Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 4

Michael Moore
Apologies if I've missed any reference to this in the article proper or the talk page, but years ago I read a thing where Michael Moore said that RMN was the most liberal postwar president - or perhaps even the only truly liberal postwar president. I think that opinion is notable because it comes from a relatively unexpected quarter. It'd be good if someone could track down that quotation and put it in the legacy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.37.34 (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is greatly affected by which era of liberalism he is referring to. He was most likely referring to Nixon's spending record. Then again, if you use that definition, Bush is even more "liberal" than Nixon. He may also have been employing sarcasm. Please check the context of that quote before adding it.--75.48.22.63 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article recently failed WP:GA. In the next few weeks I will be trying to improve this article so as to help make it WP:GA, particularly in the area of NPOV, but in other areas as well. It is obvious that this article needs some major work so I may be making changes with little or no discussion. Any help or comments would be appreciated, but I take NPOV very seriously.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article still has NPOV issues. It mentions briefly at the end that Regan had an ability to do things wrong and not get blamed for it (in the political legacy section) - but doesn't directly address anywhere specific areas where his presidency missed an opportunity or made a bad decision. The style of the article is good, but the actual content could well be from a fansite. I'd like to see some pros and cons. 71.60.20.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Where did Nixon work after college?
I have found at least three different referances that say three different firms, after he passed the bar. I will not change the reference now, but I did erase the reference to an "unnamed" family friend. Unless he is named, that should not be included.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to improve it or wreck it.
To the biased editors who see fit to continue to challenge NPOV, you must ask yourself, are you really trying to improve this article, or do you see it as your duty to make Nixon look bad. It seems to me that we heve a dispute, and per policy I wish to have a thirsd party administrator come in and settle the problem. I don't see why you two must use your own bias to mek Nixon look worse. It may have been controversial to you, but not to everyone, and certainly not to me. The best way to present that information is to only present the basic facts. It being controversial is not a fact, it is a bias. Another aside, Nixon was not tried and convicted, but you present the facts like it was ineveitable. Please be more careful and lets not have an edit war since I am hoping that your intention is to improve the article and not to disrupt it.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How funny, you are attempting to use your own personal bias (your opinion that the pardon was not controversial) as a screen to remove the fact that at the time it was a controversial act. Whether something is controversial or not is objective, not subjective; whether you think it was controversial or not is irrelevant (you may also happen to think that coal is white, but that wouldn't make any difference to the reality): something is controversial if there existed a controversy over it, and there did over Ford's pardon of Nixon.  Thus whether the pardon was controversial or not is itself controversial.
 * You are also trying to improve Nixon's image by using weasel words such as "alleged cover-up" in Watergate, when his involvement is a fact. You also removed the word illegal describing the cover-up, on the rather ridiculous notion that a cover-up implies illegality, when it does nothing of the sort. Telling lies is not illegal, unless under oath. Impeding justice is.  You are also inconsistent in your deletion of likely conviction, but are happy for likely impeachment to stay.  Why so?  His conviction was as likely as his impeachment. Cripipper (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your version of events assumes too much. You may believe theat he was guilty, but we must stick to the facts. First, to be consitant, we must not use the word controversial, because it may not be controversial to all. Therefore saying it was controversial implies that everyone thinks the same way. Better to be consistant with just the facts than to add a "controversial" tag on it. Second, you imply that Nixon's conviction was a forgone conclusion. Whether he would have been convicted or not, history may never know, but to imply it as fact is simply biased. Third, In law, a person is guilty until proven innocent, but you also imply that he was guilty, yet there was no trial to convict him. He was pardoned. Aleged is a perfectly good word to use in this case, since he was never tried or convicted on any charges. We cannot assume that he was guilty, we cannot assume that he would have been convicted, and we cannot assume that everyone thought that the pardon was controversial. To do any of these things, I believe, inserts a personal bias into the article. Better to stick to the straight facts rather than argue the particulars.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - here are the facts:
 * 1)A controversy existed over whether pardoning Nixon was the right thing for Ford to do, therefore the pardon was controversial. A fact.
 * 2)Nowhere does it say that Nixon's conviction was a foregone conclusion, it says his conviction was likely. Another fact.
 * 3)Nowhere does it say that Nixon was found legally guilty of anything. But an allegation is an assertion that is as yet unproven, and Nixon's involvement in Watergate has been proven, not in a court of law, but by history. A fact. (Read the article on Watergate tapes and you can listen to the White House Tapes that prove it if you don't want to believe every historian who has written on the subject).
