Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 11

Treason
I would like to add under 1968 Presidential election. The following as it demonstrates that Nixon violated the Logan act and engaged in activity that can only be called treasonous. However I do not wish to engage in polemics, revert warring and run afoul of admins who have a political bias. After all we all do, don’t we. The only thing found in the middle of the road are yellow strips and roadkill.

Notes of H.R. Halderman, revealed that Nixon actively directed activities to sabotage the 1968 Paris Peace Talks by offering the President of South Vietnam (Gen Theiu ) a better deal Nixon feared that the peace talks would give, Vice President Hubert Humphrey an advantage in the upcoming election. Theiu did back out of the peace talks. Nixon disavowed this charge, however subsequent tape recordings of President Johnson and Halderman’s notes revealed his treachery. According to the tapes President Johnson told the Senate Majority leader Everett Dirksen –“this is treason” and Dirksen replied “I Know”. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html and https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 and https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason  and https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006123Oldperson (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed on this talk page before and a consensus reached as to how to treat it. I did not entirely agree with the outcome, but that's often the case. I think it was fair enough, though, and I'm inclined to say it should stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you've gone from "Reagan's Treachery" to "Nixon's Treason". And you think it's the admins who have a political bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a bias for truth and a bias against whitewash. In case you might be interested I have a serious case against Bill Clinton and big criticism of Obama. I bow before no gods,not do I bend a knee. However the Nixon article is pure obfuscation,  your "consensus" not withstanding and consensus changes as the composition of those consenting changes. Here is a major objection: " While notes uncovered in 2016 may support such a contention, the context of said notes remains of d" ebate.[123] It is not clear whether the government of South Vietnam needed much encouragement to opt out of a peace process they considered disadvantageous.[124]. Item one. Saying Notes is obfuscatory. Fact it was the four page notes of H.R. Halderman. Secondly, reference 123 is not a RS, it is from the (obviously slanted) Nixon Foundation.  As an aside, democracy, the dignity of the U.S.A. and the future of generations born and unborn would best be served by fully disclosing the treacheries and crimes of our leaders, including the current one, rather than obfuscating, white washing, diminishing the same. So string me up because I care. As regards politics. I am not a cheerleader or a joiner. I care as much about political parties and games as I do about soccer games (which is -zero, well politics is a little more interesting than soccer, or golf, or watching paint dry or watching grass grow.Oldperson (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny I don't see you on the Obama or the Clinton pages screaming things like "treason" or other such derogatory statements. In any case, back to the point: it was not a violation of the Logan act (or the constitutional definition of treason) to contact South Vietnam. A technical/literal reading of the law is influencing an adversary. South Vietnam was not a belligerent of the US in the war. At this point is also highly questionable what influence (if any) Nixon's supposed contact had. In case you need a refresher: Nixon had to make all sorts of secret assurances (along with a lot of arm twisting) to get Thieu to accept the Paris Peace accords more than 4 years later. So we are talking a technical violation (of anything) at best.....more accurately something meaningless at the end of the day.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, how inane comments start with "funny". FYI, Neither Obama or Clinton were guilty of anything like treason. There sins were strictly political, like betraying their base... That aside, as a recovering Catholic, I am well acquainted with the "art" of apologia, and know it when I see it. Fact is that Nixon at the time committed an act of Treason, he negotiated with Thieu behind the back of Johnson to thwart the Paris Peace Talks. Thieu's intentions or what he might have done is irrelevant and making such statements on a WP article would not be permitted. There are a number of Presidents guilty of chicanerry, a whole article could be written on the subject, I haven't even touched on GWB, he lied, and had men, otherwise respected, lie to support his grand design. A design that he mentioned in a biography before he became president. If I recall correctly (and it isn't worth the time wasted to cite it only to be met with obfuscation, that he said if he were elected president he would start a war with Iraq, because war time presidents always get re-elected, in the same vein he pointed to the failure of his dead in winning a war in 100 days and lost his re election bid. The man is heavily tainted with the blood of thousands of Americans and numberless Iraqi's, just to fulfill  his personal ambitions, but again a major whitewashing, obfuscation and rationalization of his "crimes".Oldperson (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You said you had a "serious case" with Obama and Clinton.....and I don't see you proposing any of these "serious cases" on their page. (Just a comment about your objectivity. The fact that you see their only sins as betraying their bases speaks volumes.) In any case, Nixon didn't commit an act of "treason". The constitution clearly defines it.....and violation of the Logan Act does not constitute it either. (That is, even assuming he violated it.) Ergo, your proposed addition is nonsense. If you can get a RS (preferably a legal scholar) to say so....we can consider a addition. (And I doubt even such a person would call it “treason” as you have characterized it here.) That Thieu needed to be browbeaten into accepting the terms of the accords (4 years later) is anything but irrelevant. It shows how much (if any) anyone could have influenced the situation. I would suggest that you read WP:AXE.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By the same token that I feel that Clinton and Obama betrayed their base. The fact that your edits have mostly been on Reagan, Nixon, Contras, Gary Webb, Southern Strategy, the CI,A speaks volumes likewise. People who live in glass houses...Oldperson (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to address urban legends. And as bad as the right's propaganda about some of the topics you mention can be......the left's can be downright nuts. I also want the factual/complete version given. Accuracy and NPOV is what we should be after here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable request. I'm definitely in favor of a solidly sourced paragraph about Nixon's treason with regard to the Paris Talks. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

{{u|Binksternet))”. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html and https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 and https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason  and https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006123 First is NY times, second is Christian Science MonitorOldperson (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some are editorials (I'm not sure Common Dreams is a RS) and in other cases they simply repeat the allegation of LBJ (in a private conversation) that it was "treason". Again the challenge is: finding a RS that calls it that because violation of the Logan Act is not treason. It's violation of the Logan Act. If you want it added to the article.....find a RS calling it what it is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * for LBJ "treason" = opposition to LBJ. As president LBJ's job was to deal with real treason to USA which he did not do. (Treason = dealing with an ENEMY. in this case South Vietnam was an ALLY. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Editoralizing definition of treason, not valid. If LBJ was hyperbolic then so was Sen Everett Dirksen who agreed with LBJ that Nixon's action was treason. Nixon violated the Logan act, His action most likely prolonged the war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands young American men and untold hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Definitely treason. Is=f that isn't what is. Only an apologist or accomplice could quibble. Treason is not defined as "dealing with the enemy" There is  A definition of Treason here: https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9DWfKpHldrrIAs6FXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3RpZ2h0cm9wZXRiBGZyMgNzYS1ncC1zZWFyY2gEZ3ByaWQDMVJnWUJlNG1Say5YUU5rQkg4ZWlyQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzIEcHFzdHIDdHJlYXNvbgRwcXN0cmwDNwRxc3RybAMzMgRxdWVyeQN0cmVhc29uJTIwZGVmaW5pdGlvbiUyMHVuaXRlZCUyMHN0YXRlcwR0X3N0bXADMTU2ODI1MzM1MwR1c2VfY2FzZQM-?p=treason+definition+united+states&fr2=sa-gp-search&fr=tightropetb&type=Y97_F13_162845_012319       "Definition of Treason"

Noun. A betrayal of trust or confidence, a breach of faith, treachery Noun. A violation of one’s allegiance to one’s government or sovereign Noun. The criminal offense of acting to overthrow one’s government, or of assisting others to do soOldperson (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone is editorializing here it is you. At no point in the Logan Act does it say violation of it is tantamount to treason. Again: the constitution clearly defines treason in Article III, Section 3. The Logan Act does not default to this at all and sets different penalties for violations. And (again apparently) it has to be said that this "treason" in no way likely delayed our exit in Vietnam. We are talking 4 additional years of negotiations. (With the North Vietnamese only returning to the negotiating table (in the end) after the Linebacker II campaign.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Iwonder whence the apologia. Four additional  years of negotiating BECAUSE of Nixon's treachery.Oldperson (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This project is not about what you wonder or your opinions. The point is: if it couldn't be resolved until 4 years after he became president....what makes you think any alleged interference by him (during a campaign) was the only obstacle to the end of the war? Is this getting through to you?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some folks here appear to be arguing their own opinion rather than pointing to sources to show what should appear in the article. A lot of sources discuss this point, and we should cover it in an appropriately full manner. Smithsonian magazine says Nixon very likely interfered with the talks, and confirms that LBJ sent Nixon a roundabout message telling him he was committing treason. PRI likewise. BBC too. There's a Pelican history book by Don Fulsom titled Treason: Nixon and the 1968 Election. Lawrence O'Donnell talks about the issue in Playing with Fire: The 1968 Election and the Transformation of American Politics. We have an obligation to relay this information to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing that the article should call his actions treason based on what political opponents have to say (then and now). I am arguing that what should be included (in addition to what the opponents charge) is the opinion of legal scholars and so on. I cannot provide a objective RS saying violation of the Logan Act is "treason" because well, quite frankly, it probably doesn't exist. That's my point. If such a section was included in the article, it would have to state the belief that the Logan Act was violated (possibly along with people like LBJ making some charges such as "treason")......but it would also have to include the opinion of an objective, qualified RS on (A) whether or not this actually violated the Logan Act and (maybe) (B) if this really constitutes "treason" (Obviously if such an expert doesn't view his actions as violating the Logan Act than it is very unlikely he/she will call it treason. I doubt most serious scholars would even address such a preposterous notion anyway.) Does this make sense?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It makes sense except for the offhand doubt you express about "most serious scholars". Scholars writing before recent revelations, the ones from March 2013 and later, will not have had sufficient material upon which to base their conclusions. You will want to look instead at more recent scholarship such as researcher Ken Hughes' 2014 book Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair and the Origins of Watergate. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to be another opinion piece by a journalist....which is not what is needed if the goal here is to start a section screaming "treason". (Which is what the person who started this thread wanted.) Of course, if what is desired (instead) is a (level headed) discussion of (if) Nixon violated the Logan Act.....that's a different story.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you pay attention? I'm talking about scholarly researcher Ken Hughes who researched the question and wrote a lot about it, in contradiction to your blithe misrepresentation about "most serious scholars". Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And nobody here cares what your analysis might be about the Logan Act. If you want to have any leverage in the discussion, you will need to point to published sources discussing this issue. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ken Hughes is a journalist is he not? No legal background whatsoever right? (And you say I am not paying attention?) That's the issue here. I can point to published sources discussing the issue......but to start a section (as the person who opened this section did) saying he wants a "treason" section......well, that's not NPOV. The Logan Act issue can be handled responsibly....but what he proposed isn't what we do hereRja13ww33 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Extraordinarily claims need extraordinary sourcing ... I'd expect something on the level of a law review article for something like this, and in-line attributed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Time permitting, I'm probably going to look for that myself. (No luck so far.) I have run across the occasional article on the constitutionality of the Logan Act itself....but nothing on this specific case. Putting aside the partisan nonsense, it actually is a interesting legal issue. The vagueness probably would assist any defendant. (IIRC, no one has actually been convicted under it.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding. That it's a Federalist-era statute that gets talked about some but no one has ever been convicted of violating it. Incidentally, I'm not aware of many public contemporary claims (whispers by LBJ don't count) so all this seems very ex post facto to me. The Democrats controlled Congress throughout Nixon's presidency and could have done what they liked with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Rja13ww33}}, are you being purposely dense? Ken Hughes is exactly what I described, a scholarly researcher. He was at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia for years poring through a massive archive of tapes and other materials to arrive at his conclusions. His book was reviewed in American Political Thought, a scholarly journal. Hughes says Nixon committed a crime: "This episode, known as the Chennault Affair, meant that Nixon took office needing to cover up the crime that got him elected in the first place." Binksternet (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What part of legal scholar do you not get here? (The legal part?) Go back and look at my posts....that's what I said early on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Tricky Dick
There was an excellent documentary on TV last night, entitled Tricky Dick, which mentioned in detail Nixons treasonous actions when he subverted Johnson's Paris peace initiative, which probably cost America tens of thousands of lives, and Viet Nam hundreds of thousands. The subject demands more in depth exposition and there are plenty of RS in support, including transcripts and audio of a tape recording between Everett Dirksen (Republican and senate majority leader) and LBJ. This is far from a settled issueOldperson (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd ask the newcomers to simply scroll up to "1968 peace talks - redux". Happyme22 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Resignation in lede
There's been a slow edit war on removing this statement in the lede:  The latest is by.

