Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Domestic policy baseball photograph

I removed the huge photograph of Nixon at a baseball game from the Domestic policy section as it has absolutely nothing to do with domestic policy. This removal was, however, reverted. This image seems to be used purely to decorate the section, not to illustrate it. I would like to formally propose that it be removed or replaced with an image more relevant to the section. Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but felt that say, an image of Nixon giving an Oval Office speech was a bit limiting and so this one seemed the way to go. Open to all ideas though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nixon often appeared formal and stiff to the public, the image portrays him in a more human light, and as such, helps to show more nuances of his character. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are we interested in shaping public perception of Richard Nixon? We're just an encyclopedia, not his biographers. We're not supposed to be making value judgements about what images portray him in the best light, we're supposed to be choosing the images that best illustrate the contents of the text, and this image doesn't seem to relate to anything in the article. Besides, we already have photos of him hanging out with Elvis and throwing back shots with Zhou Enlai. He doesn't look very stiff to me :) Kaldari (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari has a point: rather than using a feel-good photo with no relevance to domestic policy, it would be preferable to use a photo showing Nixon at work on domestic policy. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I"m not in disagreement. I just wasn't able, when I put the images together, to see a photograph which by looking at it you'd say "That's Nixon working on domestic matters". He is best known for his foreign policy, and for Watergate, which is why the domestic part of the article has relatively few images. Does anyone think, say, "Nixon talking with Interior Secretary Hickel" when no one knows or cares what Hickel looks like (other than him, I see he's still alive) is really a good choice over an image which at least shows Nixon out among the people? I looked just now on the Nixon Library web site. There wasn't anything clearly domestic in their 14 pages. They have, of course, many other images, some of which are scattered around the web. Also please keep in mind that I had to pay $80 to have three of the images have detailed scans so they'd look good at this size, including the baseball one (compare the Watergate one, with the one on the Nixon Library site, and you'll see why I had to do it). So a lot of the thumbnail size images won't look so hot at this size. That being said, if there's an image we can agree on that's in sufficient resolution to look good too, I won't stand in the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, my own view is that this image should stay unless something significantly better is found. My point above (misinterpreted by respondent, probably because I didn't phrase it well enough) was not that we are "shaping" perception of Nixon, but that we have an obligation to show the "big picture" and not just the stereotypes. Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Inauguration ceremonies

Under the heading 1960 and 1962 elections;wilderness years there is an image of Nixon and Johnson leaving the White House. The caption says they are leaving for the Kennedy-Johnson inaugural ceremonies. I suggest this should be the inauguration ceremonies. Dolphin (t) 22:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed by Wehwalt - diff. Thanks! Dolphin (t) 11:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Meant to report back, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

National health insurance

I revised the national health insurance paragraph in the "Governmental initiatives and organization" sub-subsection of the "Domestic policy" subsection of the "Presidency (1969–74)" section from:

In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts proposed a plan for universal federally run health insurance, partly motivated by dramatic rises in public and private health care expenditures. In response, Nixon proposed a health care plan which would provide insurance for low-income families, and require that all employees be provided with health care. As this still would have left some forty million people uncovered, Kennedy and the other Democrats declined to support it, and the measure failed, though a Nixon proposal for increased use of health maintenance organizations passed Congress in 1973.

to:

In 1971, Nixon proposed health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate, federalization of Medicaid for poor families with dependent minor children, and support for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). A limited HMO bill was enacted in 1973. In 1974, Nixon proposed more comprehensive health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate and replacement of Medicaid by state-run health insurance plans available to all, with income-based premiums and cost sharing.

which is a condensation of the following two revised paragraphs in the "Governmental initiatives and organization" subsection of the "Domestic policy" section of the Presidency of Richard Nixon article:

In August 1970, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a bipartisan bill for universal national health insurance. In February 1971, Nixon proposed more limited health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate, federalization of Medicaid for poor families with dependent minor children, and support for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). House and Senate hearings on national health insurance were held in 1971, but no bill had the support of House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committee chairmen Rep. Wilbur Mills (D-AR) and Sen. Russell Long (D-LA). A limited HMO bill was enacted in December 1973.

In October 1973, Sen. Long and Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT) introduced a bipartisan bill for catastrophic health insurance coverage for workers and federalization of Medicaid with extension to the poor without dependent minor children. In February 1974, Nixon proposed more comprehensive health insurance reform—a private health insurance employer mandate and replacement of Medicaid by state-run health insurance plans available to all, with income-based premiums and cost sharing. In April 1974, Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Mills introduced a bill for near-universal national health insurance with benefits identical to the expanded Nixon plan. In August 1974, after Nixon's resignation and President Ford's call for health insurance reform, Rep. Mills tried to advance a compromise based on Nixon's plan, but gave up when the conservative half of his committee instead backed the AMA's limited "Medicredit" voluntary tax credit plan.

and changed the sourcing from the incomplete and inaccurate:

• Patel, Kant; Rushefsky, Mark E. (2006). "PSROs and HMOs" in Health Care Politics And Policy in America, 3rd ed. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-1478-2, pp. 47–48.
  

to:

• articles from the Congressional Quarterly Almanac during the Nixon presidency.
  

Apatens (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nixon's space policy

I added the fact that Nixon canceled the Air Force's plan for a manned reconnaissance space station, at the same time as he put the kaibosh on NASA's ambitious post-Apollo plans. I also took the liberty of moving this section up one subsection level, as a sibling of the foreign and domestic policy sections. The way the law was (and as far as I know, still is) written, US space policy covers military and civillian regimes, and POTUS is responsible for guiding the policy of both.

I would also like to modify the section about the post-Apollo program. As written, it makes it sound as if Nixon made this decision unilaterally, and could make him look to human spaceflight enthusiasts like the Grinch who stole Christmas. T.A. Hepplewhite's The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA's Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle makes it clear that Nixon's decision was based on his understanding of the Congress' and public's declining support of space spending in the light of domestic concerns and the Vietnam war, and the changing perception of the Cold War security threat since 1961. I'll do my best not to disturb the summary style which helped this article achieve FA status. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No objection, and thanks for the understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem that there's no ISBN. Many times there isn't with government publications.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictures & Captions

This article has very good pictures. I only have one suggestion-- in the one of him at the baseball game, the caption explains who all of the older gentleman are, and I take it that the "young man"--;)-- sitting next to him is his son. Maybe we could add that in, too?

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nixon had no sons. He's one of a number of young DC-area baseball players that Nixon sat next to in turn during the game. There is a list of them in the Nixon Library in the Presidential Daily Diary for this date. Go here and search for "Crutchfield" and you'll go right to the list. Unfortunately, this kid does not appear to fit the list, as the listed kids are all clearly older than this one. In other words, I researched the matter and couldn't figure out who it might be. By my calculations, the kid is about 50 today, so there's hope we'll find out sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

At one point, we had the caption say something like "Nixon chatting with a future voter … " as a way of signaling to the reader that the kid wasn't anyone notable, in the Wikipedia sense, that is. However, enough people disliked it that it got changed. I will respectfully note, by the way, that judging from the daily diary, Nixon stayed for the entire game. You don't see that in a politician these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Alright then. I suppose there's only so much you can do then. Good job on the thorough research though, biography is a good subject.

