administration, that would be great, but there's no point to a split. It would harm this article," 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

11. "the primary interest in Nixon is for what he did as president, I do not think it would be a good idea to send the reader elsewhere for that information," 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

12. "That four of five readers think it's complete is what the focus should be on, not that one of five think it is not," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

13. "adding matter to satisfy the one may not please the four, who could consider the article overstuffed," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

14. "We also have to accept that some of them are from people who are clicking on all four thumbs down, for whatever reason," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

15. "How does it help the reader to be confronted with two screens of a cabinet list he doesn't want? If he wants it, he can find it by searching or googling, or simply going to the foot of the article," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

16. "I just don't see how it helps the reader to get a lengthy navbox in the middle of prose like that on the off chance he might want it," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

17. "More is not better," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

18. "I do not dictate what appears in this article," 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Before I move on, I want to address the last statement. According to the Contributors Page Information for the Nixon article you have produced more edits than any other contributor to this article - 838 edits in total. In fact, the second largest editor to this article Happyme22 has performed 497 edits. There are only five editors that have added more than 100 edits, which includes you and Happyme22. Your average editor to the Nixon article only contributes 10 or less edits.

For me, the core of this entire conversation boils down to one point or question. How does any editor know what any viewer will want from this article - "reader expectations"? Please answer this question with sources that I can verify independent of your statement. I would also like you to read an article from the Wikimedia Foundation 2011-12 Annual Plan, particularly pages 8-9. It's written in big type, probably for a presentation. Please read this before posting another response. On a side note, I think you will also find relevant statements in the report on the referenced pages that should impact anyone's decision to have unusually sized images in any article.

Mitchumch (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

19 December 2012

You are entitled to your views on the question, of course. However, I keep on my watchlist over 75 FA that I have taken a role in bringing to that status. I monitor talk page activity, reader feedback, anything else I can get my hands on. Reader expectations are something I care about because I am always looking to improve articles. I may not be able to say with exactness what expectations are, but I have what information I can glean, and I'm a darn sight better well read regarding Nixon than anyone else handy. So yeah, I'm saying that my understanding of reader expectations has a good deal more basis in fact than your average bear's.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views on the question - I enumerated 18 statements you have made. Those are not my "views." When I made an edit, your response was, "unsourced" 10:52, 13 December 2012‎ (UTC) and "Everything, as a practical matter, should be sourced" 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC). I am asking you to apply the same standards of verification that you demand from other editors.

I keep on my watchlist over 75 FA that I have taken a role in bringing to that status. I monitor talk page activity, reader feedback, anything else I can get my hands on - Despite that body of evidence, you can not provide a single specific source to substantiate any of your statements enumerated above about readers.

Reader expectations are something I care about because I am always looking to improve articles - I sincerely believe this statement. Therefore, I will never dispute this statement from you.

I may not be able to say with exactness what expectations are - If you can not defend a statement with facts, then should you not be prepared to walk away from defending that statement?

I have what information I can glean - Please present the "information" that you are gleaning that has led you to make the 18 enumerated statements listed above.

I'm a darn sight better well read regarding Nixon than anyone else handy - I am not questioning your knowledge about the subject of Nixon. Especially, since you must cite your sources to validate any statement(s) you make about Nixon. I am questioning your knowledge about "reader expectations." I am asking you to cite specific sources to validate your 18 statements listed above about readers.

my understanding of reader expectations has a good deal more basis in fact than your average bear's - Please prove it. Knowledge of readers does not follow from knowledge of Nixon. That argument is a Non Sequitur.

I want to repeat my core question - How does any editor know what any viewer will want from this article - "reader expectations"? Mitchumch (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

From my discussion with you on this question, you have demonstrated that you do not know me as a reader. If you do not know me as a reader, then how many other readers do you not know? You also made the following statement,

Stuff has gone in that I felt didn't need to be there, and which I opposed. Sickle cell anemia, Latin America, Cambodia. I've been on the short end of a couple of discussions about the lede too. 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am asking you to reflect on Skepticism, Uncertainty, and Self Doubt regarding your claimed knowledge of "reader expectations." I also want to repeat a previous statement that I made. "Despite my refutations to Wehwalt's points, I sincerely believe this user strives to make the article on Richard Nixon the best it possibly can be." Mitchumch (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC). I continue to stand behind this statement. I personally believe Wikipedia is fortunate to have you as a committed contributor to the content on this site.

However, Knowledge of readers does not follow from knowledge of Nixon.