There was an RFC related to this.

In that RFC, I stated  Other editors in the RFC specifically agreed with this statement.

To remove the fact he resigned from the lede would require a change in consensus, which is not in evidence.

If there's no reason given in opposition, I will restore the resignation statement to the lede.

--A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 21:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that Nixon is known for many other things as well, as the length of the article will testify.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is known for many things, and all the primary things go in the lede. That he resigned is what he's best known for, so it not only goes in the lede, it should be primary among the others.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  13:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur that the phrase "he resigned from office, the only American president to do so" belongs in the lede. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather baffled that anyone should think it shouldn't go in the lead. It's what he's best known for, it's what makes him stand out amongst all the other run-of-the-mill American presidents. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was already in the lede. I have restored it at the start of the second paragraph, which as I recall is how it usually has been since it became FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit by is unhelpful.  First, it attaches the resignation to the sentence about his previously being VP, which appears to either associate his resignation with his being VP, or is just a run-on sentence.  Second, any change to text that's still under active discussion is normally seen as disruptive.  Third, the change in wording is against the RFC consensus.  I'll revert unless substantial support is presented.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording at present is that from the time of FA promotion, a consensus process at which better writers than I looked at it. That is itself substantial support. If need be, I can ping the reviewers from the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * FAC review state in no way prevents changes. Consensus in the RFC was after the FAC review.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prevent changes, but it requires consensus. The first sentence already notes that he was the 37th president of the United States, and is similar to many other presidential FAs: McKinley, Harding, among others.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What other articles do for other presidents might be relevant if any of them resigned.
 * What policy requires consensus for any change from the FA review stage?
 * Anyway, we have consensus for that change in the RFC. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  16:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The result of the RFC was not to make a change. That's a little different from a consensus version being achieved as with a FAC. But I do see your point that both are cloaked with remoteness from the perspective of 2019.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. The FA state was brought up with the claim it required consensus to change; I noted that's not policy.  I further pointed out that we have consensus anyway from the RFC.  The RFC ended with consensus on wording specifically including resignation; that requires new consensus to change.
 * Removing text during discussion against consensus is, by definition, disruptive EW, unless the editors that do this realize their mistake and revert their edit.
 * Zero reason has been presented for why the resignation doesn't belong in a primary position in the lede. If that's not immediately forthcoming, I'll restore it per the most recent consensus.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, see my comments above. There was no consensus for a change. That was not the same as consensus for the resignation to be in the first sentence. If there was, you would not have had to go through deprecating Happyme22, and then my writing. You are trying to push your way to the result you want and generally that doesn't tend to go well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any offense. My comments were about the evident effects of the edit, not the intent of editor, which I have no way of knowing.
 * To step back, we have several reasons given in favor of putting his resignation in the primary position in the lede. We have the consensus in the RFC on the wording that included the resignation (I don't see how anyone could claim it doesn't have that).  If that wasn't enough, we have consensus in this discussion to include it that way.  And the whole basis of this is Nixon is most famous as the one US President that resigned; that's most exceptional.  Anyone reading this that doesn't already know that for sure would benefit from having that stated clearly and prominently, so they know they have the right article; it would be a disservice for WP not do provide this.
 * Against all this, the reason not include it is... what? There's plenty of comments picking on other comments here, but no actual reasoning that addresses why his resignation must not be mentioned in the lede sentence.
 * Seriously, without that, why do we go on with this? So, again, without a reason given not to, I'll restore the consensus, both for the readers' benefit to and allow us all to get on with useful WP work.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  16:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do I need to repeat myself? The no consensus for change result of the RFC did not preclude later changes. And I think it should remain consistent with other presidential articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why indeed? With nothing left to say, and the only attempt at a reason not to state Nixon's resignation in the lede being a personal preference that this article, about the only president that resigned, might somehow follow the lack of mention of resigning used in the articles of the other presidents, none of whom resigned(!), and no counter given to the multiple reasons presented for consensus wording of resignation, I can only consider this closed, and will the restore consensus wording.  Hopefully we can now all proceed to more useful and important work elsewhere in WP.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

In summary, this thread is about whether Nixon's resignation as president goes in the 1st sentence (about his term as president), or the 2nd sentence (about his term as vice president).

Despite consensus in this thread, one editor has edited against this, moving the resignation to the 2nd sentence, without presenting anything I can identify as a valid reason, and without further comment here. I'm at a loss to understand why a very experienced and valued editor would insist on doing this.

So, I'm asking for help. Instead of just edit warring, I'm seeking renewed definite statements on this issue to emphatically clarify consensus. I'm pinging the editors in this thread,, , , , as well as the additional editors in the RFC above that also established consensus for the 1st sentence wording, , ,. Any other editors' are free to comment as well, of course.

I'm hoping doing this makes the consensus completely clear to all, without resorting to starting a full RFC, since that would just be repeating the last RFC, with no reason given to change it, then or since. Thus I believe a full formal RFC would just consume many more editors' time unnecessarily. This hopefully avoids that.

If this doesn't clarify consensus, I'll have to go ahead with a full formal RFC. Of course, if I'm completely wrong and consensus is for this edit, I'll accept that and just close this thread. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 14:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be more impressed if you hadn't begun by being insulting. You seem to change your arguments fairly often. Leaving that aside, the changes would be to exchange a comma and a period, so as to make it the end of the first sentence rather than the start of the second. The fact that Nixon was president, the years of his presidency and the number president he is, is the first sentence, like in many other presidential articles. Spiro Agnew, a recent FA, has his resignation in the second sentence. Is this really worth all of this?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Feeling insulted is not an argument supporting one's edit. If need be, it can be brought up before a drama board, but it's off-topic here.
 * Yes, I have added to my supporting arguments; there are many to make.
 * The change is indeed textually very small. If someone thought it was equally small in significance, they wouldn't bother to argue or edit against consensus.
 * Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't relevant in general, but articles about presidents that didn't resign are absurdly irrelevant.
 * Does this constitute the summation of reasons to put it in the 2nd sentence? If not, perhaps that can be added as a bullet point below, to more easily address the issue rather than the editors.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And why do you want people to participate in a discussion where you've already pre-stated you won't respect the outcome unless you like it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I just stated above, Of course, if I'm completely wrong and consensus is for this edit, I'll accept that and just close this thread.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To restate my own reasoning here: The goal of the first sentence of a WP article is to assure the reader that they have the right article, and not some other subject that has a similar name that they've got wrong somehow. A few famous people, like Benjamin Franklin, are notable in many different areas and it may be hard to reduce their notability down to a single phrase. But most famous people, despite the full list of all their varied activities, are primarily known for just one thing. Nixon falls into this group. The phrase for him is "the US President that resigned". Nixon's resignation makes him unique.  He had many achievements, and I think would be considered a great president otherwise, but according to sources, Watergate overshadowed it all.  As with any article, the most notable thing about this subject goes in the most notable position in the article -- the first sentence.  If we don't do this, we not only miss-serve our readers, we tacitly imply that WP has some shame or fear about this fact.  Nixon's resignation of the presidency belongs in the sentence that states the years of his presidency -- the first sentence.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I said, it's useful to have a uniformity among articles and this begins similarly to many other presidential articles, each known for their own distinction. It's also similar to the Agnew article, someone known even more for resigning, where the fact of his resignation is similarly placed. It's really no different from the editor who wanted to add "an American politician" after "was" in the lede sentence.

Just like we begin FDR, an article I have nothing to do with:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (, ; January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), often referred to by initials FDR, was an American statesman and political leader who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. A member of the Democratic party, he won a record four presidential elections and became a central figure in world events during the first half of the 20th century.