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really thorough, but thanks. Just that there was no info on the kid and I was inclined to check into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My God, what an EXCELLENT portrait --that first picture at the top. Wow. (One thing I dislike about Wikipedia is that usually the photo was taken at an advanced age, rather than when that person was in his or her prime and doing whatever made him or her famous.) CousinJohn (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I know. It really brings me back to my childhood, when Nixon was president. The Nixon Library has an immense number of images. They don't even know who all the people in some of the images are! (see above for example). I didn't add it so I can't say thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Accused of Treason LBJ

Is there any US Press coverage of this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668 JAC Esquire (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but frankly all this is much more foggy than the article makes out. It is not universally accepted among historians and therefore it doesn't have any place in an entry-level article on Nixon. I think some of the '68 election articles have some discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

When you say it's not universally accepted among historians, could you point to an example of a dissenting opinion? I spent some time searching online for one, but was unable to find any. 140.180.254.62 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would consult biographies of Nixon. I do not have them in front of me right now (but can get them from storage) but I recall few of them gave much credence to the "November Surprise" scenario.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What I'm concerned about is that from the article, it sounds like the tapes were released relatively recently, and hence may not have been available to the biographers in question. At least from the presentation, it sounds like Johnson had pretty damning evidence (enough, at least, to be conclusive on the eve of an election, rather than be dismissed as groundless attacks.) And wiretaps of the ambassador's phone sound like pretty sound ground. I guess the question is if we have direct records of the phone calls in question (as opposed to indirect records - of Johnson talking about them), and also if there are any plausible explanations that don't involve treason on Nixon's part (it's hard to think of any myself - it definitely sounds from the article that LBJ had pretty conclusive proof, instead of it being circumstantial and uncertain. Are there any plausible explanations besides conspiracy theories of LBJ hating Nixon enough to torpedo his reputation for posterity? I would definitely like to hear some if they exist.) 140.180.254.62 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest checking with the Johnson Library in Texas to see if things are as you suggest with the tapes. The Chennault story's been out there for years.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

According to this http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/05/lbj-called-nixon-a-traitor-for-meddling-in-vietnam-peace-talks/ the tapes have been released for a while. Mightyname (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've put the pieces together now. The tapes have been out for a while. Some sites are misreporting the tapes as newly (i.e. after to 2008) declassified. This is incorrect. The BBC's former Washington correspondent Charles Wheeler conducted a series of interviews on this story after the release of the tapes but he died before they could be broadcast. So it is only now that these interviews and Wheeler's research have been put in the public domain. Listen to the programme here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r93sr JAC Esquire (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying they were declassified prior to 2008? It's been a few years since the last wave of Nixon bios came out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

This is the existing notation on Nixon's 68 campaign in wiki:

"Nixon waged a prominent television advertising campaign, meeting with supporters in front of cameras.[106] He stressed that the crime rate was too high, and attacked what he perceived as a surrender by the Democrats of the United States' nuclear superiority.[107] Nixon promised "peace with honor" in the Vietnam War and proclaimed that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific".[108] He did not release specifics of how he hoped to end the war, resulting in media intimations that he must have a "secret plan".[108] His slogan of "Nixon's the One" proved to be effective."

Secret plan my fanny. It is critical that the public know that Nixon is guilty of treason in that he intentionally sabotaged the vietnam peace talks, extending the war by 5 years and causing the deaths of thousands - just to insure his election.

See this BBC story on the Lynden Johnson tapes that record these facts. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

Nixon cannot be punished for this - he is dead already. But history must record him as the true monster he was.

Wikidelphia3 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've declined the edit request. I think it would be ill-advised. We are not here to record people as guilty of treason, we're here to give the reader facts. The claim made is not of such a nature that one could accept it as a "fact" and the word of Johnson does not make it a fact. What you say in the Oval Office in a moment of anger does not equal "came down from Sinai on stone tablets".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• So we shouldn't mention it at all? That seems somewhat... counter-intuitive. --John (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment below. I think we should mention it as an allegation. However, people keep boldly putting the whole thing back in. I'm hoping for discussion on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

POV problems: Nixonland information being removed

Apparently Nixonland is a "controversial" source, for reasons unclear to me. It's near-universally praised, for more so than, say Conrad Black's work on Nixon a year previous. Despite this, it is so "controversial" that every single piece of information that I've added and sourced to Nixonland has been removed, with poor explanation, from the 1960 convention scares from Rockefeller and Goldwater, Nixon's brief and backroom 1964 presidential campaign, Nixon's role as the stumper-in-chief during the 1966 midterms, and Nixon's narrow winning of the nomination in 1968. Also completely removed is the entire 1968 October Surprise incident, which had been added previously. I can understand leaving out LBJ calling Nixon a "traitor;" the article is not about Lyndon Johnson's opinions on Richard Nixon (if it was, it would take a rather different tone). But removing the entire incident from the article is nothing more than revisionism. Plumber (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Fringe theories, as well as WP:NPOV — Ched :  ?  18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the October surprise and not the removal of every single detail sourced from Nixonland? Below are some sources used:

*Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. (2008).
*"In Tapes, Johnson Accused Nixon's Associates of Treason". The New York Times, December 4, 2008. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
*Taylor, David (15 March 2013). "The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'". BBC News (London). Retrieved 2013-03-18.
*Robert “KC” Johnson. “Did Nixon Commit Treason in 1968? What The New LBJ Tapes Reveal”. History News Network, January 26, 2009. 
*Clark M. Clifford. Counsel to the President: A Memoir (May 21, 1991 ed.). Random House. pp. 709. ISBN 0-394-56995-4. p. 582.
*Thomas Powers. “The Man who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms & the CIA”. Alfred A. Knopf, 1979, p.198.
*Mark Lisheron. “In tapes, LBJ accuses Nixon of treason”. Austin American-Statesman. December 05, 2008.
*Jules Witcover. “The Making of an Ink-Stained Wretch: Half a Century Pounding the Political Beat”. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, p131.