Mitchumch (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK, Mitch. This article is in a solid form and needs no massive changes, particularly the ones you are promoting. You fail to see that the policies that govern featured articles, and especially biographies, are quite standardized here on WP these days, and your proposals will make the article poorer in quality, not better. You can go off and create your own article, nothing is stopping you. But there is neither a need to delete massive amounts of information from this article, nor is there a need to expand it into a book; this is an encyclopedia, this article is the lead article on Nixon which, by its very nature, will have to concisely summarize certain materials; there are hundreds of books and hundreds of thousands of pages of material out there on Nixon, we cannot include it all, and we cannot include everything that Randy from Boise - or you - or me - thinks is relevant. There is not going to be a huge list of appointments placed into in this article, Mitch; in fact, if you go over to some of the other TFA noms, one is in danger of getting a FAR in part because some people think it has too many lists. So please let this go. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to participate in this conversation and the input you have given in order to contribute to a community consensus and possible solution.

Wehwalt has made no statement asking me to cease discussing the issues raised during this conversation with him or herself.

Wehwalt has stated that the presence of the deleted sections on the Richard Nixon article outside of a collapsible box is unacceptable AND the creation of a split called "Presidency of Richard Nixon" is unacceptable.

1. On 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Wehwalt stated, "My view is that a split would be a bad idea,"

2. On 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Wehwalt stated, "If someone wants to write an article about the Nixon administration, that would be great, but there's no point to a split. It would harm this article,"

3. On 10:45, and 18 December 2012 (UTC) Wehwalt stated, "the primary interest in Nixon is for what he did as president, I do not think it would be a good idea to send the reader elsewhere for that information."

THE CONSENSUS IS AS FOLLOWS:

SPLIT ARTICLE TO "Presidency of Richard Nixon" (6 EDITORS)

• Binksternet - "Or you could start a 'presidency' article about Nixon in the manner of Presidency of Bill Clinton and Presidency of George W. Bush. (Right now the Presidency of Richard Nixon wikilink redirects to this biography—there is no article yet.)" 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Funandtrvl - "I agree with Binksternet above that the info about the cabinet should go on the "Presidency of Richard Nixon" page, which I couldn't believe was a redirect to this personal page of Nixon's." 18:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• WGFinley - "Back in the day there used to be "Presidency of PRESIDENT NAME" articles that you could put highly detailed information about that person's presidency there. I don't know if they've fallen out of favor or what have you but that would be the perfect place for this information." 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Marc Kupper - "I'm in favor of a split to "Presidency of Richard Nixon" which will make it far easier to work in the proposed presidential cabinet table." 21:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oaktree b - "Should be placed instead under an article on the Nixon presidency, not under an article about the man himself. The article on Nixon himself would cover everything he did pre- and post-presidency, the Cabinet would go under an article on the Nixon presidency. IMHO" 00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Mitchumch - (I never stated my position, but leaning towards this camp)

IN A SUB-COLLAPSIBLE (CLOSED BY DEFAULT) BOX AT BOTTOM OF NIXON ARTICLE (3 EDITORS)

• Wehwalt - "There's already a horizontal navbox in the article covering the identical information. this one. It should possibly be moved higher in the (lengthy) list of navboxes at the bottom, but I see no point in duplicating the information" 18:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Montanabw - ORIGINALLY SAID, "There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a spinoff about the cabinet or other appointments, and that's where this sort of thing needs to go, not here," 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC) BUT LATER SAID, "My own comment above may have not been clear; if a separate article about the cabinet or people appointed is written, that is entirely different from this biography and nothing here needs to be cut or altered to create a different article." 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• SandyGeorgia - ORIGINALLY SAID, "If it belongs anywhere, it would be Presidency of Richard Nixon," 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) BUT LATER SAID, "I would also oppose it at Presidency of Richard Nixon because I hate infoboxes and vertical navboxes. But that's not the issue here. If the original poster converted it to a horizonatal navbox, it would be fine at the bottom of the Presidency article" 17:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

INCLUDE IN MAIN ARTICLE (1 EDITOR)

• GoodDay - "The Administration and cabinet section should be included, per other US President bio articles. The Judicial appointments section should be excluded."

HAVE ITS OWN ARTICLE (1 EDITOR)

• Adam Kriesberg - "this section. Needs to be in its own article, and definitely needs sources. Good content but this is not the place."

