Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Checkers speech/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:40, 2 June 2009 [1].

---

Checkers speech

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Checkers speech/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. It has passed GA, and had a peer review with only superficial problems found. I've added to the images by taking some myself, and I think it is ready to go.Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I passed the article at GA. I also contributed to the peer review, where I noted various improvements and made a few more suggestions. This is a well-writen, even gripping account of Nixon's travails in the early 1950s, and how he overcame them with the help of a little dawg...What a pity we haven't got Nixon to kick around any more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I also peer reviewed this and find it meets all the FAC criteria - well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for image concerns as follow:

• File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg: this is likely not in public domain.[2][3] Suggestions: I pretty doubt much that Britannica owns the copyright to this image (I am quite certain it is a public domain image, judging how the rest are attributed to AP and the lot), but we would need to find what would make it in public domain. Guardian claims this to be in public domain, but without a source on what kind of public domain this photo is... I can only suggest to crop from the NPS shots here (note: the photo by Robert S. Oakes is copyrighted).
• File:S000701.jpg: same issue as above. Suggestion: crop from this, in which he is slightly looking down, or this for his right profile (both NASA photos), or this (ARC ID: 200392), a photo by a NPS photographer.
• File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg: I am not certain over the status of this photo. http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/gallery10.php says it is a public domain image, but the site later claims it may not be...[4] Eisenhower Library admits to hosting copyrighted images.[5][6] If they are taken on the 1952 campaign trail, the photos might not be taken by federal employees but by journalists or Eisenhower's own aides (are the latter federal employees)? Again we have this photo at Britannica that I doubt is theirs to copyright but...

  Brought up for discussion at Commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted from article. I just can't believe it is PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Other images are verifiably in the public domain or licensed. It perked my curiosity that the article did not feature the namesake. No Checkers. Undoubtably it was because he died before Nixon entered office, hence no Presidential shots to feature the dog. Note that pre- and post-Presidential images in the Nixon library are copyrighted.[7][8] This Nixon Library image is copyrighted by the Associated Press.[9] I would think the spaniel deserves a show here, but alas, no free images for him. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. That hurts. Well, I've changed the photos, and I think it is pretty clear the replacements are public domain. I have totally scrapped the first one, with the Checkers speech screencap, I don't really need it. Can you let people on Commons who may be in a better position than me to look into the Nixon shot? I've used it in other articles.