Nixonland is especially being treated as fringe; it isn't, and nor are BBC News, the New York Times, HNN, Clark Clifford, the definitive biography of Richard Helms, etc. Plumber (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, the titles of many of those sources say a lot. I'm not saying that some sort of "Controversies of" type of article couldn't be worked up; but for the WP:BIO articles, I prefer to see a more statistical and fact based read. As much as I enjoy an Oliver Stone movie, I wouldn't want to see an biographical encyclopedic article based on his interpretations. — Ched :  ?  19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nixonland is not a scholarly work. It is a popular treatment. We would not source something controversial to something like that to such a book. I just checked JSTOR. Aside from a brief mention that it is mentioned in one chapter of one book (without discussion in the article), I find nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that Perlstein and Dallek and Black are all in the same popular treatment area, some more than others. As for the controversial points, I used Nixonland to expand upon fairly noncontroversial subjects "(from the 1960 convention scares from Rockefeller and Goldwater, Nixon's brief and backroom 1964 presidential campaign, Nixon's role as the stumper-in-chief during the 1966 midterms, and Nixon's narrow winning of the nomination in 1968.)" Perhaps it was a mistake to include the 1968 October surprise subject with the Nixonland subject; that subject is primarily covered by other sources. Plumber (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that the media sources note only that an accusation was made, not that it was true.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think Johnson can unilaterally charge Nixon with treason, which is rather narrowly defined by the US Constitution as is. My issue is not whether or not Johnson's label of "traitor" be included in the article (it's not that big of an issue, since this article focuses on Nixon). However, removing all reference to the event completely is revisionist because it makes it look like it never happened. Plumber (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It wouldn't kill us to include some material from the book. While it has its flaws, it is a refreshing and well-written polemic and the article could perhaps benefit from some balance. I liked He captures the essence of Richard Nixon’s career in a single aside to Leonard Garment: “You’ll never make it in politics, Len. You just don’t know how to lie.” --John (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use some balance, but I tried to stray away from using Nixonland's more controversial points, for fear that more interesting and neutral information (how many people know Nixon ran behind the scenes in 1964?) would be reverted along with it. It seems that was a waste of effort, though. Plumber (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It did not look that terrible (except for the 1968 stuff) though I caution you that we are trying to keep the length of the article under control, you'll see discussions uppage and in the archives. It never gets shorter. We try to keep the article up to standards as a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Plumber, you need to provide page numbers from books like Nixonland to ensure verifiability.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That said, Plumber and I have worked together to create a fairly neutral summary of these events here. Of course, any mention in this biography should be greatly condensed, if included at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My objection is covering it as a fact. I'm less opposed to covering it as an allegation. I do not believe it is an established historical fact. I checked JSTOR and there was virtually nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, BBC News is considered a reliable source. What evidence do you have that they are incorrect? Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a FA. We require high-quality reliable sources for controversial points: footnotes and sources, for example, are nice to have. His saying that Chennault was sent to Saigon at the direction of Nixon does not make it so, and the most recent biographer of Nixon that I have, Black, questions it. What it looks like to me is that he's leaving out anything favorable to Nixon (for example, Johnson's highly-questionable bugging of Agnew, and trying to get a deal done in time for the election) and phrasing things in a way to make his point. Johnson does not accuse Nixon in his memoirs, he accuses his campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing some reading. Give me some breathing space to work something up we may all be able to accept.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable source? It seems factual and neutral.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And this?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Some real quick thoughts here, and I personally tend to avoid any of the political areas. For the most part it seems that our WP:BIO or WP:BLP articles on US Presidents tend to stick to facts about: where they were born, who their family is, how they were elected, what bills were passed, etc. Now just about any President is going to be a complex topic, but we want to keep the scope of any article to something that's going to hold a reader's attention. By the time an article passes the WP:FA gauntlet, sources and scope have been fleshed out by MANY editors. In cases where we find a WP:FORK, we tend to shunt those off to their own articles: examples: Public image of George W. Bush, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, and the ever endearing John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. So while I think the #Personality and public image section is a good read, I don't think it should overwhelm this article. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. I was considering something along this line, which is factual and nonjudgmental:

Johnson's negotiators hoped to reach a truce in Vietnam prior to the U.S. election. Nixon received inside information on the talks from Henry Kissinger, then a consultant to U.S. negotiator Averill Harriman, and his campaign was in regular contact with Anna Chennault in Saigon. She advised South Vietnamese president Thieu not to go to Paris to join the talks, hinting that Nixon would give him a better deal if elected. Johnson was aware of what was going on, as he had both Chennault and the South Vietnamese ambassador to Washington bugged, and was enraged by what he considered an attempt by Nixon to undermine U.S. foreign policy. On October 31, with no agreement, Johnson announced a unilateral halt to the bombing, and that peace negotiations would start in Paris on November 6, the day after Election Day. On November 2, after speaking with Chennault again, Thieu stated he would not go to Paris. Johnson telephoned Nixon, who denied any involvement; the President did not believe him. Johnson felt he could not publicly mention Chennault's involvement, which had been obtained by wiretapping, but told Humphrey, who chose not to use the information.

That can be adequately sourced from the three references I mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Robert Dallek, Kissinger's advice "rested not on special knowledge of decision making at the White House but on an astute analyst's insight into what was happening." William Bundy stated that Kissinger obtained "no useful inside information" from his trip to Paris, and "almost any experienced Hanoi watcher might have come to the same conclusion." While Kissinger may have "hinted that his advice was based on contacts with the Paris delegation," this sort of "self-promotion....is at worst a minor and not uncommon practice, quite different from getting and reporting real secrets." (Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, pp. 73-74.) Conrad Black asserted that there is "no evidence" connecting Kissinger in particular, who was "playing a fairly innocuous double game of self-promotion", with attempts to undermine the peace talks. (Richard Nixon: A Life in Full, p. 553.) Thus, while Kissinger did share some advice with Nixon, he did not provide secret "inside information". BTW, according to Dallek, Bryce Harlow had a double agent in the White House who told Nixon the same thing Kissinger did.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I could change "inside information" to "astute analysis".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well written as well. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, if there are no objections, I'll make the change tomorrow night (i.e. Friday night EDT).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Uncle and family information

My recent reliably sourced contribution of Richard Nixon's uncle being a professor at PSU for 37 years as well as the citation's information that he was one of the nation's foremost experts in agriculture as well as Nixon's visit to PSU during his presidency for the funeral further elaborated in the citation has been revised, er expanded upon, er stylistically integrated into the article, flushed down the memory hole. This is the citation for future discussion and consensus building here. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about the idea of adding it. Basically, we have a very long article here about a man with a very long public life. There's lots of stuff we skimp on. I'd rather have those things than what his uncle did, If we are going to get into relatives, we could take about brother Donald and the Hughes loan, that's far more relevant to Nixon's career. The reason we don't, and why I oppose adding the info on the uncle, is that this article is long, can't be split, and people keep adding stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Reception section with nickname coverage?

How was Nixon received by his contemporaries, including the academics of his day? Where did the nickname Tricky Dick or Tricky Dicky come from? Why did it become popular? When did it become popular? Which portions of the population was he most popular with and least popular with over his presidency? I haven't read the article from top to bottom, but I see the nickname is not mentioned once. So it got me thinking: might we be able to extract a new short section entitled "Reception" for this kind of stuff? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want the story on Tricky Dick, Biosthmors, please consult United States Senate election in California, 1950. That is why, properly done, a top level article (as in, the main article on Nixon) will be supported by more specialized articles of good quality which can contain information there is not room for in the main one (and this article has expanded over ten percent as an FA).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're getting arguments against including his nickname in this article, then perhaps we have bigger problems? One might be that biographical information in the first section could be split out? We have Early life of Joseph Smith, for example. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Check my recent Special:Contributions/Biosthmors. It seems to be the better way to do things. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about a section, but it certainly deserves a paragraph or two in "Personality and public image." There were few politicians so loathed by liberals as Nixon. Nixon and some of his supporters, on the other hand, felt that the liberal establishment held him to a different standard than other politicians. This hatred of Nixon on the left is important to understanding his career, starting with the "Fund scandal" in 1952, and continuing through his presidency. Someone who did not live though the time will not understand the dynamics of the era from this article as it is now. Plazak (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The left hated Nixon, once they noticed him, for his defeat of Voorhis in 1946, and certainly after the Hiss matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning the nickname in the prose under the 1950 section. The irony, of course, is that Boddy was a conservative.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The nickname was common enough that it should be mentioned in this article, but it is not by itself the important thing. The popularity of the nickname was just the symptom of the extremely negative way Nixon was perceived by his opponents. Reading the article as it is, which recounts his mostly mainstream policies, one would not understand how divisive a figure he was at the time. Plazak (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could add a paragraph sometime in the 1940s or 1950s section, or in the final section at the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world with unlimited Wikipedan time and energy, what would be the best new article to create as a split target, Early life and career of Richard Nixon? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible, but we already cover the first 55 years of Nixon's life fairly minimally, considering. I'm still waiting for Professor Gellman to come out with his volume on Nixon's VP years, it is two years overdue now, and that time is surprisingly little-covred in scholarly depth. If what you are mulling over is shortening this article to make room, Biosthmors, here just isn't a lot of excess detail to scrape away. I refer you to the many discussions above and in the archives about adding stuff. I've usually gone along after voicing my objections, but this article is lo-ong. And the answer is not to split everything up to 1968 and put it somewhere else. FA standards require this article, not Wikipedia's coverage of Nixon in general, to be comprehensive. I wrote those sections knowing that we already had good coverage of Nixon's congressional elections and the Checkers speech, so I didn't have to dwell on them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Barbara Jordan's speech "Statement on the Articles of Impeachment"