Mitchumch (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there's no consensus to do anything. You are taking offhand comments and making them a specific proposal. There's no way this article could be split as you propose.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And distorting offhand comments, taking what the users posted and changing their intent. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

First, the template {{main|Presidency of Richard Nixon}} is being proposed to be placed at the beginning of the section titled "Presidency (1969–74)" in the Richard Nixon article. The redirect template #REDIRECT [[Richard Nixon#Presidency (1969–74)]]{{r to section}} will be removed from the "Presidency of Richard Nixon" article that currently redirects to the Richard Nixon article. The newly created article will include content that focuses solely upon Richard Nixon's presidency. It will also include the sections "Administration and cabinet" and "Judicial appointments" that were deleted and referenced at the beginning of this talk page discussion section titled, "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Beyond these changes, no other changes are being proposed.

Second, in observance of Richard Nixon's 100th birthday next month on January 9, 2013, no proposed changes will occur until after the centennial celebration to avoid any undue burden upon user Wehwalt and other active editors watching the Nixon page. On February 9, 2013, the proposed changes are being proposed to be executed.

Lastly, if there are any other concerns that are pressing and require attention before the changes that are being proposed take place, then please discuss the matter to work towards a solution.
Mitchumch (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

See above. There is no consensus to do any such things. You are taking comments out of context and deeming them to support your point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for any of this. Keep the Cabinet template out of the article. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just checking: Binksternet, per your comment below at 18:50 20 December, I'm wondering if you misunderstood the proposal above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not want the main Nixon biography to be cluttered with cabinet appointments delivered in a bulleted list format. I would accept, however, a single link telling the reader where to find a such a list if it also had some encyclopedic text. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To restate more clearly, the above proposal states the cabinet template will only go in the new article "Presidency of Richard Nixon," not in the old article titled, "Richard Nixon."

The only change made to the old article "Richard Nixon" is the following and nothing more:

Main article: Presidency of Richard Nixon

Mitchumch (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing to take any content from this article for the new one?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to follow your lead on that concern.Mitchumch (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone needs to write some fresh content, then. Otherwise there's really no point.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The fresh content has been added over a period of years to the "Richard Nixon" biographical article, instead of the "Presidency of Richard Nixon" article. A discussion titled Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 5#Refactor? about adding a split was discussed during January 2009. I don't know why that idea did not materialize, especially since there was agreement among the participants. If that had happened, there wouldn't be a need to work through your concerns now.

This concern is why I proposed waiting until after Nixon's birthday centennial, in order to work through this carefully and not compromising the biographical article's status as a Featured Article.

Mitchumch (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see adding the link from this main biography to the 'presidency' article if the target article has some decent text in it rather than just a list of appointments. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Mitchumch (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mitch, we don't need a "Presidency of" article in the first place, though obviously nothing can stop you from trying. As I pointed out above, the only presidents with these "Presidency of" articles happen to the ones who have poorer quality main biographies. That said, if you created something that was high quality, we'd look at it, but so far I have no reason to be optimistic on that part. So,Mitchumch, what part of "you are the only one still beating this dead horse" are you not hearing? Thank you for agreeing to leave this article alone, but now please just drop the stick and either go build something in your own little sandbox, or just let it go. You are not helping to build or improve this article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty harsh and I think uncalled for. This main biography should not be saddled with the full details of cabinet appointments, personalities, politics and interactions. A cabinet/presidency article would be useful. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the personalization here is uncalled for; further, where Montanabw said As I pointed out above, the only presidents with these "Presidency of" articles happen to the ones who have poorer quality main biographies is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, look at Mitch's contribs, he spammed 70 (count 'em 70) people about this, then is claiming to be a newbie even though he's edited regularly since 2005, so I don't think I'm out of line in the least. JMO, but this is an encyclopedia, not a farm for content forks. When we have an article about a President, to create a "presidency of" spinoff is rather absurd, as their Presidency tends to dominate the biography itself. Other types of spinoffs about various important events (i.e. Watergate) exist, of course, and are not content forks, but when I looked at all the others with a "presidency of" fork, it appeared that either the underlying biography was weak (not a single one is an FA), or the "presidency of" article is weak (at least two have cleanup tags) or it appeared that we had editors who went off on different agendas at some point. But I suppose Cast of interesting and quirky characters in the Nixon administration would get a lot of hits at DYK ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 23:02, December 20, 2012

Montanabw said: When we have an article about a President, to create a "presidency of" spinoff is rather absurd, as their Presidency tends to dominate the biography itself. Other types of spinoffs about various important events (i.e. Watergate) exist, of course, and are not content forks, but when I looked at all the others with a "presidency of" fork, it appeared that either the underlying biography was weak (not a single one is an FA), or the "presidency of" article is weak (at least two have cleanup tags) or it appeared that we had editors who went off on different agendas at some point. I am not taking a position here, just pointing out that the information above is incorrect. Barack Obama is an FA; Presidency of Barack Obama. Ronald Reagan is an FA; Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton is a GA; Presidency of Bill Clinton. All three are clearly linked in the main article. I have seen same in many leaders of other nations. For example, Hugo Chávez (a former featured article) and Presidency of Hugo Chávez (which was linked in the featured version).