 * 4)There are no assumptions here, just facts. Cripipper (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sugarcoating any negative facts about Nixon to make him "not seem so bad" is the epitomy of personal bias. Sdornan (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I requested an informal third opinion from the very same admin who reviewed this article last month for WP:GA review. He agrees that the word controversial should not be in the header since it is already mentioned later in the article. Next he says that we could replace the word "likely" with "possible". A phrase that I have no problem with. As for the "aleged" part of my edits, I will leave that out since the wording now states that "Ford issued a pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have commited while in office" which covers more than just Watergate. Please see my talk page to see the third opinion. Also, since we both seem to be after the same goal, WP:GA, do you have a plan to clean up the citation problem? As for me, I am waiting for two books from my local library that may help in the citation process. One of these "Nixon: A life in full" by Conrad Black is in the bibliography of this article, but does not seem to be cited anywhere in the article. The other "Nixonland: The rise of a president and the fracturing of America", is not in the bibliography nor the citation list.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with this change. Even his biography at, which would probably be more concerned with casting presidents in a good light than anywhere else says "Faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment". "Likely" is much less harsh than "certain", but still in the same realm. "Possible" just doesn't convey the real fact at all. Sdornan (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The pardon was controversial, and both impeachment and conviction were likely, not just possible. (The House committee had recommended impeachment, and Barry Goldwater felt that he had at most 4 solid votes for Nixon, and six maybes, himself included. Cripipper (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me why you have issues with the word "possible". The article is not propaganda and should reflect truth not conjecture.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it does not reflect the historical reality. According to, for example, the senior conservative senator Barry Goldwater, Nixon could expect the votes of, at most, 10 senators in a trial (four certains and six undecided - Goldwater included).  I want to use the word "likely" instead of "possible" for the simple reason that according to the historical evidence his impeachment and conviction were likely and not merely possible. Cripipper (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, Nixon resigned. We have no way of knowing what the ultimate result may have been. We only know that some Senators were planning on voting for impeachment, without a single charge being brought up in the House of Reps. There is no telling whether any senator would change his mind based on the House precedings. Therefore it was not a forgone conclusion that he would be charged, but it was possible.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, this is not about your opinion, or mine, of what was likely or possible or inevitable. Nowhere is it saying it was a foregone conclusion, because if that were the case then it would be the word certain that is employed. But it's not, it's likely.  And to repeat my earlier point, that is why he resigned, when it moved from the realms of possibility to likelihood. Cripipper (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia community understands that no two editors can ever agree on every point all of the time. That is why I put the subject up for a third party opinion, which was my right to. The opinion came back saying that "posible" was a more reasonable phrase than "likely". You have not respected the policy on disputes and you have continued to revert edits even when wikipedia policy says that you should not. Continuing an edit war even when the dispute is resolved, is frowned upon by most other editors. I respect your opinion on the subject, but you must follow policy. If we cannot agree, then do you have a more sensible way to reach a verdict?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the problem, this is all about your opinion, rather than the history. I suggest we stick to the conclusions of the historians. Wouldn't you agree? Cripipper (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So for the record, do you have a solution that uses wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely WP:verifiability. Cripipper (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that you can come up with a billion source that say what you want the article to say. He may very well have been convicted, BUT, we must not ignore the fact that he was not. Therefore without a trial or a single charge being brought up to support the opinions of the media, we must not say that his conviction was likely, since not one shred of evidence was ever brought forward to support a conviction in Congress.
 * And I asked you to find a way to break our deadlock, not find a policy to support you opinion. Thats called gaming the system.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the media, we are talking about historians and participants in the events. We are not talking about whether he would have been convicted or not, we are talking about whether at the time of his resignation his conviction was likely. it was. That is what both historians and his closest political allies say, so please explain to me in detail why you find it so objectionable. Cripipper (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You say this is all about bringing this article up to GA status, when in reality you are fixating on a point that is not even mentioned in the GA review, on a topic which by your own admission you know very little about, . You jumped in feet first in what appears to be a blatant attempt to gently improve Nixon's image in the intro - "alleged cover-up", "possible conviction", "non-controversial pardon"... Cripipper (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then how do you wish to settle the disagreement. See WP:Dispute. Please use one of the commonly accepted ways to solve disputes. I have already tried one, but you ignored it. I am allowing you to pick the manner of dispute resolution, since the third opinion was not satisfactory to you. I will abide by the ruling if you will.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a first step why don't you provide reliable sources to support the changes you want to make. Cripipper (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has already been determined by a third party admin that the word "likely" is POV, please explain why you will not accept that decision.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, with the greatest respect to him, I am not sure he entirely knows what he is talking about in relation to Watergate, as evidenced by his comments in the review. So back to my point, please provide evidence of reliable sources that consider the impeachment merely possible and not likely, and then we will move forward in this disupte resolution. Otherwise it is simply you inserting your own opinion. Cripipper (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what, why don't you go over to the Watergate article, and water it down to a discussion of Nixon's possible conviction, and we will settle the dispute on this article in accordance with whatever is agreed in the inevitable dispute that erupts over there. Agreed? Cripipper (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:civil. As your tone on this discussion seems to be diverting away from the subject and towards a personal attack on me in general, by taunting me and calling my edits "watering down". I do not wish to placate your accomplishments on wikipedia. I know that you only have the articles best interest in mind, as I do. So, per Wp:Dispute, I am taking a break in order for the subject to cool down. I feel that you have insulted me and I do not wish to continue at this time.