It belongs with discussion of Nixon's potential impeachment and not as an independent article. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 19:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be merged into Barbara Jordan article, not this one. Other than that, I agree that it should not be separate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Duh! You know I meant to go see if she had one and while I looked into Nixon and wasn't sure there was really a good place for it I totally forgot to go back and look for an article for her - good point. I have removed from here and retagged for there.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 20:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Vice-President

Nixon is the only Vice-President to be elected President without succeeding the President under whom he had served. I didn't see this included in the bio. World Book Encyclopedia mentions it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.7.242 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's true, I suppose, but I'd want to find a way to mention it that doesn't make it sound like trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tricky Dicky

Why does this article make no mention of his well known sobriquet and very questionable character? --DesmondW (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's covered in the sub-article, United States Senate election in California, 1950. It is hard to cover everything in this top-level article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

DesmondW's comment on the late president's character is completely subjective and does not warrant discussion in this top-level article. --mlbrockhouse (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I.Q. Score in High School

It has recently come to light that JFK scored 119 on his high school aptitude test. (See Wikipedia's page on JFK.) In the same vein, it has been said that Nixon took the same test and scored 143. Can any Nixon experts supply information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.232.116 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

MORE DATA Nixon biographer Roger Morris says RMN tested at 143 when he was in Fullerton High School in California. Let's verify this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.232.116 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead - space

"Though he presided over the lunar landings beginning with Apollo 11, he replaced manned space exploration with shuttle missions." Not sure this is a good sentence, given that the Apollo landings were already more or less programmed, and that the Shuttle missions were both manned and considerably more numerous than the Apollo missions - and took place long after Nixon left office. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

That's why "presided over" was used. He got his name on the plaque and the trip to the Hornet. Feel free to edit if you have better phrasings.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Quaker?

In what sense can Nixon be categorised as a Quaker? Having a Quaker childhood is no quaification. Being a friend of D. Elton Trueblood is not one either. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He was a Quaker as an adult. For example, at the height of the Fund Crisis in 1952, he went to meeting in Portland, Oregon. I do not know how often he did in his later career. I know that he had non-denominational Christian services in the White House, secular enough that his friend and advisor Murray Chotiner, a Jew, sometimes attended.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese mistress inclusion ? c'mon let's be truthful here

"Richard Nixon allegedly had a Chinese mistress, but neither affair developed into a scandal." http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/ryle-dwyer/our-political-bed-hoppers-dived-under-a-heavy-blanket-of-hypocrisy-110320.html

Just google it, other links for this. J Edgar Hoover had a video from British intelligence before Nixon became president, and that is why Nixon could not fire him due to him threatening to release if so. I think this should be added to just cleanse the perception that somehow Nixon was "pure" unlike his compared contemporary JFK or whatever. He was a regular human like anyone else.2602:306:C59C:2E0:6CBB:38FF:9124:F114 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think, in this FA article, we would need to have a considerable buy-in by historians before we would insert such a matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well, oh wow by coincidence after i read your comment, i was just reading an article on Helms the DCI during the Johnson/Nixon presidency's (without intending to read about Nixon) and this just popped out: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/23/richard-helms-the-most-dangerous-cia-director/

"As a result, some investigators have claimed that FBI Director Hoover may have been poisoned by The Plumbers because of his opposition to the Huston Plan, and others that it was because of his sexual blackmailing, now even including Nixon – e.g.,"2602:306:C59C:2E0:11D0:97CE:5B25:C6AB (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You'll need a better source than one of the most ludicrous collection of conspiracy theories I've ever seen.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There is ample unfavorable material that it is established that Nixon actually did, without the need to reach out to theories that are "claimed" by a few. Much of that is set forth in the article. Nixon, like Johnson before him, just waited for JEH to die. There was no point in firing him (even if that was desirable) and taking the heat within and without the government. The tradition that the FBI director job changed with the parties had not yet evolved. And the two men were not unfriendly, note the image of the two of them having pre-dinner drinks with Bebe Rebozo at the foot of the article--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Marianna Liu. Guess he really did open China… (i'll be here all week) btw i'm not trying to discredit the man, i think Watergate is absolutely a fart in the wind, but i'm just adding in this because long i thought how could Nixon be this perfectly married guy while JFK was going off everywhere, well this came a bit of a surprise to me. Yesterday this whole revelation of the subject just was introduced to me as i was perusing sites despite the fact that i had an increasing fascinating with Nixon beginning last year and even read his autobio. 108.89.192.46 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrupted image?

Can anyone else confirm that the image captioned "Nixon (right) joins Gerald Ford (center) and President Jimmy Carter (left) at the White House for the funeral of former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, 1978." "under the Return to public life" section appears corrupted in the article? Joobah (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. What do you see that is wrong?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Watergate Tapes

I personally think that the release of the tapes should be somewhere in this article. I believe that those conversations, and the relooking (I guess that is what I want to say) over his private conversations and the policies he created would be of great interest to so many people. Just a thought.76.0.179.67 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)K. Smith-White

They have their own article, Watergate tapes. We mention them twice. We have a long article about a man with a very long public career, and we don't mince words about him. I think that is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

" he replaced manned space exploration with shuttle missions." Really?

Just out of curiosity as to whether Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove were going by anything in Richard Nixon's background when they made him a used car dealer in their alternate history novel "The Two Georges," I checked out our article on President Nixon, and read this:

"Though he presided over the lunar landings beginning with Apollo 11, he replaced manned space exploration with shuttle missions."

With all due respect to the editor who wrote that, the Space Transportation System, AKA "the Space Shuttle," was a manned space transportation system. The statement is only true in that Shuttle missions were mostly what military pilots call "trash hauling," or transport, not exploration.

However, EVERY operational space shuttle mission has been manned (there was one unmanned, instrumented test flight that I recall, which was a release of an unpowered shuttle from a Boeing 747 carrier aircraft to test its ability to glide to Earth), and they ALL entailed the same amount of exploration that every trans-Pacific sailing cruise involved during the Age of Sail.

Low earth orbit may be well-known to us now, but the human race's exploration of that area didn't end with Project Apollo (and Skylab) and Salyut. A lot of science was done in Space Shuttle missions, and some of that was space exploration in its strictest sense, despite the fact (which we now know) that the "real" reason for all that expense was that it was the cheapest way to orbit the really big spy satellites on which American dominance of the "battle space" depended.

There's no doubt that Project Apollo was cut back during the Nixon administration, so the temporary hiatus in manned space exploration can be laid at his feet, but the funding that would have otherwise gone to the original extended Apollo and MOL programs went instead to enhancing our ability to gather intelligence from space by orbiting larger and more effective surveillance satellites, as well as expanding the range of scientific and other space missions NASA was able to perform by building the Space Shuttle. There's one collection of White House staff memos (including one from Caspar Weinberger to George Shultz when both were in the Nixon administration Office of Management and Budget which suggests that Mr. Weinberger's portrayal in the movie Buckaroo Banzai may have been very well-deserved) that documents the thinking behind the cancellation of the three last Apollo missions far past Wikipedia standards (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/logsdn_lec_notes.pdf).