His four terms make him unique bu it's in the second sentence. That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents, but I would favor putting it in the second sentence. Keep the first sentence simple and non-controversial. There's no ambiguity as to which Richard Nixon served as president from 1969 to 1974. Orser67 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd favor removing it entirely from the first paragraph, as I did several months ago, for it does not define Nixon's entire career except, perhaps, to the casual observer and 11th grade U.S. history student. Is the resignation part of his legacy? Absolutely. A big part? Yes. So was his equaling FDR in the number of times he was on a presidential ticket (five -- the most in history), becoming vice president before he was 40 years old, and becoming the second-most voted-for individual in American history after George H.W. Bush. For starters. Perhaps I'm coming at this in a different way, but what are all the editors' concerns here about the resignation being unique and therefore justifying its inclusion in the first sentence? That is a fallacious argument. Every president is unique for something, and their unique qualities (deeds or misdeeds) appear --rightfully-- with appropriate weight. Considering Nixon's with undue weight is just that. As Wehwalt writes above, FDR's unique four terms don't show up until the second sentence. Gerald Ford's unique accession to the Presidency isn't mentioned until the third sentence; he was, uniquely, the first person to become Vice President and president without having been voted in -- talk about unique! To treat Nixon differently is, well, biased. Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What's more -- I just re-read the lead -- the resignation now appears three times in the lead; twice in the first paragraph (!) and its uniqueness mentioned again in the final paragraph. I'm calling undue weight here, big time. It needs to be put in its proper context, as we consider how the articles on other presidents are currently written. Happyme22 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

New York Townhouse
While I agree with that the number of bathrooms and rooms is irrelevant, the fact that he bought the entire 7th floor is highly relevant, which in fact is neither a condominium or a townhouse. The best word(s) would be animperial apartment: a suite of rooms in a very large or grand house set aside for the private use of a monarch or noble.Oldperson (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Condominium is a legal term that apparently defines his ownership interest there, and I've heard townhouse used as meaning a city residence without it implying it being a structure to itself. I do thank you for information as when I visited Beijing three years ago, I stayed at the Marriott Imperial Apartments and I remember the rooms being quite ornate though I have no pretention to being royal or noble. I did not know it was an actual term though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The term "townhouse" in NYC real estate means exactly that. The original entry, the use of that term commits a factual error, hence the need for my edit. In a multi-unit building, generally the two legal terms for a single unit is either co-op or condominium. Nixon bought a condominium, a completely different type of property, legally, from a co-op and obviously different structurally from a townhouse. Further, One doesn't usually buy "the entire 7th floor;" the purchase was for a single unit configured to use the entire 7th floor. Seth1066 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Tricky business because real estate terms are not well standardized and in different countries mean different things. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:F886:12B9:345C:78F6 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That pardon
In the discussions about Paul Manafort and Julian Assange it has been said on various occasions that they can be pardoned only AFTER the courtcase, i.e. after they are convicted. For Julian Assange that would mean a court case in the US and quite a risk. For Manafort's pardon possibilities that means of course that Trump could only pardon him for a federal conviction and State governors would pardon him for State conviction - if they are so inclined.

Nixon was pardoned without being convicted. I think, these legal matters need to be revisited. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:F886:12B9:345C:78F6 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that related to this article though? Sources saw, to the best of my knowledge, that Nixon was pardoned.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019
Change "Nixon was born tgo a poor family in Yorba Linda, California." to "Nixon was born to a poor family in Yorba Linda, California." because there is a typo. 91.168.45.81 (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Rjensen (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the article should have a link to Gerald Ford for "Succeeded by: Gerald Ford"
Hi there. I noticed there was no link to Gerald Ford, even though there is one for him under vice-president. I think it should be kept as the first time I was on this article, I didn't see there was already a link. I hope it's ok to keep the link to Gerald Ford because I think it is useful to have.

CcfUk2018 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)CcfUk2018
 * Why should there be two links?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in the past... can't recall when. Wikipedia readers are a priority and they use those successor/predecessor names as helpful links. In sports articles we have a current tournament with links to next year and the prior year. It is very helpful for navigation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the consensus for always linking successor/predecessor in these archives. We had an issue with Truman in the Roosevelt article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, as long as I have something to point too. These things seem to cycle over a period of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry categories
There is no evidence the specific European ancestrors of Nixon are defining and there is no good reason to have these categories. This amount to over categorization by a triavial aspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Condensing the lede
I feel like part of the lede is too long/descriptive. For the first paragraph, I would change it from...



to...



I would also change the second paragraph from...



to...



Nixon becoming the second-youngest vice president ever seems trivial. I also think we should be consistent with the job titles. And, the last two paragraphs in the lede would remain the same. Would anyone object to these changes? --Wow (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on the second-youngest vice president. On the first paragraph, I think it should continue to mention some of the things he did in office, besides resign. I don't see an issue with the second paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing the second paragraph now. --Wow (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Nosocomephobia
There's a section describing his illness in 1974 and his reluctance do take care of the matter. It has been cited that Nixon had nosocomephobia, a fear of hospitals. In the nosocomephobia article, Richard Nixon is mentioned in a citation. However, nosocomephobia is not directly mentioned in the article. Does nosocomephobia need to be directly mentioned to link both articles together? FunksBrother (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that if you want to have the article say Nixon had this, then we need very solid sources, since there was no talk of this at the time and I'm not aware of the biographers saying so. I think it would have to be explicitly stated, not just a general fear or dislike of hospitals. Don't care much for them myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs mention Nixon ending the Vietnam War but not his escalation of it
Thematically makes no sense. He was a hawk, he drastically escalated the war. To only mention him ending the war might give a casual reader the impression he was anti-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.71.11 (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that. Truman ended WWII. He wasn't antiwar. Ditto Eisenhower Korea.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * he was not a hawk as president. his goal was detente--to de-escalate the cold war with USSR and China. Rjensen (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles
Please see MOS:JOBTITLES instead of vaguely invoking "Wikipedia style guidelines". The MoS shows "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." It can't get any clearer than that. Please follow the MoS and restore "office = 37th president of the United States" and "office1 = 36th vice president of the United States". Chris the speller  yack  04:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As per MOS:JOBTITLES, the terms in question are not used generically in these contexts, but as formal titles of office; therefore, capitalization is preferred as in the lefthand column of that section. All other elected politicians throughout Wikipedia, both in the United States and all other countries (including all U.S. Presidents), enjoy capitalization of their title(s) for the same reason. Thanks for your concern regarding literary style (I get that way about a lot of things), but it seems clear that capitalization is the accepted way to go in this case. Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the MoS more carefully. It says that "Offices, titles, and positions ... are capitalized only in the following cases:" "When a formal title ... is not preceded by a modifier ...". In this case, "37th president of the United States", it is preceded by the modifier "37th". That's why it matches the right column of the MoS; the title has been "Modified or reworded, denoting an office". Chris the speller   yack

RFC: Capitalization of job titles
Please see the above section of this talk page, and the relevant edits in which the above user takes the position that terms such as "president" and "vice president" should be in lower-case when used in Template:Infobox officeholder and certain inline contexts. I admit I can't find the exact words to explain why we do what we do, but I believe my interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES is closer to being accurate than theirs, and that their interpretation would require a radical change in the way we stylize articles on elected officials. Rowsdower45 (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Rowsdower45 I've seen this before - the notion to reverse prior longstanding practice got into a MOS rewrite back around 2018, and has been strongly disputed ever since.  I think only a small percentage of usages have been changed.  "President of the United States" seems to me a proper noun phrase - to quote the MOS "a formal title for a specific entity" that would always be capitalized, because the specific entity follows the word "of".   Generally the phrase is capitalised in Infoboxes of United States presidents - I think due to past TALK.   Respected grammar guides seem mixed and confusing here, but really I was more interested in stopping the decapitalising of Elizabeth II, the current Queen of the United Kingdom.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Grammar mistake in opening paragraph (rose -> risen)
In the opening paragraph, the following sentence uses the past tense of rise (rose) when it should use the past perfect tense (risen).

Current quote: “A member of the Republican Party, Nixon previously served as the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961, having rose to national prominence as a representative and senator from California.”

Suggested edit: “A member of the Republican Party, Nixon previously served as the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961, having risen to national prominence as a representative and senator from California.” Logkirk (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020
In line 2 of the first paragraph, "rose" should br corrected to "risen" 31.50.189.16 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Add a hyperlink to black capitalism in 3rd paragraph of Civil Rights
Self explanatory it has a good wiki here and is a new term to many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.112.3 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What does the source say about it? I admit to being unfamiliar with the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Only Person to Win a General Election in All 50 States
Nixon won every state except for Massachusetts in 1972. Although he never won Massachusetts while running for president, he did win Massachusetts in his 1952 and 1956 vice presidential campaigns. Would this make him the only person to have ever won a general election in all 50 states? GamerKiller2347 (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting and I had never thought of it that way but it's probably too trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We could state this later in the article, as it is that way for Walter Mondale, who is the only person to lose an election in all 50 states. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ross Perot, among many others, lost all 50 states. As for Nixon, not only is it trivial, it's something of a false statistic as we have only had 50 states for about a quarter of this nation's independent history. Washington and Monroe won every state in existence at the time. Possibly others.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard Nixon
Racist rant Vedant Koladiya (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Added to the legacy section. It was removed previously. Meethamonkey (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Try putting it in a new section called controveries and start writing like: According to a report of new york times.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"@Heba Aisha:" I thought about that but there are many more things that are controversial about him eg. Views on black and Jewish people, so that would take time and to put this item alone in the section would be giving it extra weightage. But ultimately it should be there. Anyways thanks for the input. Meethamonkey (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Media in 2016 mistaking "ghost Nixon" twitter for the real Nixon
During the 2016 Clinton/Trump campaign. The Sydney Morning Herald picked up on a tweet from a President Nixon role playing account and reported the tweet as if it had been made by the real RMN (who died in 1994). PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be too obscure to put in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Section pertaining to racist views of Nixon for indians removed
Declassified documents from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library show that Nixon held deeply racist views for the Indian people and sexual hatred for Indian Women as revealed by author Gary J. Bass. Describing Indian women as "undoubtedly" the most unattractive women in the world. Also describing Indian people as the most "sexless" and "nothing" people in the world. At one point comparing indian people with "African blacks ", stating that atleast they have an "animallike charm" but the Indians were "ack, pathetic".