Also, Montanabw, please comment on content, not the contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing prevents anyone from sandboxing a Cabinet of Richard Nixon article or whatever. I've merely stated that it isn't necessary here. I do see that I missed two stars (my internet connection is slow, in double-checking I just noticed that the FA star takes a few extra seconds to load on the screen after the rest of the article appears; it appears that I first checked these articles, I saw the page load and the protection lock but not the star, and closed the page prior to the star loading. Hmm. Good to know) but Presidency of Reagan DOES have a cleanup tag; Obama, as I stated above, I have omitted from the discussion because he is still President. My point still stands; most of the "Presidency of" articles are weak and are usually spinoffs of weaker quality articles. (not a single "presidency of" article is a GA or FA, is it??) Nothing prevents a spinoff; I just vehemently oppose adding a bunch of unnecessary WP:UNDUE detail to this otherwise excellent overview article and I also oppose removing entire sections from the same article to create a content fork. You would agree, Sandy, that only high quality articles should be written for wikipedia, and you would agree, that it is silly to create an article just to house some infoboxes? Thus, Sandy, I am advising you to cool your personal attacks on me; you are doing this on multiple articles; your snark does not enhance your credibility. Editors who keep beating a dead horse they way Mitch is doing do need their actions considered in the context of their suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of said "personal attacks on" you by me are welcome by way of diffs. Most sub-articles aren't of the quality of FAs; that is not a reason to exclude them in any article. Again, please focus on content not contributors. I agree that Mitchumch may have started off on the wrong foot by posting (apparently) to every single editor who had ever edited this page, but that appears to have been done in good faith, and all of his comments since have focused on content, trying to figure out where to add this content, and trying to do that in a way that won't interfere with article quality and will allow Wehwalt to continue prepping this article for TFA. Your repeated "drop the stick" and "dead horse" responses to him are unwarranted and creating a hostile environment where a good faith editor is only trying to find a way to add relevant information (albeit originally in a form that most of us rejected). This article is over 12,000 words long; that there is room for summary style to a "Presidency of" article is clear. That Mitchumch is trying to proceed towards that end in a way that won't interfere with Wehwalt's preparation for mainpage is also clear. Please stop personalizing, as that is what I see as now as causing the most interference in the work that Wehwalt still has to do. I'm sure that a compromise can be found that will satisfy all and allow Wehwalt to get back to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My God, Sandy, you are something else. It takes a certain kind of mind to use another person's good, useful work as a stick to beat them with.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea about diffs, Sandy. I'll think it over. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The text in the President section of this article is focused on Nixon, it would do badly for an article on "Presidency of ..." For that article to exist, new text must be written, as we cannot deprive this article of its heart. Mitchumch, the idea is not to take the "president" section from each article on a president and make it into a Presidency section. Text focused on the administration would have to be written. And by the way, this article has always had matter about Nixon as president. There is no "added over a period of time". I think you are misunderstanding our practices.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you say that "new text must be written"; are you saying that we currently have no article that focuses on the administration and other aspects of his presidency? If not Presidency of Richard Nixon, where do you propose this text be added? I object to vertical navboxes whether here or anywhere, but we cannot argue that the information-- and more-- doesn't belong somewhere. Where do you propose content about the administration, cabinet, detail about his presidency beyond a bio should be written, if not in a "Presidency of" article, just as we have done in other US Presidential FAs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

1a. The text in the President section of this article is focused on Nixon - I agree. Every section in the article is focused on Nixon.

1b. it would do badly for an article on "Presidency of …" - Please elaborate on this statement. Why do you think this is so?

2. For that article to exist, new text must be written – I agree. New text and more content will be added to the “Presidency for Richard Nixon” article. The proposal for the “Presidency for Richard Nixon” article was motivated by a consensus to include information about Nixon's presidency that was viewed as being not appropriate for the “Richard Nixon” biographical article.

3. we cannot deprive this article of its heart – I don't know what you mean by “heart.” How does adding a section template to the article “deprive” anything from the Nixon biographical article?