So I'm going to change the sentence to read:

"Though Nixon presided over the lunar landings beginning with Apollo 11, as well as the Skylab space station missions, his administration cut the originally-planned number of missions back by three, partly to orbit the Skylab space station in one flight (using one Saturn V rocket originally planned for Apollo 20 instead of building Skylab in orbit using several Saturn Ib launches) and partly to pay for the development of the Space Shuttle."

That's all stuff that's very well documented and can be supported by NASA and White House documents. It also shows WHY the Nixon administration did this (even writing off the two unused Saturn V rockets was fiscally responsible considering the support costs of every Apollo mission - and support for Apollo missions ran several times the construction costs of the actual spacecraft and booster rockets). loupgarous (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, the wikipedia collaborative editing process worked. Someone came behind me and cleaned up some wordiness in my expansion of the "Space policy" section of the "Legacy" part of the article. That got me thinking of what at least one MIT professor (the guy who put the lecture notes I cite for support together) called the "Nixon Space Doctrine," Nixon's decision to start paring back expenditures in space.

That has become a lasting legacy of Nixon's and one I think is helpful to wikipedia's readers in understanding Nixon's impact on American society - he declared victory in the space race, then began winding it down, even enlisting Soviet cooperation in space, instead of competition. The space race never went away entirely, but our own efforts, at least, became more rational in the context of a nation which had decided to shift its capacity for massive efforts toward improving conditions at home. So I think it ought to be part of what people'Italic text' take away from our article on Richard Nixon. loupgarous (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I ask you to consider the already extremely long article length in deciding what to add. I agree with what you wrote, though how far shuttle missions are exploration one can debate. You can probably find the evolution of the wording on space somewhere in the archives as we've had a few discussions on the subject. What are you proposing to say? My understanding of why Nixon did as he did was the money wasn't there to be spent anymore, it was now being spent on the Great Society programs. How much of that is Nixon's legacy and how much of it was forced upon him by policy decisions by Johnson is an interesting question.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the edits. They look OK, but I think they are all we need to say on the subject. I'm a voice in the wilderness on this one but we're now over 151K.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. It's just (from my viewpoint, at least) the End of the Space Race deserved at least a short paragraph, as it happened on RMN's watch, as a direct results of decisions he made despite some very loud objections within the White House itself (the memo in the "MIT_notes" which I added with Weinberger griping to Shultz that the need for all that "Great Society" crap was trivial compared to two more Apollo missions and a Mars shot).

What I intended to say was pretty clear - the wasteful, profligate spending on putting American boots on the Moon ended with Nixon's administration. That was significant and needed to be said. Now, it's becoming clear that the private sector is a much sounder judge of what needs to be done in space (except, of course, for what the military needs to do that can't be announced in Requests for Proposals in The Federal Register because "it's a surprise for our enemies").

If Nixon had felt strongly enough about it, he could have derailed much of the spending on the Great Society initiatives as he pared the Clean Water Act spending back - by means of "executive discretion," just as Obama does that to Congress now (the parallels between the two administrations are eerie). He deserves credit for pushing most of Congress' (and his predecessors') social funding - and taking hits from his constituency in the military-industrial complex, and the Right in general, even enforcing integration and knowing what that would cost him politically - and I think he did it because it was the will of the American people, expressed through Congress, and that left him no alternative. Kennedy and Johnson did the heavy lifting on the legislative front for the Great Society, but Richard M. Nixon and those who followed him in the Presidency made it possible, for good or ill (and I'm agnostic on the question of how much good the Great Society laws wrought apart from the necessity of making sure democracy worked for everyone. I mean, I'm ON Medicare owing to cancer that trashed my ability to work, and I can see how that program is a cash cow for unscrupulous physicians and medical equipment sellers, with no corresponding positive impact on patients' lives. It needs reform. That goes for almost every other Great Society initiative, as well. HUD housing programs are a rat's nest of lousy, substandard housing).

The Space Race ended in 1970, effectively, when Richard Nixon acted for the American people to bring military and civil space expenditures in line with the rest of Federal funding. Like him or hate him, the End of the Space Race is Nixon's - Johnson and MacNamara were busily shovelling money into Vietnam and the space program, and they started the horrible precedent of dipping into the Social Security General Fund to pay for all of that, helping undo what Johnson took so many bows for doing - and creating the myth that Johnson did more to make the Great Society possible than he actually did. Nixon, in my opinion, was the most effective liberal in twentieth-century American history, and did things no Democrat could ever have accomplished to make the liberal vision possible, by making hard decisions and taking responsibility for them. A more gregarious man probably could never have done what Nixon did, because most of us like to be liked more than Nixon did. Johnson nearly went mad because no popular decisions would ever have gotten him and the country out of Vietnam or the general pattern of Federal overspending on national goals. loupgarous (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RICHARD_NIXON1986.jpg 63.92.245.169 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - You have not requested a specific change
That is, indeed, a photo of Nixon, but we have well over 100 of them, and don't want them all in the article - there are already over 30.
Where do you think it should go in the article? with what caption? and why should it be added rather than any of the others?? - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not support adding it, either as a replacement or an addition. It's not that great a shot, we have several images showing Nixon aging through his post-presidency already (and what more does it add than that?), and for the reasons as stated by Arjayay. It's fine on Commons, where someone may have a need for it. It shouldn't be added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

The Richard Nixon article claims that Nixon did not want a pardon. Gerald Ford's posthumous memoir admits that the promise of a pardon was a condition for Ford's appointment as VP. Please find a better source than the Nixon Library; you would not accept a history of WWII from Josef Goebles, would you? Or focus the Hitler article on his "revolutionary vision" of art.

Galba Gaius (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The article currently states that Nixon "was initially reluctant to accept the pardon, but then agreed to do so". Sam ^Sing! 13:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tricky Dick NIckname 50.139.4.36 (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nixon was famously referred to as "Tricky Dick". Why? I don't know, Wikipedia doesn't tell me. The words "tricky dick" link to the article. That should be reason enough to include the words (plus an explanation) in the article itself.

I can't even find this nickname discussed in this Talk section. But it's, by far, the most (in)famous nickname that he has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.4.36 (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a series of Nixon articles. As it happens, the Tricky Dick nickname is discussed in United States Senate election in California, 1950.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As this is the second time this has been brought up, I'm minded to consider doing something about it. Do people have any opinions on putting a mention of it in the 1950 Senate campaign section? Perhaps "During that campaign, Nixon's opponents first called him "Tricky Dick"."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The comment at the head of this thread sums up perfectly the "why". Thanks all. — ¾-10 01:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The nickname deserves a mention. Plazak (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

a little question

"... first designed to convince the Chilean congress to confirm Jorge Alessandri as the winner of the election and then messages to military officers in support of a coup.[146]"

Unlike another two footnote NO. 146, this one lack page NO. Could anyone help me out here?--Jarodalien (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Quaker childhood

I would characterize Nixon's childhood as being based in "Orthodox Quakerism", an evangelical version at odds with the original Society of Friends which sprang up in conflict with the Hicksites, not as "conservative Quaker."

Also, I would mention his mother was a Quaker and not just focus on the father. Nixon characterized her as a "Quaker saint, but I don't think anyone would ever write a book about her." I think this reflects the Orthodox Quakerism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.41.187 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would need a source to hide behind to change the "Orthodox Quakerism" although I am sure you are correct, it is just that people can get difficult about religion and I don't care to get in the middle. We do mention the mother being a Quaker and I hesitate to add the quote to this article when it's already present in Hannah Nixon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a source would need to be referenced for the change. It would likely be viewed by some people as too controversial to be made without a source. Abierma3 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

'citation needed'

From Par3 in the article: 'Although Nixon initially escalated the war in Vietnam' The above is a claim that needs to be backed up with a credible source or edited to read in a neutral fashion. The facts of US troop deployments and withdrawals in that theatre are well documented. A cursory glance at them reveals a different story than is presented by the statement as published.