If anybody could suggest what was wrong with this. Meethamonkey (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed the material because it is not a major element of Nixon's career. How many observers cite Nixon's India/Pakistan views when they talk about his presidency? Close to zero. The relevant guideline is WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Gary j. Bass is a prominent author when it comes to south Asia and the 1971 Bangladesh war. Also these are very recent revelations and are all over the Indian media ( also in the NYT). The source for this are audio recordings declassified by the Nixon Presidential library. One might think that Nixon possibly turned a blind eye to the Bangladeshi genocide because of his racist views for indians ( as suggested in the NYT article ), which was one of the biggest genocide in history. So I would say tht this has a lot of relevance. Wouldn't you say ? Meethamonkey (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece. We do not use them. I agree with Binksternet and have removed the material. Where is the significant mainstream coverage of this, for example in his biographies?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned it is only a recent revelation, so it will not be found in his biographies. Also it has been covered by NYT And Indian news networks. Meethamonkey (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we wait for them to sift and decide if it is worth including. We are a tertiary source, not the network news. There was no slightest suggestion by leaders of either major party in 1971 that the US should intervene in South Asia, beyond possibly diplomatically at the UN. As I said on my talk, there should be a showing that this was a major part of Nixon's career, and that Nixon played a major part in the 1971 crisis. It might be better to put some shorter material in the Presidency of Richard Nixon article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well as these were his personal views, I think, it will not be relevant to his presidency. However if you think that this info is not relevant to this page then we can just leave it out for the time being. Meethamonkey (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Under what reasoning have you decided what's a major part or not of Nixon's career? I added pertinent foreign policy actions. Bangladesh War at that time certainly wasn't something unimportant nor his policies regarding the subcontinent was something unimportant. Especially when it comes to it being about blocking Soviet influence and supporting Pakistan. He personally tried to end the war. I added all this, but you have removed it under claims of it not being "major part" of his career. Individually, many actions in the article can be described as not a major part. But when you see that it warranted his personal involvement that too for more than just a short time, it is important. And my edits are not related to his comments about Indians. So why are you removing it? There are many books and news articles on his policy concerning the Indian subcontinent, so you and Binskternet's rationale for removal makes no sense. Reliable sources and notability decide what's important. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree with you, which is why I suggested the Presidency article. But is it, from the Nixon perspective, any more than dozens of foreign policy issues that came up during Nixon's presidency? Did he personally involve himself on an ongoing basis in subcontinent relations outside of the crisis of 1971-1972? This is a general biography article, so we should look to general biographies to guide us, I would think. Do his biographers devote major attention to the issue, especially outside of 1971-1972? That is the sort of standard I look to. We are a tertiary source.
 * As for notability, I do not question that. That is not the question. We are trying to cover the major aspects of Nixon's career in a summary style within reasonable length constraints, and this is already one of the longest FAs and has grown considerably since it became a FA in 2011. Other articles, such as the Presidency article mentioned above, or Checkers speech or 1950 United States Senate election in California cover aspects of Nixon's career in more detail. Everything can't be in this article. I think I've been consistent in this over the years.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just said in the first time I pinged that yes it concerns Nixon's own personal actions. Also concerns his words as well. There is some stuff which doesn't concern his administration explicitly, I can remove that. But how do you decide what is major or not? Did I put everything in this article? You are not the one to decide. Hold a consensus for that. Your definition of major when he was personally involved and it's a notable topic seems arbitrary. This article may be long, but that's what content table and sections exist for. To tell the readers what might interest them. I don't have a problem with placing my edits on his presidency article, but you shouldn't decide what is fit to go here or not. No one should. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We all decide what to put here. We all should be looking at the breadth of the literature about Nixon, summarizing it and balancing it for the reader. There is not room for everything; we must cut certain details for brevity. Wehwalt's point and mine is that Nixon's racism against everyone on the Indian subcontinent is not widely discussed in the literature. Whole books about Nixon have no mention of it, not even a tiny mention. Which calls into question whether this is a major theme of Nixon's life (it isn't) or a minor theme worth mentioning, or a too-small detail which should be moved to places where it is more important, for instance in an article about US–India relations, or the article about Nixon's presidency. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me who exactly is this "we all"? You unilaterally reverted me and unilaterally decided what's something major to keep or not. After that only one person supported you, but the evidence is lacking. Two also oppose you. I didn't ask you to put everything in here, a concise statement would be fine somewhere. And my edits weren't even about racism. But still his racism and both his policies in South Asia (not related) should be added. A person's character is definitely not something minor. I suggest instead of deciding what's minor, you try to hold a consensus first. Then it will qualify as "we all decide what to put here". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this "we all" is all of us, you and me and everyone (anyone) who is interested. Certainly one of the next steps could be a WP:Request for comment to invite wider participation. Whatever works.
 * Nixon's character has been discussed by every biographer who ever touched the subject. Can you point to one of them who mentioned his racism against the Indian/Pakistani people? Mostly his racism was seen against Black Americans and Jews. Recently in the news was a report about his racist comments toward African delegates to the U.N., caught on tape. This new tape of racist comments is similar to the one about African delegates in that it is not a major theme. If we see a major biographer bringing up the issue of Indian/Pakistani racism then the issue gains weight.
 * Right now, this biography does not discuss Nixon's racism at all, which is a giant hole, a glaring omission. I suggest a WP:Request for comment based on various depictions of Nixon's racism, with participants asked which aspects of Nixon's racism should be discussed. But I think some aspect must be discussed. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it mentioned the comments regarding Blacks and Jews. Did it slip out of the article at some stage? Let me see what I can find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the comments about the Jews in the 2011 version. I thought at some stage we said something about Blacks too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again I don't understand who is this "we all". You never took a RfC or have tried to take a consensus yourself about what can be on this page or not. The burden is on you too, you are deciding what stays without any RfC or consensus what stays. No one except one user supported you. And are you saying because it hasn't been said so in past, it can't be here now? Every person will not know every thing he ever said or he believed. That's not possible. These tapes were only revealed now, so it's impossible for any biographers to know. But what does his racism have to do with my edits regarding his South Asia policy, which is not about racism at all. Why did you remove my edits which weren't even about any racism? You are only talking about MeethaMonkey's edits, not mine. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All valid points. Can you tell me why Nixon's South Asia policy is important to his biography page? I would think it more appropriate to his presidency page: Presidency of Richard Nixon. I apologize for conflating your edits with those of MeethaMonkey. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is Nixon's Israel policy important? Because it's how he viewed and conducted things. And got personally involved in stopping the Bangladesh war especially. Much of what I added contained to his personal actions. Especially to help his ally Pakistan, dent USSR's influence in South Asia especially as he viewed India as its ally. Also he personally didn't favor India or Indira Gandhi. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nixon's Israel policy is important enough to mention because his action, and his personal involvement in them, was enough to get massive coverage in the papers at the time, favorable even in the midst of Watergate, which is covered in detail in his biographies.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure Kim Kardashian gets massive coverage as well. What I mostly see here is related to Yom Kippur war. Rest might get coverage for one or two days. But I highly doubt you quantified how many newspapers covered it. Something that was covered doesn't mean notable. What leaves a long impact is notable. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also support MeethaMonkey's edits. Someone being racist towards a group is certainly not minor. Racial views have been listed on other BLPs too. 14:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk • contribs)
 * It's not a BLP but I agree it should say something.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a BLP because it lists the details of Nixon's life. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a BLP, because the L means Living. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes of course. I am sorry. But, not entering controversial info without reliable sources still applies. However, we do have reliable sources. There is no restriction to what that info is since you never conducted a consensus. Your revert was wrong. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Military service continuity problem
At the end of the section on Nixon's military service it states :

"On March 10, 1946, he was relieved of active duty.[41] He resigned his commission on New Year's Day 1946.[48] On June 1, 1953, he was promoted to commander.[41] He retired in the U.S. Naval Reserve on June 6, 1966."

This doesn't make sense to me. When you resign your commission you no longer have any military status. So, if he resigned his commission on January 1, 1946, what was he doing on active duty through March 10, 1946? Then he was promoted to commander in 1953.

I served as an officer in the USMC and left active duty on June 30, 1973. But I still retained my commission in the Inactive Reserve. Later, I returned to the Active Reserve for four years then became inactive once again. After four more years I finally resigned my commission and no longer had any military connection or title.

So it would make more sense to state Nixon 'left' active duty on March 10, 1946, but stayed in the Inactive Reserve. Still how could he leave active duty in March if he 'resigned' his commission over two months earlier?

Military personnel have a six year obligation. But if you serve two, three or four years, depending on your enlistment obligation, you still stay a member of the Inactive Reserve until six years is up, even if you never attend any military function. Then one day you get a letter saying your six years is up, and the military doesn't 'bother' you again.

The text sounds to me as if Nixon left active duty in March 1946, but stayed in the Reserves, probably Active Reserves for awhile, as he was promoted to commander in 1953. To retire in 1966 he had to be doing some periods of active reserve duty over those years. But quite frankly, the military services let politicians skip periods of duty as politicians obviously have political influence in military matters.

Someone should check this out and correct the text. It's just not going to be me. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the reference to him resigning the commission on 1/1/46. Possibly Conrad Black erred in his biography. The rest of it is in a footnote to the article. Thank you for your service.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests
Remove the second instance of the word "in" in the following sentence, located in paragraph number 2:

FROM: He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in the 1952 election, subsequently serving for eight years in as the vice president.

TO: He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in the 1952 election, subsequently serving for eight years as the vice president. Gnelson2 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

another edit request. the name of the author of "the space shuttle decision" (a reference) is Heppenheimer not Hepplewhite 157.131.250.246 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You say he’s the 36th Vice President but he is the 34th Jenmolidor (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Says who?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Law Degree
Richard Nixon earned his law degree from Duke in 1937. However, until the 1960s, universities were awarding LLB degree. Not the JD. Did Nixon earn a JD or LLB degree?--RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruption of Johnson's Vietnam peace talks
Should this article and Richard Nixon 1968 presidential campaign not include SOME mention that notes indicate Nixon was involved in an effort to interfere in Vietnam peace talks Johnson was having ahead of the 1968 presidential election. It is HIGHLY notable and well-sourced, and already included in Paris Peace Accords. It's an incredibly noteworthy aspect of both Nixon's pre-presidency and campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-indicate-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/new-evidence-indicates-nixon-himself-tried-sabotage-vietnam-war-peace-talks

SecretName101 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it would make sense to add something. But we would have to note (just like in the Paris Peace Accords Article) that this (likely) didn't mean a agreement would have been reached in '68 without this interference. We (also) probably couldn't have that long of a section in this article....but there is probably a way to paraphrase and cut things down a bit.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a paragraph on this, the second to last paragraph in the 1968 campaign section.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt. I missed that as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I see it now. Maybe I'm missing it there too, but even on closer look, I don't seem to be able to easily find it at Richard Nixon 1968 presidential campaign. Is it missing from there? SecretName101 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Might want to comment on the talk page there. The two articles were written by different people.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
Why do we need Category:American people of Irish descent? Can we remove it? Supaboy101 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see List of Americans of Irish descent to confirm. Thank you for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaboy101 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you left-click on the "List of..." link in my first response to you. Then look for Nixon's name in the list. You will find more detail plus a reference citation (link) to a non-Wikipedia page that confirms his Irish background.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Whats the "list of"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaboy101 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Click on the following link: List of Americans of Irish descent. On that list page, look for Nixon's name. There you will find the reason why belongs in his article.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gold Standard
Somebody please put the gold standard in here. It doesn't mention how in 1971, President Nixon took America off the gold standard.(unsigned)
 * It is in the second paragraph of the "Economy" section.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nixon’s portrait
Hi,

I reckon we should use the actual official photo on the infobox, instead of the one we’re using now. It looks better, it’s restored, and it’s actually official.