As I have shown above in my comment dated 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC), there are 30 (sub)sections in this article, not including the "See Also," "Notes," and "External Links" (sub)sections. There are 15 section templates in this article. Stated in another way, 50% of the Nixon biographical article has section templates. And 7 of those section templates are in the presidency section. The proposed change is simply adding another section template.

The terms “content fork,” “split,” and “hatnote” have been used by me. I think the best term to use here is “section template.”

4. the idea is not to take the "president" section from each article on a president and make it into a Presidency section - I agree. The actual idea is to allow content about Nixon's presidency that is considered not appropriate in the biographical article to be placed in the presidency article. Both articles have content on the topic of Nixon's presidency. That is not avoidable. This will also allow more content about Nixon's life not linked to his presidency to be placed in the main article, because the viewer can go to another article for more details about his presidency.

5. Text focused on the administration would have to be written - See response from #2.

6. this article has always had matter about Nixon as president - I agree.

7. There is no "added over a period of time" - I added content on the administration, cabinet, and judicial appointments on December 11, 2012 and that was removed two days later. Other editors have had their contributions deleted because of appropriateness of contribution, space consideration, etc. I have reviewed some of the “View history” tab for the Nixon article and some of the archives for the “Talk” tab. There are edits and discussions that could have been addressed with the presence of a presidency article. Instead, those opportunities were lost. (I can provide a sample list of those edits and discussions upon request)

8. I think you are misunderstanding our practices - Please list the Wikipedia practice(s) that you think I am misunderstanding?

Mitchumch (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I want to state something I think is important. I want to state this because I believe I am sensing anxiety, dread, and fear in your statements about the proposed change.

The term “Richard Nixon” is linked to 978 items in Wikimedia Commons, 4989 items in Wikipedia, 15 items in Wikiversity, 17 items in Wiktionary, 86 items in Wikiquote, 20 items in Wikinews, and 137 items in Wikisource. That's all for English speaking content, not including other languages.

Nixon the man and Nixon the president produced an abundant amount of material and attention (and here). The proposed section template is a small attempt to deal with some of that abundance. Nixon's biographical article has received an average of 7,000 viewers per day within the last 90 days. We as editors at Wikipedia have at our disposal the resources to ensure those viewers are provided with a content rich, informative, and insightful experience when they view those pages. That is my main goal. Destroying the contributions you have made or any other editor to the Nixon article - a Featured Article – will be counterproductive in attaining that goal.

No one at any time during the discussion has proposed to make any change to the content of the biographical article beyond adding a section template. If there is content you think will be better placed in his presidency article, then it can be placed there. If there is content you think deserves to be covered in the biographical article, then it can be place there. That is the only work that needs to be performed.

I am willing to spend as much time as you need to have your concerns addressed. You have made more edits to this article than anybody on the planet - literally. You proposed this article for a peer review and to be considered a featured article in August 2011. You worked to address all the concerns brought up by the reviewers. That work has impressed upon me that you care very deeply about this article. I respect that and I do not want to destroy any of the contributions you have made or any other contributor.

Sorry for the lengthy response.
Mitchumch (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from creating a presidency article at your convenience. I agree that no changes should be made to this article, though a hatnote can be added if the content's worthy of it. Note that a number of the existing hatnotes, such as the congressional election articles and Checkers speech are themselves FA; I do not insist on this for a hatnote to appear, but there's got to be worthy content or we are just getting the reader's hopes up unnecessarily. I suggest you do it in a sandbox and when it is ready to be moved to mainspace, in your view, you ask people here to look it over. I'll be happy to give my opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No changes need to be made to this article, it can run as TFA as is sits, and if others create nice articles that it would be appropriate to link to, that is fine. We would all be willing to take a look at a sandbox draft and offer helpful suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I appreciate the efforts of all involved to improve the article. However, I do not feel any further changes can be implemented prior to January 9, and if things don't calm down and allow me to prepare the article for the main page, which I cannot at present, I will withdraw it at TFA/R and impose a principal editor's veto against it running. This includes the proposal on the presidency article. What needs to happen over there is content needs to be written for such an article. If it's good content, there's no question we would have a hatnote to the article here. However, it needs to be quality, writing an article for the express purpose of housing a template is as silly as building a house to use a faucet, as I saw in one commercial.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you withdraw it I will renominate it. It can run as it is now, especially with the strong support it is getting at WP:TFAR. This article is not your bat and ball that you can take home to spoil the game. Yes, you have performed valuable work on it. No, it is not necessary that it run with your approval. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is a "principal editor's veto"? I did a search on Wikipedia using the Advanced options. I couldn't find anything. Could you post a link? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See discussion here. I would certainly object to a courtesy extended traditionally being withdrawn without a very good reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been our custom that the article not run against the wishes of the principal editor. That is the present state of play. I would prefer not to withdraw it but don't see where I am left with much alternative, given the conflicts which are arising.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that we have no problems with this article running as a TFA; we have one tendentious editor who has drawn some enablers going on and on about something tangental that is creating conflict and drama out of nothing. And just in case the entire reason we have a problem here is because I told Mitch to drop the stick, which seems to have inspired another 10-zillion bytes of conversation, please don't withdraw because of me. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think it would be a big disappointment all around if you press the button to start the process of withdrawing the article as principal editor. It would be unfortunate for it to turn into a test case which results in an exemption for Nixon or a reversal of past practices. It would also be unfortunate to miss out on the centennial of Nixon's birth because of infighting rather than any real problem with the article.