Good point and I tried to fix it. Rjensen (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Treason

Reading media content lately, I think that under Legacy there should be a subheading with content describing and referencing the alleged treason that the Nixon election campaign conducted in 1968, including the roles played by Henry Kissinger and Clark Clifford.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/george-will-confirms-nixon-s-vietnam-treason/18810-george-will-confirms-nixon-s-vietnam-treason#.U-qQpX0BCTM.facebook

http://www.opednews.com/articles/George-Will-confirms-Nixon-by-Bob-Fitrakis-George-Will_Richard-Nixon_Treason-US_Vietnam-War-140808-130.html

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/03/lbjs-x-file-on-nixons-treason/

BCameron54 11:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We had a discussion above and came to a consensus about what to put in the discussion about the matter, in the section about the 1968 campaign. If you want to change it, you need to build a consensus. The sources you posit do not seem to me to be high-quality reliable sources such as are normally used in a FA. I do not think we should do as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree about needing a consensus, that's why we use the talk pages. George Will is the mainstream, conservative voice which has appeared after several years of alternative media eruptions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-nixons-long-shadow/2014/08/06/fad8c00c-1ccb-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

and here is a scholarly reference:

Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair, and the Origins of Watergate. Ken Hughes. 2014. Univ Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0813936635

BCameron54 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, we cover it factually and in detail in the 1968 section. We are doing it as a consensus said we should.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be a consensus reached that this alleged treason is part of Richard Nixon's legacy, and might be referenced on his biographical wikipage under 'Legacy'. Here is another mainstream reference:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623.html

BCameron54 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Questions remain, says Huston: Did Nixon direct the strategy? Did the FBI actually bug the Nixon campaign? Wouldn’t the South Vietnamese have dragged their feet anyway, guessing that the more conservative Nixon would give them a better deal than Humphrey?Did the machinations spoil an opportunity for peace, dooming the United States to four more years of war? The last question, of course, is the most painful. Johnson’s aides, over the years, had claimed there was a genuine opportunity for peace in the fall of 1968, which Nixon foiled for political gain. Huston disagrees. “The bigger question was, did it make any difference, and I think the answer to that was no,” he says. The South Vietnamese didn’t need Nixon’s people to tell them they would do better by waiting, he says, or that the terms of the deal were unfavorable. “But there is no doubt that in typical Nixonian fashion, he wasn’t going to leave anything to chance.” "

I guess the question is, if it had no effect, then what difference did it make, so how is it part of his legacy? It certainly is fertile ground for speculation about Nixon's actions, but if it didn't do anything, I don't see how it is part of his legacy. We have a very long article here, and people are always interested in adding stuff about what Nixon did wrong. But in this case, we have it covered at length in the '68 campaign section, and why add it again?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion.

1st question: Was it illegal and treasonous? "Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation."

2nd question: Did he do it? "Did Richard Nixon’s campaign conspire to scuttle the Vietnam War peace talks on the eve of the 1968 election to capture him the presidency? Absolutely, says Tom Charles Huston, the author of a comprehensive, still-secret report he prepared as a White House aide to Nixon. In one of 10 oral histories conducted by the National Archives and opened last week, Huston says “there is no question” that Nixon campaign aides sent a message to the South Vietnamese government, promising better terms if it obstructed the talks, and helped Nixon get elected. Nixon’s campaign manager, John Mitchell, “was directly involved,” Huston tells interviewer Timothy Naftali. And while “there is no evidence that I found” that Nixon participated, it is “inconceivable to me,” says Huston, that Mitchell “acted on his own initiative.”

3rd question: Is it legacy if did not it make a difference? Who can say it did or not, even if the one million Vietnamese and 20,000 US lives lost in the next 4 years of war was a consequence of a failed attempt at truce, but even that hardly matters. A criminal and treasonous act to attempt manipulation of an election through sabotage of US diplomacy is enough to make a legacy, even if it did not foil the diplomacy, or win the election for that matter. Further legacy, if the covering-up of this secret was behind the burglaries and their cover-ups that lead to his resignation to avoid the dreaded discovery process in impeachment.

So the only real question is 'Did he do it?' I suppose the still-secret documentation is necessary to have, before the scholarly judgements can be proven as factual. Maybe another ten years. However, there is a citable body of scholarly work that would support the allegation, which could be presented concisely and in a balanced manner, using the "alleged treason" header, in either or both the 1968 election wikipage, and if a consensus appears, on the biography wikipage.

Hmmm... BCameron54 20:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's compromise the matter. How about we add a couple of sentences to the 1968 election section, setting forth the view, sourced to something academic? And fairly neutral in tone, not using the word treason, as that's defined by the Constitution and this isn't it. I might have a look through the biographies and look for something to add but it might take me a while, my Nixon bios are up in the attic. Write and source something and post it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I think we are making progress.

The US constitution's legal definition of treason may or may not be met, as it would have to have been decided by a court after trial, which did not happen. The hypothetical verdict is not for us to speculate. Whether a court would find that Nixon and his helpers met the constitutional definition of helping an enemy in war might also be clouded by the absence of a legally declared war, as US Congress had not declared war during the commonly named Vietnam War. However the reasonable man calls the Vietnam War as such, and calls betrayal of one's country or its diplomacy in war as treason. President Johnson himself spoke the allegation , but perhaps Johnson could not have made the accusation without revealing a fair bit of extralegal wiretapping on his own part.

My suggestion is that as Wikipedia is not a court of law or even a legal record, that we use common language with dictionary defined vocabulary, rather than hold Wikipedia content to the standards of constitutional law. It is reasonable to describe the subject of this scholarly discourse on a still emerging historical narrative in a qualified manner as an 'alleged treason', or 'President Johnson's allegation of treason', as I tried in introducing the suggestion to this talk page.

This re-eruption in historical discussions of alleged treason does belong on the biography page under 'Legacy' not because muckrakers think so, but because the authoritatively reported mere allegation has already tarred a part of his legacy; It is egregious among the innumerable allegations of Nixon's petty wrongdoings, most of which were commonplace in the blood sport of politics and kings before and since. Furthermore and most importantly in my mind, it may be explanatory, elucidating and satisfying to explain Nixon's "paranoia" about hidden records and files in the hands of others - why he chose to redouble his wrongdoing with latter crimes, rather than accept the risk of the light of day on the former. All of which led to Watergate, avoidance of impeachment by resignation (after eschewing Agnew), historical disgrace and outrageous pardon by the successor of both Agnew and Nixon. Maybe.

As Kissinger is quoted, "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Even so, posterity is no more likely to get it right than anybody else, and a good fiction well told may overshadow the truth, so we still do need the consensus as well as the beefy references. As you suggest, I will draft a concise factual text and references under a subheading, and look forward to discussing its content and its place. Thanks again in advance. No hurry.

BCameron54 04:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say under a subheading. I suggested integrating it into the 1968 section. And short, please. One to two reasonable sentences.

Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, and rightly so. We often cite individual opinions of prominent people, whose beliefs may shed light upon the subject. On matters such as this, we await the consensus of historians, and this may be slow in coming, as not all the facts are out. We cannot say with certainty exactly what Nixon's role was in this, and with the major players dead or silent, we may never know. It is therefore improper to state, or even imply, that Nixon committed treason. That would not be fair or appropriate. Neither is it appropriate to draw undue attention to it with the bright light of its own subheading, when we do not do this for anything else that Nixon did in his long career. As has been pointed out, the South Vietnamese did not need Nixon to tell them they might get a better deal from a new administration.

Nixon clearly spoke too soon when he said in 1962 that they would not have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore. Fifty two years later and the game is still on, and likely will not end in the lifetimes of Woodward and Bernstein, to name two. Additions to this article need to be relevant to the issues at hand. They should be neutral in tone, and they should carry consensus with them, and that consensus should thereafter be respected. Not revisited all the time, absent considerable new information.

I brought this article to FA over two years ago now. In writing it, I minced no words about Watergate, but also tried to convey a very long public career that was in many ways highly distinguished, before, during, and after his presidency. I am old enough to remember former president Nixon as a regular interviewee on Meet the Press and other programs, where he was always treated with great respect, and his opinions were sound and listened to. He was no cartoon head from Futurama

You can see on the talk page, every now and then, someone wants to include something in what is already a very long article. Now and then it is a policy matter that the person feels strongly about including, for example the sickle cell anemia. But nine times out of ten, the idea is to paint Nixon in an unfavorable light. This article does that where it is necessary, but adopts a neutral tone throughout. We now live in a time where the neutral ground no longer exists, you are either with us or against us. This article, a FA that got very favorable comments at the time of promotion and main page appearance, will remain neutral in tone so long as I have anything to say about it.

I have no objection to including, briefly, and in context, the opinions of distinguished historians about the 1968 matter, in the section devoted to that campaign. It will be presented neutrally and non-judgmentally, if it is to be presented at all. It may be balanced by the views of others who do not hold the position you have been advocating. If the word "treason" is used, it will be as a quote from Johnson. It will not be included in a way to draw undue attention to it, such as giving it its own sub heading. There are articles where, perhaps, you may care to add more, articles about this incident itself or the '68 campaign. You may wish to consider having a fuller treatment of this issue there, or starting your own article on some relevant topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Wehwalt on this from another perspective; there's absolutely no support for the view that North Vietnam would have abided by any commitments it made at peace talks under Johnson than it did when it kept invading South Vietnam under the Nixon administration. Nothing in the historical record shows any such willingness on the part of Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap to accept a status quo that included a non-communist South Vietnam, or even a communist government in the South not under their direct control.

Using the term "treason" for any alleged counsel from the Nixon national security team before the 1968 Presidential election for Thieu to demur long enough from taking part in the peace talks for Nixon to take office is a bit rich. You could, without too much of a stretch, say the same thing about Kennedy advisor McGeorge Bundy's taking Fidel Castro on a college tour in the US before Kennedy took office indicating a "treasonous" tendency toward the Kennedy team to place a man in power in Cuba who would eventually take Cuba into the Soviet orbit. I don't believe either thesis, they're equally absurd, and involve some very non-mainstream analysis that elsewhere in wikipedia would be disallowed. loupgarous (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources like Truth Out are useless. There is no evidence Kissinger was directly involved in any attempt to persuade Thieu to seek a better deal. Bryce Harlow, former Eisenhower White House staff member, claimed to have "a double agent working in the White House....I kept Nixon informed." Harlow and Kissinger (who was friendly with both campaigns and guaranteed a job in either a Humphrey or Nixon administration) separately predicted Johnson's "bombing halt": "The word is out that we are making an effort to throw the election to Humphrey. Nixon has been told of it," Democratic senator George Smathers informed Johnson. According to Robert Dallek, Kissinger's advice "rested not on special knowledge of decision making at the White House but on an astute analyst's insight into what was happening." William Bundy stated that Kissinger obtained "no useful inside information" from his trip to Paris, and "almost any experienced Hanoi watcher might have come to the same conclusion". While Kissinger may have "hinted that his advice was based on contacts with the Paris delegation," this sort of "self-promotion....is at worst a minor and not uncommon practice, quite different from getting and reporting real secrets." (Dallek, Partners in Power, 73-75) Conrad Black concurs that there is "no evidence" connecting Kissinger in particular, who was "playing a fairly innocuous double game of self-promotion," with attempts to undermine the peace talks. (Black, Nixon, pg. 553)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

More scholarly reference material on the Nixonian legacy of the extended Vietnam War: Fatal Politics. Ken Hughes. University of Virginia Press. 2015. ISBN 978-0-8139-3802-8 BCameron54 22:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

http://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006726

"Treason" is helping a nation's enemy -- North Vietnam, not its allies (South Vietnam). It was Johnson who was helping North Vietnam not Nixon. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Some reading on what treason is:

http://www.amazon.com/Treason-Nixon-Election-Don-Fulsom/dp/1455619493

http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Shadows-Chennault-Origins-Watergate/dp/0813936632/ref=pd_sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=18EJT9HZYW6T1QEX92JY&dpID=41iIZ-n57uL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR106%2C160_

http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Politics-Vietnam-Casualties-Reelection/dp/0813938023/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1NNWTAZPBHTV0QSKG9FA&dpID=51zAj8nX8VL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL320_SR212%2C320_ BCameron54 08:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Intro

The intro summarises his South-East Asia policy by "Nixon ended American involvement in the war in Vietnam in 1973 and brought the American prisoners home", however reading the full article, it's clear that it was ended for 5 years after he became President, and not only that but he also expanded the war further into Cambodia and Laos... to me this summary is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.78.220 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Four years, I think. This is a short summary of a very long article. I'm always at the service of consensus, but this lede has been hammered out by people with various views about Nixon over a period of several years, and I suspect some would say adding what you say would take a point of view concerning Nixon. I'd welcome other views on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only a POV if it said "He did this stuff and it was bad". I'm just saying it shouldn't actively mislead - as if ending the war was all he did in south-east Asia. The extra detail can be added without a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.78.220 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's POV if you put undue stress on the downside. Obviously that's a matter of opinion, which is why I hope more people weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy on Pakistani genocide

Nixon's policy to support Pakistani military crackdown on East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) has been criticised. References abound on the internet, a good one linked below. I suggest that a paragraph be added in the Foreign Policy section, titled "Pakistani Genocide".

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html?_r=0

Is there anything scholarly? The NY times hasn't written anything nice about Nixon in 20 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Elvis-nixon.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Elvis-nixon.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 21, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

American singer Elvis Presley meeting then-president Richard Nixon on December 21, 1970. During the meeting, the singer expressed his patriotism and his contempt for hippies, the growing drug culture, and the counterculture in general. Presley then asked Nixon for a Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs badge, to signify official sanction of his patriotic efforts. Nixon gave Presley the badge and expressed a belief that Presley could send a positive message to young people and that it was therefore important he retain his credibility.Photograph: Oliver F. Atkins

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Many people worked on the article. But I'm deeply grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

I am the leading authority on the Nixon tapes. I am trying to get my books added to the for further reading section at the bottom:

• Douglas Brinkley and Luke A. Nichter. The Nixon Tapes: 1971-1972. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014.
• Douglas Brinkley and Luke A. Nichter. The Nixon Tapes: 1973. Boston Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015
• Luke A. Nichter. Richard Nixon and Europe: The Reshaping of the Postwar Atlantic World. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thanks for your help.