My proposed photo: Nixon Official Presidential Portrait, 07-08-1971restoredh.jpg

Current infobox photo: Richard Nixon presidential portrait.jpg TomVenam2021 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that the image be "the official" one, especially with a well-photographed president like Nixon. The proposed image devotes only a small portion of its surface to Nixon's face. It probably did fine with the large photographs that were posted in federal offices of the current president, but our readers view images as thumbnails.It is thus better to have cropped images that show the face. The current one shows Nixon well, as testified by the fact that eight articles on en.wp use the current image, plus a number on other language Wikipedias, whereas none on en.wp use the proposed image, and only the Nixon article on fr.wp uses the proposed image (which also uses the portrait we use). There is no reason to have the lead image be one that devotes far more space to Nixon's suit than to Nixon's face.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How about a cropped version, such as this? Richard M. Nixon 30-0316M original (cropped).jpg TomVenam2021 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the current portrait is better by a small margin. Interested in knowing what others think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Introduction Sentence
In most articles, the person's occupation is included in the introduction sentence. Should it be included in this article? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be repetitive to say American ... politician since every POTUS fits that and we have MOS:REDUNDANCY.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Then why do other articles say "American politician"? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some do and some do not. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

But what is the reason behind that? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are disagreement about the requirements of MOS:FIRST and the following sections in the Manual of Style, and how to implement them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021
How 98.214.81.152 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021
emerged from Air Force One and greeted Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai. This should be written as.... we're greeted by Chinese.... It happened in China so the Chinese did the greeting 103.152.126.64 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done—Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sabotage of Lyndon B. Johnson's efforts to begin peace negotiations over the Vietnam War
We should mention that Nixon "told H.R. Haldeman to 'monkey wrench' President Lyndon B. Johnson's efforts to begin peace negotiations over the Vietnam War." Currently, this article makes Nixon look like a hero who finale made the war end, which is a very twisted version of what actually happened. If we want to include part of Haldeman's notes from Oct. 22, 1968, they can be found. —Kri (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 11 and the previous discussions on this matter. The article reflects a consensus on how to treat this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's looks like a rather long, heated debate (it doesn't look like there was any consensus to me, though, in the sense that there seems to have been no general agreement). Since you seem to have followed it, could you summarize the arguments for not mentioning it in the article? Isn't it of the public's best interest to include such vital pieces of information in the article? Right now it mostly seems to me like people are trying not to cause a stir (which was possibly also the reason why both the articles I linked to in my previous comment were published around New Year's Eve). —Kri (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion is here, and it alters a previously-agreed consensus that had happened earlier.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible dispute of facts of birth based on californiabirthindex.org
According to https://www.californiabirthindex.org/fullname/nixon/richard, California's birth records have no one with the name Richard Nixon after 1905 until 1924. If he had another name at birth, then his birth name should be included in the article. If his birth was never properly recorded in California, that's notable considering how big an issue was made about Obama's birth (which had been properly recorded in Hawaii). If it was properly recorded under the name Richard Nixon but was excluded from https://www.californiabirthindex.org either because he's a public figure or by mistake, that's probably not notable.47.139.42.245 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a matter in which we would await comment from secondary sources, such as news articles and biographies.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What difference does it make now? When Obama was president i can see a likely reason for argument, but Nixon is dead, and Obama is no longer president. Why argue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:D43E:19F0:1985:23B5:5C8:8472 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Obama, Nixon is a well-studied figure. If there were discrepancies about his date or name or place of birth, we'd know about them, and they would have become issues at some point in his life, school, college, the Navy, politics, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Military ribbons/commendation
Query whether the display of ribbons, etc in the Military service section is the best placement, as it creates a substantial break for the reader. Consideration is suggested to placing these at the end of the article. For comparison, see Eisenhower article and Grant. Hoppyh (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I put them in the infobox. Hoppyh (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Overcrowded images
I have omitted the following from the presidential campaign section to reduce overcrowding: America needs Nixon.png|thumb|upright|Text on automobile trash bag given away by the Nixon campaign in California, 1968 Hoppyh (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The following was omitted from the U.S. Senate section due to overcrowding: 1950 United States Senate election in California results map by county.svg Hoppyh (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Foreign policy-China
See first paragraph of the section—“Nixon followed up by sending to China for clandestine meetings with Chinese officials.” Who did Nixon send? Hoppyh (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section for Indo-US relations
My edit for adding a section for Indo-US relations was removed entirely, with inadequate explanation (explanation only referred to a single line out of the entire edit, for purpose of removing the entire section, which I find unsatisfactory). The edit summary for the edit reverting my edits pertains to Nixons racist views, not about whether or not India was relevant to Nixon.(unsigned by CapnJackSp)
 * India did not comprise a major portion of Nixon's life. That was what was discussed in the thread I linked. We cannot put everything in this article. Biographers do not discuss his South Asia policy. Accordingly, the information is better suited for the Presidency article, or the Foreign Policy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Richard Nixon's presidential portrait, Remastered
I cannot edit it so i leave it here if some of you "verfied" users want to upload it just rember to credit me

i dont know how to license it but its copy from the orginal file wich was stated that it needed a "retouch" and here you go removed the scratches, some of you wiser guys can do the license thingy that the orginal had — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyota Corolla E140 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adobe Photoshop CS6 2012

Removed lots of scratches, specs of dirt etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyota Corolla E140 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While it's OK for you to try and improve this image, you can't really claim copyright over it because it's not your c:COM:Own work per se. Cleaning up (removing sctratches, dirt, etc.) is not really sufficient to establish a new copyright as explained in c:COM:2D copying, c:COM:DW and c:Commons:Picture retouching; so, you probably should relicense the file as was done in the case of File:Richard Nixon presidential portrait (1).jpg. You can use the same file description and same copyright license, but just modify the c:Template:Retouched accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Small clarification needed, first paragraph
President Eisenhower was sworn in after my birth and served 8 years from 1953 until 1961. I just never knew who his vice president was. I knew Nixon ran for president in 1960, for I voted for him in a mock election in elementary school. His name was easier for a kid to remember than was "Kennedy."

Here is the piece that I copied from the article's edit page:

Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 –April 22, 1994) was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. He was a member of the Republican Party who previously served as a representative and senator from California and was the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961. His five years in the White House saw the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, ...

I was reading, "and was the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961. His five years in the White House ..." and started counting the 8 years that I just read at the end of the last sentence. It might be wise to rephrase the start of the partial sentence that I quoted here to read, "His five years as President saw the end of U.S. involvement ..."

Doesn't the Vice President also serve in and around the White House? I know she is the President of the U.S. Senate, so the VP will spend much of her time in the Capitol as well as representing the nation overseas at the request of the President.
 * I think the use of White House to refer to the president is understood and there is no great risk of confusion. YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It just struck me though, that, while I read of Nixon being the President, the last thing in my reading was his eight years in the White House as Vice President.

Please review these thoughts and then revise the suggested wording, if you think it appropriate. Lytzf (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022
In the Vietnam War section, in the line cited number 155, the word "overrun" should be changed to "overran" as everything else in the sentence is written in the past tense. BIp9 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"Man of Steel" campaign button photograph
The reason I inserted the image of the "Man of Steel" button into the end of the "Personality and public image" section was that it ironically emphasizes what is usually assumed to be Nixon's foremost problem, the "toughness" self-image that he prized and that appears to have isolated him from actual friendships (and also enabled him to become president of the United States against the usual overwhelming odds, although his mentor Thomas E. Dewey gave Nixon the priceless boost of engineering the vice presidential spot beside Eisenhower in 1952). Quoting Richard Reeves from the section---Nixon's presidency was doomed by his personality, Reeves argues: "He assumed the worst in people and he brought out the worst in them ... He clung to the idea of being "tough". He thought that was what had brought him to the edge of greatness. But that was what betrayed him. He could not open himself to other men and he could not open himself to greatness." Earlier in the same section we have this: Nixon biographer Conrad Black described him as being "driven" though also "uneasy with himself in some ways". According to Black, Nixon "thought that he was doomed to be traduced, double-crossed, unjustly harassed, misunderstood, underappreciated, and subjected to the trials of Job, but that by the application of his mighty will, tenacity, and diligence, he would ultimately prevail." This is a basic thrust of the section (and, one might venture to say, Nixon's life) and is ironically crystallized by that slogan on that campaign button "Man of Steel," which is usually reserved for either Stalin or Superman in popular culture. I think placing it right there, as a conclusion to the section as well as the entire actual text of the article itself, is irresistible. I remember the 1960 campaign vividly but I'd forgotten about that button until I spotted it in Wikimedia, to my surprised delight. To place it in that spot emphasizes and serves as a literal illustration of what that section is about. Changing the subject to a different photograph, the picture of Nixon in his Air Force One cabin winging his way to China and ultimately changing the global economy completely (for better or for worse) is worthwhile because photographs of Nixon depicting a good view of his Air Force One cabin, a diverting symbol of presidential power itself, are quite rare and this one is particularly superb. Racing Forward (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm against including both images. First, the article has too many images as it stands. The "Man of Steel" image requires (unsourced) interpretation to make any sense to the reader. I think it's very much open to discussion whether that interpretation of the button is proper and we shouldn't be saying it is in Wikipedia's voice without a source. As for the Air Force One photo, it falls in the character of images we might want to use if there weren't better. Nixon is one of the best documented presidents in history. We have better images, we illustrate better, and it's not worth crowding the text to include the Air Force One shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Chennault monkey wrench
My edit was reverted (and fair enough, that's why we have talk pages) so I want bring up four issues with the existing text on here.