I can imagine a few limited instances in which the principal editor of an article would have a good argument for pulling a proposed TFA. In all of those cases the argument would have been convincing enough on its own merits, without entitling the principal editor with veto power. For instance, the principal editor might protest that there is a new book, a new study, a change in the situation such that the article is no longer accurate or up to date. That is not the case for the Nixon biography. I think the "custom" of giving veto power to one involved editor is a practice that should be ceased. It leads to editors who feel entitled. It does not serve the reader. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, Binksternet, why should I subject myself to this? Sandy's already on this page, wild to gain a pound of flesh over her claimed "disruption" she is always nattering about. Why should I subject myself to it? We've got 19 days until January 9. I say again, why? Why? Haven't I earned the right to have my wishes in this matter respected? I feel that I should and that it may be some source of regret not to have it on the centennial, but if I hadn't exerted myself tremendously, and spent a good deal of money, it never would have happened. The 40th anniversary of the resignation's in a year and a half, after all, maybe things will have improved. I would prefer not to have the aggravation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not about you, Wehwalt, it is about our readers' knowledge and Nixon's legacy. You cannot use this FA as leverage against other editors with whom you do not get along. Whether Sandy snipes at you or vice versa does not matter here. With the kind of consensus running at TFAR the Nixon bio will run regardless of your wishes. My heartfelt recommendation is that you either let it run without your interaction, or you let it run with a final going-over applied by FA experts such as yourself. Either way it will be a fine thing for our readers and a main author's triumph for you. Didn't Nixon declare victory and pull out at least once? Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, and I'm gratified by how highly you prize my contributions. However, being human and selfish, I put my health and peace of mind first, so must regretfully decline. The stress on me already is showing through how irritable I've been the last few days, which I do regret by the way, but the stress is not stopping and is being made worse by comments like this which accuses a group of people of meatpuppetry. I've already given you more reason than Moni3 ever did. It will be a disappointment to very few, since almost no one understands the TFA process, and will be aware that there was an absence. For example, Reagan's centennial was last year and it did not run as it already had. Any pride of authorship is long since gone though I remember feeling it once. I feel I have ample reason, and having to touch on personal matters makes me uncomfortable. Please do not insist.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to assist in diffusing this issue.

I think Wehwalt wants to focus energy on the Nixon article to present as TFA without expending energy on a separate issue. Binksternet has expressed a desire to present the Nixon article as a TFA. The objectives are identical.

The scenario of withdrawing the Nixon article at TFA/R and use a principal editor's veto against it running is a condition. The condition being if Wehwalt has to spend time on other issues, then proposed withdrawal of article. The condition hasn't taken place (I believe).

I want to propose postponing any further discussion on the issues for this discussion until after February 9, 2013. This issue is not urgent and can wait for a later time.

How about it?