Luke

Luke A. Nichter, Ph.D. Visiting Postdoctoral Research Fellow Rothermere American Institute University of Oxford

Associate Professor of History Texas A&M University – Central Texas

Email: luke_nichter@tamuct.edu Phone: +1 (254) 519-5735 Web: lukenichter.com Twitter: @lukenic Lukenic (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Hi Dr. Nichter. On the Internet, we have a saying that goes "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog." What this means is that I have no way to verify who you say you are, for all I know, you could be a dog. And no, I am not going to call you, no one here will. -- As for the content itself, this is a highly watched featured article on Wikipedia, so I would like to have a second opinion from another editor before anything gets changed. Thank you. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 14:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

regardless of who made the request, it's legitimate and a good one. I recommend adding the books. Rjensen (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about three sources... that's rather promotional... Further their name is not in the article anywhere which seems odd for someone being the Nixon tapes authority. They're already listed in the refs for Nixon White House tapes (one of which they added themselves). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EvergreenFir. I am no history expert, but without further confirmation that Nichter truly is a leading expert or that these books are particularly well regarded, not sure they meet Wikipedia:Further reading#Reliable. I also think they would be out of place on Nixon's main article, and could possibly be more appropriate on Nixon White House tapes. Cannolis (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Marking this as answered for now. Seems to be some opposition to request. Can re-open request if discussion changes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The above statements once again prove that Wikipedia hates experts. The first reply is an ad hominem attacking the man for his credentials and who he claims to be. Then the second one attacks the man for being a published author! You people are lost. The very guidelines that were established to help and guide new users have become the indefatigable rule of law in which to smack down on intelligence and common sense. But most of all the above discussion demonstrates the sheer unequivocal hypocrisy of this site's most enduring tenet: assume WP:GOODFAITH - the presumption being that anyone daft enough to want waste their time editing this site is trying, at least, to do some good and make a contribution; when in fact this is a million miles away from the truth. "Yeah f*ck you! Visiting professors of history to the University of Oxford, who do they think they are??" 86.182.40.70 (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Middle initial in infobox's heading

Look folks, see

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking for citation for religion in infobox

Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.

Richard Nixon is not a living or recently dead person, so the rules can be relaxed if there are other reliable sources, but I am not seeing them either, and self-identification is the gold standard for inclusion of religion in any article. So does anyone have a citation where Richard Nixon self-identified as a Quaker? Lacking that, does anyone have a citation where anyone else called the adult Richard Nixon a member of the Quaker religion? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a short google search given you some background? Yes he did, he was raised Quaker and went to Whittier, and could have claimed exemption from World War II service on religious grounds. I'm not at home so can't get you exact citations, but if you consult his memoirs, RN, he speaks extensively of his Quaker upbringing. And in Six Crises, I believe he mentions going to meeting in Portland, Oregon at the height of the Fund Crisis that culminated in the Checkers Speech. Whether he wrote of it or someone else did, the point is, he went. Nixon's actual adherence to Quaker observances undoubtedly decreased after his mother died in the 1960s, but that's true of a lot of people in a lot of religions. From what I heard at the Nixon Library the third or fourth trip there, the Sunday morning services at the White House were so nondenominational that his friend Murray Chotiner, a Jew, didn't mind showing up. But there's no question he self-identified as Quaker for at least part of his adult life and never formally left.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In his 1960 presidential campaign, Nixon staff prepared a detailed memo explaining the importance of Quakerism to his beliefs: see H. Larry Ingle (2015). Nixon's First Cover-up: The Religious Life of a Quaker President. University of Missouri Press. p. 90. I think that solves the issue of whether religion was important enough to mention here. He also maintained his membership in a local Quaker church. Outsiders, as Rev Martin Luther King Jr, considered him a Quaker. King said that "Nixon happens to be a Quaker and there are very few Quakers who are prejudiced from a racial point of view." [ibid p 90] Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Sources don't get much better than that. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

Hello. In this recent edit, I attempted to copyedit and expand the lead section by adding who he was (i.e. an American lawyer) in addition to serving as the president, using Ronald Reagan (an FA), as a model. However, it was reverted. Since I don't want to get involved in an edit war, and also in accordance with the WP:BRD process, I am opening a discussion here to get thoughts about the matter: is it necessary to mention the fact that he was also an American lawyer in the lead section in addition to serving as the president? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Nixon was American is implicit in his being U.S. president. His being a lawyer is basically secondary to everything else, since he is entirely known as a politician/public figure. Thus, WP:LEDE is satisfied. The issue is in trying to make everything fit a format of "John Doe was a (nationality) (profession) who ..." That is not necessary and it often comes off strained and stiff. This is a featured article so people have thought about the prose and a deep copyedit of the lede paragraph is probably not necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I was only trying to help. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote at top of page

Wehwalt I added to

"Nixon" redirects here. For his presidency, see Presidency of Richard Nixon. For other people named Nixon, see Nixon (surname). For other uses, see Nixon (disambiguation).

because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 27 in the section "President Nixon" and the removal of the Template:About on Presidency of Richard Nixon by User:Graham11 on 14:58, 31 July 2016. Unfortunately, some editors seem to think that the biographical article is the primary topic of the presidency of RN. Users need to know that the primary topic of the Richard Nixon article is biographical and the primary topic of the Presidency of Richard Nixon article is restricted to his presidency. There is currently confusion surrounding this issue. Mitchumch (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The effect of the hatnote is confusing. It risks the reader concluding that for any information about Nixon's presidency, they should go to the presidency article. The proper place to put such a tag is at the beginning of the account of Nixon's presidency. I do not say the presidency article is in any way substandard, but we should not divert readers from a FA, sight unseen.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: What is your assessment of the conversation at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 27 in the section "President Nixon"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchumch (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My assessment of it is that it is basically the same issue. It's a question of at what point should readers be diverted to the presidency article. Should we not combine the discussions, since your hatnote is basically auxiliary to the question of the redirect?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I'm confused by your response. If I search for "President Nixon", then which page should I be redirected to - the "Presidency of Richard Nixon" article or to the "Richard Nixon" article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchumch (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This one, to Richard Nixon. Because they are looking for the person.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

Hey guys. This is only a very minor grammatical suggestion. In the second to last sentence of the preface page (or summary), the line currently reads:

"In retirement, Nixon's work writing several books and undertaking of many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his image."

While the line itself is technically fine, I would suggest that adding an "of" before the word "writing" gives it an easier readability, as it initially feels like it is missing a preposition. And then, considering I am suggesting adding an "of", I would also then suggest adding a determiner like "the" before "undertaking". Thus, I suggest the sentence read as follows:

"In retirement, Nixon's work of writing several books and the undertaking of many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his image."

No pressure. Just a suggestion! :) JamesPrestonZA (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think adding the "of" after "work" would make it read oddly. I'm inclined to leave it as it is. "Work" is a bit abstract here, he was not of course employed. Your way would make it seem "work" was a definite occupation.--````

awards section?

In 1953, Nixon received the highest distinction of the Scout Association of Japan, the Golden Pheasant Award. However, there is no place to nest this in the article. Suggestions?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Either omit or start an article on Awards to Richard Nixon. Plainly at that stage in his career, that was given for diplomatic reasons, and so doesn't say anything about Nixon himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Marine aide is a lieutenant colonel, not a colonel

Marine aide is a lieutenant colonel, not a colonel in the RFK stadium picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.27 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC) He retired as a colonel, but appears to be a major in the photo -- the oak leaves look gold to me. CsikosLo (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

His rank at that time was Major, confirmed via his Wikipedia entry. I have made the correction accordingly.--KMJKWhite (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)