No, there is no Checkers, because this is about the speech, not the dog. It is why I took out the photo of Checkers' headstone, which is unquestionably PD. I have seen a couple of shots of Checkers, one with Nixon sort of hugging the dog, the other the Nixon family walking with Checkers on the beach, but I do not feel I can establish a fair use rationale, as this is not a biography, so to speak, of the dog.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know fair use for Checkers cannot be reasonably estalished for this article (the main focus is on the speech). I am bringing up the Eisenhower-Nixon photo up for discussion at Commons:PD files as a preliminary step. Jappalang (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I really meant the Nixon in Congress one. The thing is, most of us are not image hawks. We rely in good faith on Commons, assuming they have their act together. I took two photos for this article, in Cleveland and Wheeling (both short detours from my route, no biggie), but I would be hard pressed to make up for the loss of a historic photograph.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll start working on a fair use rationale for the Wheeling photo, just in case. You might want to put a note on the Richard Nixon talk page or notify Happyme22, since the shot is also used in the Nixon article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have enhanced the fair use rationale for the Wheeling photo, and I believe we have a fairly cast iron fair use for it now. The rest of the images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. No more image issues. Jappalang (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• The NYT said there was an ongoing criminal investigation? Do you have the actual NYT clippings? Can you get them? I want to see more details about this. Whether true or false, it is a very significant aspect.
• Named refs could be used for: Morris 1990 pp. 776–78, p. 852, p. 775, p. 763. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have access through the NY Times archives. Basically, there was a statute that said that a federal employee can't accept outside compensation. The Gibson Dunn report said that a senator is not a Federal employee and also that Nixon's reimbursement was not outside compensation, and dug up an attorney general opinion from the Harding (!) Administration saying that members of congress can accept reimbursement for their expenses. But I can't forward or put online the actual pdfs. I'll check the refs and see if there are dups and make any necessary modifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• No need to check the refs; I just did. ;-) So are you saying that the NYT was explicitly referring to the Gibson Dunn research as "a criminal investigation"? Or were they say there was anther investigation going on? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No, the Gibson Dunn report was not issued until Sept 23, the day of the speech. That morning, the Times had reported the Justice Department was looking into the Fund issue based on former 18 USC 1914. That section, now codified here has since been modified to make it screamingly clear it doesn't apply to members of Congress or their staff. All this was quietly dropped, I assume, after the tidal wave of support for Nixon, since I can't find references talking about it after the 23rd.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So was the Justice Department in fact looking into it? Any other confirmation of this? And.. how formal or informal was this "looking into it"? And how formal or informal did the NYT article make it seem? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Times relied on unnamed sources. They also reported, and I found this interesting but not quite worthy of inclusion in the article, that the Democrats may have known about the Fund as far back as July, and were hanging on to it for the right moment. However, since the source is unnamed and it's all a bit ex post facto, I decided not to include that. None of Nixon's biographers mention the criminal matter. So I'd say they were looking at it, but that didn't mean that there was any serious intent that it go anywhere. Besides, half of Congress had them, and the statute was very murky in its phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the image that Jappalang referred to is now up for deletion. I will remove it from the article pending the outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the image would be OK as the article's only fair use image (if it turns out that it is not free). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, would I have to reupload it? The Wheeling event is an important event in this article, I'd really like to have that image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume it could be uploaded on Wikipedia (not Commons) with a Fair Use rationale. If I recall correctly, an earlier version of the photo of the CCC worker statue in Leonard Harrison State Park started out on Commons, then had to be deleted there as the artwork is copyrighted, so we uploaded it to Wikipedia (to complicate matters, the current photo is a new version uploaded later and the old one was deleted as it was fair use only). Just to be very clear, I support the use of the Eisenhower-Nixon photo as fair use in this article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've restored it to the article for the time being, and we'll see what happens with the deletion. I've saved a copy on my computer too. I foresee a problem if I reupload it, will the fact it comes from the Eisenhower Library be sufficient as a source? After all, we have no idea who took it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think as long as there is a clear source for where you got it and they seem reputable, it is OK, even if the author of the image is unknown. See this image of Leonard Harrison, also from Leonard Harrison State Park. It was in when the article passed FAC - all we know is who it is and where we got it, not when it was taken or by whom. I also assume Jappalang will correct me if I make a mistake here (with thanks in advance), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I change the pd/commons rationale on the copy that is on Wikipedia to a fair use rationale, and will that copy then survive the (in my view, inevitable) deletion of this image at Commons? I don't see any way this is a pd image. There's no way there was a Federal employee at the Wheeling rally taking photos within the scope of his employment. No way.