Mitchumch (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be satisfactory, if all personalizing by Sandy comes to an end. I do not have the energy both to defend myself and to prepare the article. It's got to stop. I will note that if I am deceived and the article runs in spite of my wishes, or my conditions, my response will be obvious and logical.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a game to me. I see no need to engage in deceit. Have a happy Holiday. Mitchumch (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And to you, though the thrust of the comment was not directed towards you, and I regret that you think it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I do not know what led to your comments about me personalizing here; my summary above of the situation seems to be essentially the same as Mitchumch's final post (that is, he doesn't seem to be interested in or trying to further any problem). It appears to me that after his initial foray into this article with the template issue, he has expressed nothing but a desire to stay out of the way while you prepare for TFA, and that is just what I said. Should he later carve out a Presidency article, there is room for one. I do not know what the rest of your comments about personalization refer to, but it seems to me that the good faith offer of Mitch to leave the cabinet information out until after TFA should resolve whatever concerns remain. If you have a diff where I have personalized this discussion, I'd be interested in seeing it so I can understand where you're coming from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You've personalized every other discussion today, Sandy. That's quite sufficient. I assumed good faith in your coming to this page. However, my initial assumption was outweighed by your comments elsewhere, including the one cited above, accusing an entire group of editors of meatpuppetry (something you also implied about Gerda, twice). Are you prepared to cut it out?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Richard Nixon; after his initial foray that brought many editors to this discussion, Mitchumch has consistently and repeatedly shown good faith in trying to do that. Since you acknolwedge I have not personalized the discussion here, I'd ask that you not bring other issues unrelated to this talk page when a good faith editor is only trying to get content that so far is not available to our readers (or is it somewhere?) into some article some where. Let's stay on topic, since he has been so gracious in not insisting that cabinet information be included, as that would not be an illogical position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, right now the best route to the improvement of the article seems to go through your making promises of good behavior, so I'm insisting on my question. I am formally asking you to not make accusations or implications regarding other FA participants without strong evidence, that is, evidence that would cause an uninvolved admin to take action. That includes the implications of meatpuppetry and editing on behalf of a banned editor you make so casually, and without evidence other than past associations.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Judicial appointments

Should this article have a section on Nixon's judicial appointments, as is found in many of the Presidents' articles. I'd be glad to draft this and have the information to do so, but given the page's status as an FA, want to make sure the section is wanted first. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want one because it is reference book material, easy to find out, and I did not wish to spare the room.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's why I asked. But some of the most consequential actions Nixon took were his Supreme Court appointments (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist), and it seems to me they should at least be mentioned and linked somewhere. And there should probably be a link someplace to Richard Nixon judicial appointments? That much shouldn't be bulky or anything, I don't think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a see also? The problem is, once you start getting into it, there's such a lot that has to be said about the appointments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There exists List of federal judges appointed by Richard Nixon, FWIW. Do as you will. Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

War on Drugs

There is a brief mention in the lead of Nixon's role in initiating illegal drug legislation but no follow up in the article. The Jimmy Carter article indicates he declared the War on Drugs on June 16, 1971. Coincidentally, that is one year and a day prior to the Watergate break-in. The War on Drugs article doesn't give the exact date of the quote beyond stating June, 1971. 22yearswothanks (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not see that get added to the lede. In my view it was more Congress than Nixon and there's a tendency to say if it happened on a president's watch, he did it. Nevertheless, I will see if I can add something to the body of the article at some point.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, it's in the discussion of governmental initiatives.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Image sizes in body