On October 22, 1968, candidate Nixon received information that Johnson was preparing a so-called "October surprise", abandoning three non-negotiable conditions for a bombing halt, to help elect Humphrey in the last days of the campaign

The Nixon Foundation's narrative of Humphries desire for a bombing halt as an "October surprise" is not NPOV. Humphries campaigned on such a halt. The peace talks were openly in progress. From the peace talk POV, the puncturing of the talks is what seems motivated by an "October surprise" perpetrated by the Nixon campaign. However, my edit kept in, even expanded on, the three conditions that Nixon perceived Johnson had promised the candidates.

Whether the Nixon campaign interfered with negotiations between the Johnson administration and the South Vietnamese by engaging Anna Chennault, a fundraiser for the Republican party, remains a controversy.

What's relevant is that the order was given, which the Haldeman notes show.

As an aside, calling her "a fundraiser" is reductive; she was a lobbyist.

While notes uncovered in 2016 possibly support such a contention, it is questionable.

1. A pointless and vague sentence only serving to try to dilute the severity of the event 2. Chennault's interference is well documented in Diễm's messages to Thiệu. 3. The charge against Nixon is that he gave the order. It's not super relevant whether or not the order succeeded. If I order you to shoot a guy, the event that your gun jams up would not make me less guilty. (Whether or not "the gun jammed" in this instance is an argument for other articules more specific to the peace talks—there are much to indicate that the monkey wrench did have a very big impact.)

Nixon Foundation's "monkey wrench" essay is an extremely POV text. We don't need to perpetuate its perspective. Stick to the facts neutrally.

It is not clear whether the government of South Vietnam needed encouragement to opt out of a peace process they considered disadvantageous

More vagueness ("questionable", "not clear").

Again not relevant to what Nixon did according to the Haldeman notes. If I order you to shoot a guy, the event that someone else kills that guy before your bullet would not make me less guilty.

This monkey wrench is possibly the worst thing Nixon ever did. The fact that it's quickly glossed over on Wikipedia deep in a section labeled (and primarily about) "1968 presidential election" and then softened by "whether", "controversy", "contention", "questionable", "not clear" is not something I sign off on.

He tried to surreptitously stop this bombing halt. That is a pretty big deal for the history books in terms of human lives. The bombing halt was stopped. Many died. Nixon won the election. Whether or not the bombing halt would've been stopped by other people anyway without Nixon in some sort of It's A Wonderful Life side story is not nothing, but it does not absolve Nixon for his decision. The three conditions were not acheived.

I felt that my edit gave kind of a fair shake to the Nixon Foundation's perspective—keeping the three conditions and Nixon's perceived sense of betrayal from Johnson, while removing all the "maybe kinda sorta it wasn't that bad", while not putting in my own POV which is this was really freaking awful and should even be in the first paragraph. My own POV is that this is what people should think of when they think of Nixon. Gritting my teeth, I left it buried as a sub paragraph re the 1968 election campaign but I sure as heckfire don't sign off on a consensus re the existing language. Jikybebna (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Jikybebna (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I urge you to read the discussions, and there have been several, in the talk page archives. The people who feel as you do, and other people, came together to find compromise language. Your language goes too far towards the myth of the blameless Johnson, who just happened to be trying to arrange a bombing halt, and it just happened there was an election coming up. Removing the sentence about the South Vietnamese ignores them as an important and very savvy and aware factor in all of this. Keep in mind that Johnson did not leave office on November 5, he had 2 1/2 months to arrange anything he liked.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A bombing halt is valuable in and of itself, even when disregarding how the light of history the continued bombing did not accomplish any objectives. However, I tried to go even further than the original text to clarify how Johnson went back on the conditions. Facts that are unflattering to Johnson are certainly relevant for, and eligible for, Wikipedia. SVN's savvy is not relevant to determine whether Nixon attempted to influence them or not. If I break in to steal something and it's already gone when I get there, that's till B&E. I didn't come here to exault Johnson. I'm not a Johnson or Humphrey fan. It's not OK that the worst thing Nixon ever did is glossed over, buried, and softened. Jikybebna (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The four mitigating factors:


 * 1) Whether Nixon geniunely believed in the conditions, or believed that they could prevent a "communist Asia" as Haldeman's notes put it. Can be expanded, but, must be weighed against his post-election actions (pulling out of the war).
 * 2) Johnson going back on his promise: not relevant to whether what Nixon did was wrong. But can certainly be in the article and I even expanded on it. I don't mind seeing that expanded even further
 * 3) Sowing doubt on whether Chennault contacted them: removed, it's well documented through Diễm's messages to Thiệu. + not relevant to the question of whether or not Nixon gave the order
 * 4) SVN refusing the halt because they'd insist on the conditions even without US influence: removed. Not unlikely, but completely irrelevant to Nixon' mens rea and intent. Nixon believed a bombing halt was imminent and he actively attempted to prevent it.

The very, very POV "monkey wrench" essay from the Nixon Foundation spends most of its time on the three latter points, but none of the three are relevant when what's disputed is whether Nixon treated human lives as a political campaign tool. We should stick to presenting facts neutrally. Jikybebna (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't agree. You make it sound like the Nixon Foundation is a group of revanchist Nixon supporters. I'm aware of no reason for regarding them as such. There's no disagreement to the basic facts; what you are trying to do is edit the article to accord with the view that this is the worst thing Nixon ever did, which you apparently ascribe to. So your main issue is that of tone. This article presents in a a neutral voice, which is what is appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

education
"Though he had to ride a school bus an hour each way during his freshman year, he received excellent grades." What does riding a bus an hour each way have to do with his grades? That's like saying, "Though he wore plaid shirts, he received excellent grades." One has nothing to do with the other. Lots of kids have long bus rides. So what? That should be removed. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Gerald Ford link is not overlinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Nixon&action=history