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded lots of Files here (on WP) for use in DYK that were also already on Commons. There is a warning when you upload them that the file is a duplicate (if the name is the same). Deletion of a file on Wikipedia or on Commons is only there, not both places. The descriptions are also independent (i.e. DYK files on WP have {{C-uploaded}} which is not a Commons template). If you want, I suppose the file name on WP could be different too (as long as it is a duplicate file, I think there will still be a notice). Commons can not host fair use images, but WP can. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I didn't upload it, I just undeleted it since it was previously a WP image before being moved to commons. I added an appropriate template and a hopefully appropriate fair use rationale. That should solve the problem, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's pretty good, but I found stuff to do. Please check it over again for MoS issues relating to punctuation at the end of quotations, and for that pesky "with" connector (see example at the bottom below). Some issues:
  • "The Checkers speech was an early example of a politician using television to appeal directly to the electorate, but has often been mocked or denigrated." This seems to come from left field. In the robust lead, this sentence is the only suggestion that the speech was ill-received by anyone. The speech caused an outpouring of support, but it was mocked and denigrated?
    • I made it clear that most of the mocking has happened since the speech, which is mentioned in "Legacy". I didn't want to get into the ways, I considered it sufficient to mention it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "As Smith wrote one potential contributor, the donated money was to be used for:" Odd. Wrote to the contributor? This is another left field fly because we've just read about Nixon's expense account and suddenly we're reading about Smith again. Suggest more context: "As Smith wrote to one potential contributor, money donated to the Fund was to be used for:"
    • Rearranged the deck chairs in that section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why in that blockquote is there a stray non-breaking space in the middle of one set of ellipses?
    • Space, out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Contributors were only drawn from Nixon's early supporters" Move the "only" further right to get the intended meaning.
    • Only not so lonely.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "and an engraving bill was unpaid pending a hoped-for contribution of $500." What does this mean? They ran out of money and couldn't pay the bill?
    • Uh, yes. They had a promised contribution, but it hadn't come in yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Warren failed in his attempt to gain the nomination, and his supporters were embittered by what they saw as political opportunism on the part of Nixon, both in accepting the vice-presidential nomination and (according to the Warren supporters), in working behind the scenes for Eisenhower's nomination despite his pledge to support Warren." I don't know, something is missing here. An "and" after the comma? Or was something cut off?
    • Rewritten--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The candidate had the train stopped, and responded that he had been told that if he continued on his political course, crooks and communists would smear him." I don't quite follow this. Nixon said this in response to someone asking about the Fund? It seems unrelated.
    • You are exactly right. Nixon did not answer the question. Are you shocked?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "By this time, Nixon campaign headquarters was receiving a flood of telephone calls, calling on the senator to resign from the ticket." Can you revise to avoid the "calls calling"?
    • Can. Have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Denied any hard information as to what Nixon would say, rumors flew through the media." Dangling modifier. The "rumors" were not denied.
    • Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The senator alleged that Stevenson had minimized the threat of communism, and was thus unfit to be president." Seems like minimizing a threat would be a good thing. Do you mean "downplayed"?
    • Yes, so did he.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "With less than three minutes left to go in the allotted time" "Left" and "to go" are redundant.
    • It is a common phrase (there's 3 minutes left to go in the game, and Nixon gets ready to shoot from the floor) but I've eliminated the redundancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nixon skeptics joined in, with both Stassen and Dewey sending congratulatory telegrams." Revise to eliminate the noun plus -ing construction and the undesirable "with" connector. I've fixed a few of these already, but I'm getting tired. :)
    • I got rid of most of them, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it's all shiny now. Thanks for addressing my feedback so quickly. This was a really interesting read, if I do say so myself. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: A strong article. I've been reading Rick Perlstein's recent Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, and this article provides much of the extra detail on the speech that I might have wanted. However, there does seem to be a significant aspect of the speech that is not currently covered. I'll simply quote from Perlstein. He's describing how exactly Nixon's speech prompted a favorable public reaction:

What delivered the telegrams were the stories. These, too, left plenty of room for dispute. "I worked my way through college," he said—he hadn't; "I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle stars" from the war—he wasn't; his wife "was born on St. Patrick's Day"—she was born the day before St. Patrick's Day. (p. 39)

The article currently says Nixon "alluded to his work in college", without caveat; quotes him fibbing about his wife's birthday, without correction; and notes that Eisenhower told his wife "that Nixon was a completely honest man", again without caveat. (It does not cover Nixon's war claims.)

You'll note Perlstein's "too". Here's the referent:

The technical value of the financial accounting [Nixon offered] was highly debatable. It would be highly debated. His account of smears the press supposedly piled upon him during the Hiss case and after was even more so. This would be debated, too. (p. 39)

While the article currently covers the general media reaction, pro and con, there is no mention of specific debates concerning Nixon's accuracy and veracity.

Perlstein does not identify specific sources for the page from which I've quoted, but his main sources for the Checkers speech include the following: David Greenberg, Nixon's Shadow: The Shaping of His Character (pp. 31–35); Tom Wicker, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream (pp. 80–110); and Fawn Brodie, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character (pp. 271–89).—DCGeist (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what the final quote talks about; Nixon made himself seem "one of us". After all, that's why he chose that quote generally attributed to Lincoln. The quote will make that clear to anyone who hasn't had his face rubbed in it by carefully selected quotes which I include from the speech. I chose the quotes I did either to (a) make that point, which was the majore point of Nixon's speech, (b) because they're famous, (c) for plot purposes (the ones that were aimed at Eisenhower), (d) irony ("I'm not a quitter") (e) to dispose of a part of the speech that would be troublesome to summarize, or (f) multiples of the preceding. I read Perlstein in a bookstore and found him highly biased and prone to misstatements. I haven't read Wicker, but I've read Greenberg. Brodie's book is generally discredited, by the way.

The thing is, the quote you mention is inaccurate. Nixon never offered an accounting. Eisenhower had Price Waterhouse trek out to the then-wilds of eastern L.A. county and do an accounting of Smith's records. And it came out clean. It was published in the NY Times, in full, on the 24th, by the way.

There is a comment, if you hit "edit this page" about his birthday comment about his wife. But, it isn't very much of a whopper. Ever wonder why she's called "Pat" or "Patricia" Nixon when her name was Thelma? The Ryan family nicknamed her "Pat" because her birthday was so close to St. Patrick's Day. Putting in a comment there is full disclosure enough, and will save the article over the long haul from unneeded edits. The other two--well, Ambrose, Black, and Morris, Nixon's main biographers for this period, don't twig on the question of the battle stars or the work through college, and I'm unable to find any contemporary news account questioning either. Please remember that 1952 was an era when people were very sensitive to the idea of a man claiming war honors he hadn't earned, and Nixon's war record was public knowledge after three election campaigns.

The other things you mention, his veracity/disclosure about the Fund, are discussed in the various newspaper quotes, and in the quote from Senator Anderson. I give the basics, the reader is free to examine the sources for more information. I tried to avoid both the "Nixon? He was a great guy, it was all the fault of everyone else, all the way" and "That rotten Nixon, he smeared Voorhis, he smeared Douglas, he hid behind his dog, all the way to Watergate ..." I think I did a pretty good job there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: Since you seem to think nothing needs to be done, it appears I need to follow up (with a little research in a couple cases). On the specific points:

College work record. Nixon said, "I worked my way through college." This appears to be a simple falsehood. Black (p. 23) indicates a bequest from Nixon's grandfather "effectively defray[ed] all the costs of higher learning in Whittier." You need to cast your net a bit more widely on this. If you still find no one but Perlstein addressing the issue, the text of the article stills need to be changed. The statement that Nixon "alluded to his work in college" is unsatisfactory given the facts.

Pat's birthday. Your response is inadequate. As a fib, I agree Nixon's statement is of little significance; but as an objective misstatement of fact, it can't be left as is. Don't imagine that incorrect information in an article is properly handled with an advisory visible only via "edit this page." That's a special function the average reader does not and can not be expected to think about. If you choose to quote an objectively erroneous statement in the article, you must provide the correct information in the article. (In this case, I think it's fine if you want to do it in a footnote, rather than the main text.)

Battle stars. Nixon did earn two battle stars, per a preponderance of sources. Perlstein appears to be wrong.

Accuracy of the "accounting". Of course, no one's claiming that Nixon was a professional accountant. Perlstein's phrasing (without interpolation: "The technical value of the financial accounting that followed was highly debatable") does not make it absolutely clear whether he is referring to Nixon's rather detailed account of his personal financial affairs or to his more general account of the Fund's outlays, or both. In any event, he article currently contains no coverage of opinions about the accuracy and/or veracity of Nixon's account of these financial matters. Quoting a few general opinions about the speech, pro and con, is insufficient. You quote Anderson saying, "I wish he had talked about the 18,000 bucks." That doesn't go the question of accuracy/veracity. (And, of course, Nixon does offer an explanation of how the $18,000 was spent: "to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business.")