There are six massive images centered in the article. I've never seen anything like it on Wikipedia. I don't know whether it violates any rules or accepted standards, but I do know they were jarring.fds^Talk 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea was to break up the text, vary the images (of which, given Nixon's long public career, there are many), and to set a theme for each section. I would refer you to the article's FAC and to the subsequent discussion here. I would say there is strong support for how we are doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I really liked that about the article. I think it would be great if other articles tried something similar.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've considered it for other articles but Nixon is the only one I really found it worked in, due to the public interest in Nixon and the huge number of available photographs depicting him. It's IAR to an extent, but I really think it enhances the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have worked a small bit on some of the other articles that Wehwalt has taken to FA and TFA, and agree that this approach is unique to this article, it's not something Wehwalt usually does. As such, it's an interesting bold experiment in layout that does not seem to constitute any sort of MOS "violation." I think that given that there was consensus reached when this article went FA, it will be interesting to see how these large images are received when this article does appear on the main page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the same camp; I view the large section-starting images as an interesting variation, one that seems to work. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It works well on a wide monitor, but not on narrow ones, where the images are cut off and captions describe people who cannot be seen. Image sizes should work for all, and anyone who wants more detail can click through. Local consensus should not trump our norms. This is an encylopedea, not Life Magazine. Kablammo (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The image sizes were recently increased on this article. I think that they are way too big, and the WP:IMGSIZE policy guideline does too. This is not a Life story, where the photos were the main draw. I know that this article is a FA class, but I don't think there are many FA articles out there with photos this big, and they weren't that big when this article was promoted here to FA. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal, I propose to reverse this edit, which increased the image sizes from 470px to 600px. This in conflict with WP:IMGSIZE, which recommends that images be no larger than 500px. In fact, when this article was promoted to FA, the image sizes were 470px and less. In addition, if you take a look at this article on the mobile Wikipedia site, the images are so big that they are distorted, and they basically don't look very good. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: I'd like to see what the lead editor has to say on this; Wehwalt appears to have made both decisions. I don't see a real significant difference on my monitor either way, which is a standard laptop screen... nothing is cut off. Can someone post a screenshot of what happens on a mobile phone, perhaps, so we who still have "dumb phones" can observe the problem? Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a smart phone, but I'm not too smart about uploading screen shots! (the phone is new.) Anyways, the big pictures on this page that are =600px are stretched vertically and smooshed horizontally, so it looks like Richard Nixon and Ike are in a House of mirrors, where it makes you look tall & skinny. It's actually kinda funny, but I don't think it would be the desired effect for the mobile article. Hope that explains what's happening on a mobile screen. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the smartphone issue, but shrinking the images would just mean more whitespace on non-mobile screens and diminish the utility of those images, which seems to me to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Is there any way to deal with the formatting that would accomplish both ends?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In order for the pictures not to be distorted on the smallest displays (like a smartphone), the maximum is 500 pixels tall by 400 pixels wide, according to WP:IMGSIZE. The problem is that the way the photos are displayed in this article, there is no text surrounding them, which would solve the whitespace problem. I still think the photos should be downsized to no larger than the recommended 500px by 400px, and then be moved closer to the words/paragraphs that they are highlighting. E.g., the Nixon/Ike photo could be moved closer and within the section about Nixon's VP candidacy, instead of being just below the "Rising politician" section heading, where "Congressional career" comes up first, and really is not related to the photo just above it. When the pictures are so big in an article, I tend to think that they are just filling up space, where there really should be some more prose. Even Help:Whitespace suggests there should be as little of whitespace as possible; thus, the solution would be to enhance the prose around the pictures, and make the text wrap around them, with them being smaller. That is probably the most common way that it is handled in other FA articles, as well as within the framework that Wikipedia has set up. The style that is used in this article for the photos is unusual, compared to many articles that I've come across, and I don't think it is really necessary for this article to emphasize the photos so much. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this experiment in image sizing per Support Funandtrvl. It doesn't enhance reader experience and it causes problems for readers on some devices. --John (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what John is referring to, as I am complaining about the size of the images, which IS causing problems with accessing the article on mobile phones. My suggestion to decrease the image sizes would solve the problem, not cause it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go whichever way the community decides. Some support for the present situation was expressed above, as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that; however, keeping the image sizes too large causes problems for smaller screens (like mobile phones, see: WP:IMGSIZE, and the fact that they take longer to download for slower Internet connections, see: WP:Article size#Technical issues.) Also, the images need to have "alt" parameters added, for accessibility, see: WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images, and some things to be considered about the placement of the images, about not being at the beginning of sections, according to WP:IMAGELOCATION. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Download size is a bit of a red herring - the (220px) thumbnail of Nixon and Johnson in 1961 is 137k, and the thumbnail of the "America needs Nixon" poster 115k, while the Nixon and Eisenhower banner image (600px) is 92k and the 1968 Johnson/Nixon banner image is a mere 42k. Making a given image larger will increase its download size, certainly, but the variation between images more or less wipes out that effect - adding a single extra thumbnail elsewhere in the article probably has much the same weight. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've entered a bug for this - T45770. On my Android phone, the standard web browser resizes the image automatically, so we get a ~400px wide correctly proportioned picture at the top of the section, but the WP application seems to be where the distorting behaviour appears - a skewy 480x500px image. I like the images here (it's a nice change) but even if we do decide to avoid them, it's probably good that the software can handle it for the rare cases where it's needed! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the previous bug report? T45425? The number of smaller images was cut back somewhat during the FAC in 2011 as people felt certain parts were crowded, but people have added other images back, and if someone has a decent reason and the image is properly licensed, I can't stand in the way of an addition even if I don't think much of the image. It's a group effort, after all. I think more people like the images than dislike them, so there's no question of consensus to change them. It works for this article. It wouldn't work for my current presidential project, Andrew Johnson because people don't care about Andrew Johnson. They care about Nixon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - that was marked fixed! Presumably it only corrected it for the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia...) rather than the application; I guess there's some tricky difference in the way it renders. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to start checking how the article looks in other formats. One of my next ones, James B. Longacre, has galleries.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)