I see that a user named User:Loafiewa keeps removing the Gerald Ford link in the infobox, and cites the reason as "MOS:OVERLINK". Why? It's very much not overlinking. Every other president has links to both their predecessor and successor. If you think there are too many Gerald Ford links on the page, then the others can be removed, but don't remove the link in the infobox. Aaronfranke (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is overlinking because Ford is already linked to in the list of VPs directly above it. Just as in the prose, I can see the rationale in linking to the same page if those links are several paragraphs apart, but there is no real purpose in doing it when they appear right next to each other, as is the case here. Loafiewa (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's consistent with the other pages for the other presidents to have links for the successor. There is no harm in having this link here twice. If anything it would make more sense to remove the VP link than the successor link, but I think both should be kept. Aaronfranke (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not really consistent, when looking at Kennedy, Carter, or Reagan, or any other president within that 40 or so year time frame, none of them link to the same person twice within the same infobox parameter. And there is no harm to having the link, it does not explicitly make the article worse, but it also does not make it better, and is more redundant than it is useful. Loafiewa (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that many users keep adding it back over and over again, it seems that there are a lot of people that think it is indeed helpful or consistent. IMO, it does make the article better. Aaronfranke (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead section on 1968 election
"..in 1968, he made another run for the presidency and was elected, narrowly defeating Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace in a close contest" – Nixon didn't "narrowly defeat" Wallace. There surely must be a better way of phrasing that. Harfarhs (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We could strike the word "narrowly"? Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We could do so. An alternative, which had not occurred to me at the time of my original comment, is the wording "..and was elected in a close contest, defeating George Wallace and, narrowly, Hubert Humphrey". How does that seem to you? Harfarhs (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit duplicative. I think eliminating "narrowly" is enough. Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't include any more words than the current version; it has two more commas and the same words in a different sequence. It would convey more information than simply omitting "narrowly" (because it would make clear both a) who came second and b) that third was not close to second). Notwithstanding that, I will happily go along with your final verdict on this. Harfarhs (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course Nixon narrowly defeated Humphrey! It was almost as close in popular vote as Nixon's last contest, with Kennedy: less than a single percentage point! It's impossible to get much closer than that. If a few hundred voters in strategic spots had voted differently, the whole electoral vote could have easily been reversed like a house of cards tumbling down. That's the problem with looking only at the electoral vote without considering the popular vote that basically controls it. Nixon's margin over Humphrey was hairsbreadth razor thin, just like Kennedy's over Nixon in 1960. Hence Nixon's remark about Humphrey the next day: "I know how it feels to lose a close one." Racing Forward (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to removal of "Dick Nixon" from boldface
In those mischievous White House tapes, civilian Nixon greeted then-President Johnson as "Dick Nixon" at least as late as 1967, if you look it up and listen on YouTube, so the use of "Dick Nixon" was certainly going full-blast then, although the "Tricky Dick" version might have taken the fun out of it for him. In informal conversations with peers, he was known for decades as identifying himself as "Dick Nixon." I chose the word "peers" with great care, however, since he liked "friends" such as Bebe Robozo to address him with his current title long before he was president, as "Senator Nixon" or "Vice President Nixon" or whatever he happened to be at any given time. He certainly considered Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to be peers although of course he always used "Mr. President" during the presidency of each and expected and received the same when he finally became president himself. The name "Dick Nixon" should certainly be cited in bold print because it was how he was widely thought of the entire time prior to his presidency, hence the darker but even more pervasive "Tricky Dick" (which should probably also receive mention in boldface because it was so relentlessly prevalent throughout his career). I lived through all of this myself, getting most of this information in real time. Listen to him on tape with Kennedy or Johnson and you'll see that he calls himself "Dick Nixon." What I don't remember until after he resigned is his dropping his middle initial, which was always in evidence on posters and in newspaper articles about him. I knew that he dropped it but I don't think it was before his political career had ended although it's certainly possible that it was. It was a sign of the times; now middle initials are generally out of favor but were once practically a necessity for practicing politicians, especially most presidents. While we're talking about alternate nicknames, unfortunately "RMN" doesn't have the same ring as FDR or JFK or LBJ although Nixon's last name was so short (five letters) that it practically made it a moot point. Nixon tried "RN" in imitation of his idol Theodore Roosevelt's "TR" but it never really caught on. I think we should definitely restore "Dick Nixon" in boldface; after all, Kennedy's Wikipedia article offers his nickname "Jack" in boldface and it would be a shame to shortchange Nixon's nickname. And "Dick Nixon" was far better known to the general public than "Jack Kennedy" at the time: the press was usually so reverent toward Kennedy during that era that they couldn't bear to bastardize the apparently shimmering elegance of "John F. Kennedy." Hey, if you happen to also be interested in Kennedy, check out The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter who broke both the My Lai and Abu Ghraib stories, assuming you haven't read it already. Racing Forward (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. "Dick" is a hypocorism for "Richard". MOS:HYPOCORISM provides guidance this, saying not to include the hypocorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a word I'd never encountered before! I do know that the "nickname" version of a person's name is often used in Wikipedia biographical articles; in fact, I cited the example of "Jack" Kennedy. "Jimmy" Stewart would be another one. I think it should boil down to the frequency that it was in general use, which was all the time in Nixon's case. Of course, if it's true that hypocorisms are not to be included under any circumstances, pruning such existing references could be a full-time job for at least one lifespan if not several. However, I defer to your point. Racing Forward (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "if it's true that hypocorisms are not to be included under any circumstances"
 * The point about MOS:HYPOCORISM, mentioned in that article, is whether or not the hypocorism is a common one for one of the given first names. It must surely be borne in mind that a) the frequency of use of a hypocorism will vary with time and location, and b) the operation of this guideline can only be guided by knowledge and experience of the language and culture represented in the article. Harfarhs (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, that's a much more reasonable approach and I appreciate your response, Harfarhs. The use of "Dick Nixon" was supremely common for Nixon during his entire active career; as I cited earlier, it was in even more widespread use than "Jack" for John F. Kennedy, and "Jack" is cited in the Wikipedia article for Kennedy. My own knowledge of the language and culture represented in the article is literally first-hand since I vividly remember him being referred to as "Dick Nixon" by practically everyone in informal conversation going as far back as his tenure as Vice President and moving forward from there until his presidency, during which it certainly continued in the guise of "Tricky Dick."  I think it's doing the facts a disservice to simply ignore that his nickname was Dick and I'll try to restore it again. Otherwise, the article leaves out a prominent aspect of his life. Racing Forward (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Muboshgu's answer is still valid. And Tricky Dick is not a nickname for Nixon, it is something used entirely by opponents.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * for whatever reason, the Mondale article uses "Fritz" even though most common usage in 2023 is "Walter Mondale" not "Fritz Mondale". Likewise, in coming decades we will most likely see "James Carter" and "William Clinton" take over. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * AUSPOLLIE, that's an interesting and audacious prediction, that "Jimmy" and "Bill" will be supplanted by the more formal "James" and "William" in coming decades regarding Carter and Clinton. That's something that's impossible to know at this point. I could see it going either way. Wehwalt, "Tricky Dick" was certainly at least as negative as it was prevalent but simply "Dick" is a true nickname that Nixon did use himself most of his life. It's not really necessary to bold-face "Tricky Dick" but think it's mandatory for "Dick." If you enjoy going through the White House recordings during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (they can be rollickingly entertaining), it's impossible not to notice that Nixon used "Dick" all the time while in conversation with those guys but never "Richard." Racing Forward (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. They were congressional colleagues from the time when he used Dick, of course. Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Chennault Affair
A recent edit added some info on Nixon's supposed sabotage of the Paris Peace talks in '68. I made a few slight alterations based on a few points: #1. Neither source states (as near as I can tell) that this was indeed Nixon's "secret" plan to end the war. So that part needed to come out. Secondly, one of the sources itself makes the point that Thieu's resistance to any agreement cannot entirely be put at the feet of the Nixon campaign (if true). Indeed, Thieu had to be browbeat into signing the agreement (by Nixon) 4 years later. And finally, to say (definitively) this was a violation of the Logan Act is something even the source doesn't say. The one source that mentions the Logan Act says it is a "seeming violation" of the act.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. We came to a consensus as to how to treat the affair a long time ago. Clark Clifford is certainly not someone we'd use for an opinion in Wikipedia's voice concerning a member of the Republican Party, especially Nixon, any more than we'd use the opinion of a Republican re a Democrat. I also removed a sentence that seems to have gotten added but hedged and said nothing. Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet one of the most biased of sources of opinion is cited here on the Chennault Affair, The Richard Nixon Library. THSlone (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At one time there was a problem with the Nixon Library, when it was run by the Nixon Foundation. Since 2007, it is a part of the National Archives, a part of the federal government. Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really neither here nor there on whether it should be included or not. I just took issue with how what was included was put.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1968 United States presidential election has a rather different take on the Logan Act than this page does, only citing Defense Secretary Clark Clifford's book in which he stated that he believed that Nixon violated the Logan Act. That statement is followed on that page by corroboration from presidential historian John A. Farrell in the NYT (which can also be found on Politico). THSlone (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen that segment of the '68 election before and I think it is a issue as far as WEIGHT and the fact it leaves out the fact Thieu didn't require much to get him to reject the accords. (Something he didn't even want to do years later.) But I've never felt strongly enough about it to do much about it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, and the Logan Act gets tossed around a lot in various connections but it's all very theoretical because no one in the 226 years (I think) the act's been in force has ever been convicted under it. Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that Thieu may have been easy to convince and that no one has been convicted of it are irrelevancies with regard to Nixon's criminal intent. THSlone (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well we were talking about what was missing from the '68 election article. Circumstances are important. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hoffa Pardon?
Anybody think his pardon of Hoffa is worth mentioning?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to leave it out (technically, it was a commutation) simply because it would be a coatrack for all the speculation about it that has occurred in fifty-odd years. Maybe in the presidency article? Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Probably would open quite a can of worms.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Recently increased number of top-level headings
I think this article's structure has regressed; compare this October 4 version to the current one, and you'll see that there are now far more top-level headings, an increase from 16 to 21. Subjectively, it leads the article to feel less organized and more "daunting", since it gives equal prominence to the longest section (on his presidency), and to very short and minor sections about his political rise. Each phase of Nixon's life isn't equally noteworthy, so I favour grouping those sections into a "Rising politician" section. That's how it was organized when the article passed FAC, too. It seems like this was changed in this October 2022 edit by, which has not so far been discussed on this talk page. — DFlhb (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No objection. Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That version of heading minimizes the importance of the vice presidency and the 1960 presidential campaign, as well as his years before running again in 1968 as secondary chapters of his life. Those are rather critical and notable chapters.


 * Note how articles such as Kamala Harris, John F. Kennedy do not tend to minimize important chapters of a politicians’s career into a single consolidated primary heading just because they preceded the office for which they are most known.


 * 2011 (when it passed FA) is a long time ago (more than a whole decade), and standards and conventions have evolved since then
 * SecretName101 (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Need a Nixon expert on another page
Please see Talk:Timothy_Leary. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

More info
About visit in Soviet Union: Nixon returned in the city where he stayed for two months as a child in 12 years - Degtyarsk. 2A00:1FA2:200:5935:0:2B:9CFD:E01 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, Richard Nixon never left the United States until his naval service in World War II. Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

War on Drugs/War on Cancer
Neither of these terms are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources and therefore go against MOS:CAPS. : 3 F4U (they/it) 20:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * How do we know that the lower case "war on xxxx" refer to the Nixon-era programs? Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Among news sources, there is no indication that there is anything even resembling a substantial majority for "war on drugs" (and I'm certain the same is the case with cancer). Regardless, Wikipedia doesn't capitalize unless it can be shown that there is a need to capitalize.
 * Lowercase
 * Time Magazine
 * Vox
 * The Guardian
 * NBC News
 * CNN
 * Quartz
 * BBC
 * The Atlantic
 * AP News
 * Insider
 * Chicago Tribune
 * Huffpost
 * The Nation
 * Salon
 * NYTimes
 * Uppercase
 * Politico
 * NPR (Inconsistently)
 * The Hill
 * The Washington Post
 * : 3 F4U (they/it) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Changed in all cases. Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Poker dispute
User:Drdpw and I disagree as to whether Category:American poker players and Category:Amateur poker players are appropriate. I say they are. Nixon's poker winnings helped finance his first political campaign (as noted in a The Independent article), and this Card Player article states that Nixon himself said that the skills he learned from poker proved invaluable in his political career. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Poker playing was not a noteworthy part of Nixon's life and he was not known for being a poker player in life. Drdpw (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this one. Nixon's most famous playing of poker was in the Navy, before he became notable, and he did not apparently play in his later years. He famously invested the winnings in his first political campaign, though how much he actually spent is somewhat open to question, since he received financing from local businesspeople and the "investment" may have meant the family lived off the savings while he campaigned in 1946. Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles disagree about it not being a "noteworthy part", e.g. How playing poker in the Navy transformed Richard Nixon (San Antonio Express-News; subscription required, but the title says it all), How Nixon's WWII Poker Game Helped Bankroll His First Run for Congress (History Channel), and especially in the PokerNews article Poker & Pop Culture: Tricky Dick Talks Poker in the White House, which states he did play poker as a politician and that Tip O'Neill wrote in his autobiography that he told Nixon that "you're one of the worst poker players I've ever seen." These show that he is known (and discussed) as a poker player after his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose categorizing Nixon as a poker player because I do not think that was one of his defining characteristics. Although it is true, I consider it to be a very minor aspect of his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Defining characteristics such as Whittier High School alumni, Whittier Poets football players and Fullerton Union High School alumni? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes? The phrase Nixon is a Whittier High School alumni sounds fine—Nixon is an American poker player does not. : 3 F4U (they/it) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd POV sentence
Our lead says Without contextualizing the now-accepted mainstream view that he prolonged the war by many years and many deaths, and that the all-volunteer army paved the way for ongoing US military adventures in the Mideast. Any ideas about framing this more neutrally or at least helping readers avoid undue conclusions about these actions? SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't get what is UNDUE about those statements. He campaigned on doing both....and did both by 1973.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He campaigned on a secret plan to end the Vietnam War in 1968 -- and intensified the bombing and other deadly initiatives for an additional 4+ years thereafter. All things eventually come to an end, but I'd say Hanoi ended the war more than Nixon, wouldn't you? SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How could he have ended the war in '68 when he took office in '69? His time table certainly shifted around....but the fact remains: he campaigned on ending the war, and American combat units were gone by 1973. So I still don't see the issue with that statement. The fact that he escalated bombing and went into Cambodia are covered in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comes off as snide remark, Rja. I said he campaigned in 1968. OK with you now? We know it's in the article, but why is Nixon's escalation switcheroo not in the lead alongside the fact that the war eventually ended before he was sacked? SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A snide remark was not my intent. The fact is, he never really had a firm time table. He didn't give one in his acceptance speech at the '68 GOP Convention....and there wasn't one in the '68 GOP platform. And by '72, our forces (and casualties) had been cut by more than 90% in Vietnam....and by '73, they were gone. I would certainly consider that ending American involvement.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you propose to cover the "switcheroo"?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would propose saying that he failed to fulfill his 1968 campaign vow to quickly end the war, escalated it sporadically but brutally over the course of his first term, and that his actions led to widespread domestic protests and civic unrest, culminating in the Kent State Shooting of 1970. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think that is a bit more POV than what is already there. Something more neutral would be (to me): "after escalating the Vietnam War [maybe a link to the Cambodian incursion somewhere around here] at times, he ended American involvement in Vietnam combat by 1973 and the military draft in the same year."
 * It's a little difficult to call all of his actions a escalation when American troop levels did nothing but fall during his tenure.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my proposal is inconsistent with the decline in troop levels. He just found a new technology to escalate by using more brutal but less politically sensitive methods. The reduction of troop levels and all-volunteer army were conceived and have functioned as ways to generate less domestic opposition to armed conflicts with largescale deployment of conscripts. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen RS that says Nixon hoped to undermine the anti-Vietnam War movement with this move. (As many protests were anti-draft.) But you seem to be saying he hoped this would give a blank check for future conflicts....that part I haven't seen (in RS). [Comment: I do have to say this is somewhat amusing: it puts Nixon in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. End the draft (which is what the anti-war movement wanted)? You just want future wars. Don't end the draft? You just want to kill poor & minorities in the MIC's games. After all these years, I still kind of pity the guy. Oh well.]Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Trivial, but...New Jerseyan Nixon or New Yorker Nixon?
Hey everyone! I was looking into presidents' official places of residence, specifically their official home state / state of residence. To do so, one of the sources I used was the NARA's collection of Death File records from the Social Security Administration. On said records, the zip code of someone's residence at the time of their death is given. For some reason, contrary to all other records for presidents among the Death Files, Nixon's residence (and his wife's residence) is different than their commonly acknowleged residence: the zipcode given in the source links to Bronxville, New York rather than New Jersey. Does anyone have any evidence or opinions that may help with this matter? Thank you!