Supposed press smears. Nixon said, "I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case some of the same columnists, some of the same radio commentators who are attacking me now and misrepresenting my position, were violently opposing me at the time I was after Alger Hiss." Again, the article currently contains no coverage of opinions about the accuracy of Nixon's version of his history with the press, a significant matter. Once again, quoting a few general opinions about the speech, pro and con, is insufficient.

Even beyond these last two points, the Legacy section is still a distance from being comprehensive, and needs to be beefed up. There's a considerable amount of literature that analyzes the speech as a work of rhetoric--within its immediate historical context, within the arc of Nixon's career, and within the general context of American political rhetoric. That literature needs to be addressed. You might start with Garry Wills's Nixon Agonistes, and go from there.

You have, indeed, done a "pretty good job" composing a balanced article. But the article's not done.—DCGeist (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to DCGeist. Would you consider the possibility that deconstructing the speech further would be going into too much detail? The article is already pretty long, considering it's about one speech. Heck it's almost as long as Gettysburg Address. From my reading, the article appears balanced—it neither glorifies the speech nor casts it as a pack of lies by a political opportunist. I believe that close examination of the veracity of various parts of the speech may be out of scope for this article. We should leave it at telling the reader what he said, providing the context and background, and letting them do further research if they want to deep-dive. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article already has two explanatory notes in references (current refs 51 and 57), so I think these issues could be addressed in a footnote or two (and agree that notes in the text itself are not needed). Instead of a hidden comment in the text, a ref footnote could be added after the Pat's a fighter sentence that was something like "Pat Nixon was born Thelma Catherine Ryan on March 16, 1912, and was called "Pat" by her family because her birth date was so close to St. Patrick's Day." (not great, but you get the idea). A similar note could be added after the college and military service sentence, at least mentioning Perlstein's book. Finally I think the author and name of the recent book on Lincoln's supposed quote should be given, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with both of you. However, on the case of the college, I would just leave that be. I did a little research myself. How do you define "work my way through college"? Every cent earned from the job? According to Morris, page 111, as a descendant of Franklin Milhous (his grandfather), he was entitled to draw from a fund left by Milhous to Whittier College for a full tuition scholarship ($250 a year). That still left fees and other expenses for a student living at home averaging $50 a year, in the Depression. I don't know who paid those fees, but Nixon certainly worked in the family grocery store through college (page 122, 139 for example). This was a political speech. It will stand analysis in some ways, and in those ways, mostly political, the article does so. However, like Laserbrain says, you can't analyze every word of it for truthfulness. Are we to analyze for truth his attacks on Stevenson, on Truman? You'd find that they contain as much truth as any political speech. And no more. The other things I will work on and have in this afternoon. Please feel free to alter what I do, never been a big footnote in text man, meself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The new notes look fine to me, thanks. Having reread the discussion above, the whole Legacy section of the article and the pertinent parts on the speech itself, I do not see the need for a note on Nixon's work to pay for college, or especially on his military service. I also think the Legacy section as written seems sufficient, though I am not a Nixon expert by any means - this is an article on the speech and it seems to me the Legacy section (and the article as a whole) meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and other criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good article—a very good article—in terms of its description of the speech, but I believe it falls short of our comprehensiveness standard. Length comparisons to our Gettysburg Address article are beside the point—this is the FAC for the Checkers speech article, so let's focus on that. This is one of the most anaylzed speeches in American history, and I don't believe the article at present adequately reflects the analytical literature. For instance, I have agreed that as it pertains to his honesty, Nixon's fib about his wife's birthday falling on St. Patrick's Day is small beans. But why did Nixon bring it up at all? Just to make a point that no quitters could be found in his family, as one would currently gather from the article? Hardly. Conrad Black explains:

This was a straight play for the one-quarter of Americans who were Roman Catholics, most of them habitual Democrats...[though Pat] had never been a Roman Catholic and was in fact an agnostic. (p. 250)

It's analysis such as that of the speech's craft and content that helps the reader understand not just the speech's immediate impact, but why it remains one of the country's most examined political texts.—DCGeist (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And the article has that. We cannot discss every phrase of the speech, therefore as a matter of editorial judgment you have to pick and choose. You have to explain about the dog, for obvious reasons. You need to explain about the coat, at least the origin in Eugene (I restrained myself from mentioning that Nixon was helping Pat on with the now famous coat when Eisenhower bounded on the airplane in Wheeling). We discuss the ones where the reader has to know, or that the writer thinks he should know because it impacts the story. And your points seem to be skew anyway. You want to let the reader know that Nixon hoped to attract the 19 voters nationwide who would select their candidate based on the perceived religion of the Veep candidate's wife. Then you discuss the imact today? That paragraph in the Checkers speech is relevant for exactly one reason. The irony of Nixon saying he was not a quitter, in view of his resignation from the Presidency. That relevance is obvious by inspection by the reader. It is certainly not a lesson example of how to get Roman Catholic votes based on the perceived religion of the Veep candidate's wife.

Lazy people don't do FA's. But I don't agree with you, and feel like your proposed changes would make the article worse, not better. That's just my considered judgment, in which at least two reviewers apparently join.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure how "lazy" suddenly came up here. Though I do have a concern about judgment: You dismissed Perlstein earlier in this thread; you have now as much as stated that your personal analysis of the St. Patrick's Day passage is superior to Black's. There's really nothing more for me to add, except...
• Oppose: Fails 1b—comprehensiveness—for multiple reasons described above. There are related 1c concerns, as well.—DCGeist (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Perlstein is a questionable source, careless of facts (you yourself pointed out the battle star fiasco), and carelessly researched in my view. There's enough written on the Checkers speech per you that I am entitled to pick and choose, and Wills, which I've read (the part about Checkers anyway) is just a recounting of the speech, with bits of opinion ("the two men never trusted each other again", which flies in the teeth of the heart attack crisis, the Stassen effort to throw Nixon off the ticket in 1956, and also why Nixon was sent to Moscow in 1959). And yes, you have to know your subject to write a FA about a collectively-recalled subject like this, there are tons of details that vary in accounts, and judgment is needed, and I think here has been used appropriately. By the way, have you read the scholarly reviews of Black, or any serious part of the book? He's to be carefully used because he bends over backwards to excuse Nixon. Go on, google "Conrad Black Richard Nixon" and look at the reviews. I use him very cautiously, the one bit about Nixon gaining lifetime supporters through the speech is about it, with inline attribution, and a few factual matters

As for your oppose, that is your privilege, though I would note that your reason you don't think it is comprehensive has slid all over the place since you began engaging in this. I'll leave it to the judgment of the FA director. Simply, there is no way, in an article that is not titled "List of explanations of references by and strategy of Richard Nixon in the Checkers speech", to do what you want.. The article is comprehensive per standard 1b. The oppose is unfortunate, but the opposer hasn't engaged with two reviewers who have told him that the article is fine. Standard 1b says " (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" The article does so, the reviewer seems to want a blow by blow analysis of the Checkers speech which would chop up the article in little bits and make it virtually unreadable. I don't consider the objection actionable for the reasons stated by myself and two other reviewers who have tried to engage, unsuccessfully, with him, and I don't think there's much more to be said myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: This is a very well-written article and gives a balanced context for its discussion. I agree that further detail about the points raised by DCGeist would obfuscate, more than illuminate, the discussion. Obviously, there is a large body of commentary on the speech and Nixon's claims generally. Our job, in writing WP articles is to choose among secondary sources to present, for the general reader, the most important information about the subject in a format that is of appropriate length for an encyclopedia article. I think the choices that Wehwalt has made here reasonably optimize the reading experience for the WP audience. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.