The source is: https://aad.archives.gov/aad/record-detail.jsp?dt=3003&mtch=71&cat=all&tf=F&sc=29343,29348,29350,29353,29354,29355,29362,29370,29371,29372&q=richard+nixon&bc=sl,fd&rpp=10&pg=2&rid=5274443&rlst=5273987,5274030,5274034,5274266,5274307,5274411,5274443,5274910,5275189,5275198 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzy4Prezz (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Nixon and Bangladesh
This article is missing information about Nixon and his alleged complicity in the Bangladesh genocide during the Bangladesh Liberation War. This topic was most prominently the subject of the 2013 book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide by Gary J. Bass. This isn't just any old book; it not only has its own Wikipedia article, but also was one of the two finalists for the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction and won the 2014 Cundill Prize, probably the most prestigious award for a general history book (the Pulitzer Prize for History is limited to US history), among other awards.

It also received significant coverage in multiple news publications, the most notable of which are:
 * a 2013 review from The New York Times by Dexter Filkins,
 * a 2016 article from The New York Times by Ellen Barry,
 * a 2013 review from The Washington Post by Neil Sheehan,
 * and a lengthy 2013 review from The New Yorker by Pankaj Mishra.

This information is already featured prominently in Henry Kissinger and Bangladesh genocide, although those articles are admittedly not featured articles. Regardless, I feel that this article ignores major recent scholarship that was published after this article's promotion to featured status in 2011. If this article has room to mention Nixon's elimination of the Cabinet-level United States Post Office Department, his purchase of a condominium in New York City in 1979, and his meeting with newspaper publishers in 1986, it should have room for this consequential policy of Nixon's presidency.

I saw in the archives that Bangladesh was previously brought up, most recently here, but I don't think they made a strong enough case for its inclusion. Malerisch (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is Bangladesh mentioned prominently in biographies and biographical articles on Nixon? It's hard to judge just by "there are articles and a book on this". Nixon is a very well covered individual who has provoked scholarship on many aspects of his career, not all of which can be covered in this main biographical article that is the tip of the iceberg on the subject of Nixon here. We cover China, Vietnam, the USSR, Latin America and the Middle East with their own subsections in this article, and all without doubt hugely important aspects of Nixon's foreign policy. What I guess I'm looking for is evidence that these big five should be supplemented by another in an article in which we cannot cover everything. Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think Bangladesh is prominently mentioned in Nixon biographies, but this is probably due to the fact that the necessary sources were only relatively recently declassified. I would also give more weight to books that have earned major awards and scholarly recognition.


 * I also think that it's unjustified to exclude topics just because they're not mentioned in books that cover the whole subject of the article, especially when they're more recent. To give an analogy, the assassination of John F. Kennedy is also an extremely well-covered topic that was just promoted to a featured article a couple of months ago (and which you supported!), and it includes recent information about Paul Landis that is primarily based on a single NYT article and obviously isn't included in any published book on the assassination as a whole.


 * Furthermore, including Bangladesh doesn't necessarily mean creating a new subsection; since it's inextricably tied to Nixon's China policy, this information could conceivably be added there. Malerisch (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you propose some language? Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a proposed addition as well. I also share Wehwalt's concern about (as I take it) WEIGHT. A good measuring stick is always the bios of heavyweight historians for such a pivotal figure in history. And this (overall) isn't anything new that scholars (or whomever) are discovering because of declassification. Christopher Hitchens (for one) was heavily critical of the Nixon admin on this subject in his 2001 book The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Of course, new info always appears as things are declassified....but it remains to be seen how historians treat this (if at all).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I could work on a proposed addition, but I'd like to discuss how much coverage Bangladesh should get first. By the way, John A. Farrell's 2017 biography of Nixon, Richard Nixon: The Life, which was a 2018 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography, prominently features Bangladesh (known then as East Pakistan) in the second half of Chapter 23: The Week That Changed the World (from page 451 to page 460). I feel like this lends credence to Bangladesh being its own section. Malerisch (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But it appears Nixon's role in this "genocide" appears on only a few pages (out of a 700+ page book). That's what I was talking about before. As far as how much "coverage Bangladesh should get first".....I'm not sure. We don't currently have a South Asia section in the article. Maybe we should introduce a (brief) one?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't counted the exact number, but Nixon's foreign policy on Latin America (Cuba and Chile) appears on fewer pages than Bangladesh in this biography. So if Latin America gets a subsection, why not Bangladesh? Malerisch (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, first off: it is a single biography. And secondly, I suggested a South Asia section because it covers all the countries involved.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a South Asia section. It is a single biography, but it should be weighted more due to WP:RSAGE. Malerisch (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way (I'm genuinely curious here), since I haven't read Blood Telegram (at least not in its entirety)....what revelation on this subject does it provide that is so important? I went back and looked (for example) at a general history the of the USA during this time period (since Nixon bios typically don't make much mention of this subject). I am speaking of 'Grand Expectations, The United States, 1945-1974' (a Bancroft Prize winner published in 1996 by Oxford University Press, written by James T. Patterson who (among other things) has taught at Brown, and was the Harold Vyvyan Harmsworth Professor of American History at Oxford). In this text (packed full of the ups and downs of US foreign policy during this period, as well as domestic), this issue warrants a single paragraph (in a 800+ page book) that says this about Nixon's role in this (p.747-748): "Not all of Nixon's foreign policies during this time evoked praise. By focusing so intently on great power relationships the President proved himself as blind as his predecessors in the White House to much of the rest of the world. Even rising powers such as Japan felt slighted. The concentration on what the Soviets and Chinese were doing caused special neglect of regional conflicts. This was obvious in South Asia, where Nixon and Kissinger were overeager in 1971 to court Pakistan as a conduit for their secret approaches to China. For this and other reasons (they thought the Soviets were masterminding Indian opposition to Pakistan) they sided with Pakistan's brutal suppression of the Bengalis, who sought to secede. It was later estimated that Pakistan killed as many as a million people. Nixon's highly secretive policy, rooted in notions about great power balance, ignored the expertise of State Department specialists in the region. It caused lasting ill feeling with the Bengals and with India."
 * So outside of the "ignored" telegram (what I gather Blood Telegram talks about to some degree) what does this source say beyond what the RS above (from 1996) says? What is the revelation here that warrants the RSAGE argument? (Again: this isn't a gotcha question.....the passage I quoted above is what I have always understood this event to be as far as Nixon is concerned.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on this subject. But from what I understand, although the broad strokes of Nixon's policy were previously known, The Blood Telegram fleshes out the details. Quoting from the preface: To this day, four decades after the massacres, the dead hand of Nixonian cover-up still prevents Americans from knowing the full record. The White House staff routinely sanitized their records of conversations, sometimes at Kissinger’s specific urging. Even now, mildewed and bogus claims of national security remain in place to bleep out particularly embarrassing portions of the White House tapes. Kissinger struck a deal with the Library of Congress that, until five years after his death, blocks researchers from seeing his papers there unless they have his written permission. Even if you could get in, according to the Library of Congress, many of Kissinger’s most important papers are still hidden from daylight by a thicket of high-level classifications, security clearances, and need-to-know permissions. Kissinger did not reply to two polite requests for an interview, and then, four months later, refused outright. But against Nixon and Kissinger’s own misrepresentations and immortal stonewalling, there is a different story to be found in thousands of pages of recently declassified U.S. papers, in dusty Indian archives, and on unheard hours of the White House tapes—offering a more accurate, documented account of Nixon and Kissinger’s secret role in backing the perpetrators of one of the worst crimes of the twentieth century.

The preface also states: Knowing full well that they were acting illegally, [Nixon and Kissinger] provided U.S. weapons to Pakistan, which was under a U.S. arms embargo—an unknown scandal that is of a piece with the overall pattern of lawlessness that culminated with Watergate. As recently declassified documents and transcripts prove, Nixon and Kissinger approved a covert supply of sophisticated U.S. fighter airplanes via Jordan and Iran—despite explicit and emphatic warnings from both the State Department and the Defense Department that such arms transfers to Pakistan were illegal under U.S. law.

The rest of the book is filled with reporting that uses the sources mentioned above, as well as "interviews with White House staffers and Indian military leaders".

Bass actually fully declassified more tapes after the publication of The Blood Telegram in 2013, so he published an op-ed in the NYT in 2020 with further revelations about Nixon's "racism and misogyny" toward Indians.

Farrell's biography includes The Blood Telegram in its bibliography and appears to summarize its events. Malerisch (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023
Change "...a descendant of Cornell University founder..." to "...an ancestor of Cornell University founder..." LocalMinimum (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hyphenation Expert (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)