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so this article has had the same wording for months that no one has objected to. In our eyes, you've come in, claimed NPOV, and changed the article with the opinion that "Watergate wasn't really that serious". After Watergate, Nixon's approval rating dropped to 24%. If you look at history and what actually happened, impeachment was certain, despite what you want to change the article to read. A news article published at that time by The Washington Post says that the House Judiciary Committee voted 27-11 for an impeachment recommendation. It was going to happen. Direct quote from The Washington Post: "Even his closest aides told him he had to resign or face the almost certain prospect of impeachment." If you're the President of the United States, the choice of resignation is not one that comes lightly. The reason he resigned was to save face, so that textbooks would forever say that he "resigned" instead of was "impeached". These aren't opinions, these are historical facts. These are events that occurred and were reported in the press. I don't see how you can claim NPOV when historical documents and primary/secondary sources are right there with the facts. Sdornan (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the pardon was controversial. And he would have been convicted if not for it. According to The History Place, "a total of 25 officials from his administration, including four cabinet members, were eventually convicted and imprisoned for various crimes." You don't think that the man in charge getting off the hook despite this would have been controversial? Sdornan (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the definition of controversy from The American Heritage Dictionary is "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." If I may make an analogy, it would be like editing the Iraq War article to say that it isn't controversial. Sdornan (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you have taken offense at use of the phrase 'watered down'. I used it since possible is inherently a weaker adjective than likely, thus the switch from the latter to the former is, to my mind, watering it down. However, no offence was intended. Cripipper (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re my advice: I am sorry that I seem to have provoked some bitterness by my recommendation of the use of the word "possible" in the above context. This really isn't an issue worth fighting over. If a thing is possible, it means it could happen. The word doesn't necessarily mean there's only a small chance of it happening, though some take it to mean that. I suggested it as the most neutral word I could think of, in a situation bound to stir partisan feelings, but it is, after all, only the suggestion of one editor (I am not an admin, by the way). As to my view on the "controversial" pardon, as I said, the word is fine provided it is cited to a source, but I don't think it should be used uncited in the lead. I see that in today's version of the article the "likely" conviction has been cited to a source, and the word controversial has been removed from the lead. I'd call that an honourable result all round, and I hope this resoves the matter. By the way (see above), what part of Watergate is it supposed I didn't understand when doing the GA review? Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment that it was incorrect to talk of Nixon's impeachment/conviction for involvement in the 'Watergate Scandal' rather than the cover-up. The 'Watergate Scandal', as it is commonly perceived, includes (one could say is largely) the story of cover-up, rather than the more narrow issue of the actual break-in, which is what I presume you were referring to. Cripipper (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets get to business
I have just checked out a book on Nixon and plan to cite some parts of the book. I hope first split the section on Law/Marriage/War into three seperate sections, then expand them. This was suggested in the GA review and I think it is a good idea. Also much of the article lacks sufficient citations. If we work hard, we may be able to resubmit for review in a few weeks, depending on how much free time we both have. The important thing is to make sure that the citations are correct and properly formatted. I think that if deal with these issue, it may pass the second time. Happy editing--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove reference to the Supply Corps
In the section describing President Nixon's activities during World War II it is stated he served in the Supply Corps. The U.S. Navy Supply Corps has no record of President Nixon. Suggest to remove this reference. NavsupHq (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is cited in the book by Conrad Black. Perhaps the information you may have looked at is incomplete.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On a more detailed review, it seems that the information on the supply corp was a left-over from the previous version of this article that I did not think to change. I perused the pages in the Black book and could not even find the phase supply corp. Nice catch, and thanks for the help. Happy editing--Jojhutton (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening up the same can of worms i'm afraid
I hate to open up an old wound and I was ready to capitulate the word likely, but perhaps, since WP:Cite was so important to everyones argument on the word "likely impeached and convicted", I have found a citation of my own that challenges that phrase. In the book by Conrad Black, he says on page 990 in the last paragraph and I quote

"Once the hysterical emotionalism had subsided, it is still not clear that he would have been convicted if he received a fair trial."

This I believe, was my own argument earlier, but now I have a respected biographer who can be cited.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Conrad Black is the best expert to cite in this regard, since he also believed that he wouldn't be convicted. But at least now he's got plenty of free time in prison to work on the next one :) Nick.wiebe (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point and it is difficult to argue against that logic. I will though point out one possible retraction to that statement and then I will point out one more flaw in the way the sentence is worded and is cited.


 * 1. Conrad Black was charged and convicted with a crime that had absolutly nothing to do with his writing at all. I think he was convicted with several counts of civil fraud and raketeering. Although, that means he made bad choices in that arena, that does not in any way detract from his ability to form a valid argument on Nixon's possible impeachment. Since the original argument for keeping the wording the way it is now, was Verifiability, it was my intention to introduce a cited counter argument.


 * 2. The second point is that the citation that links to the current source is not properly formatted, and the Goldwater book is not in the bibliography. Technically it needs to be removed or fixed. So as it standes right now, Conrad Black is the only properly formated and cited source in this article that says that Nixon's conviction was not a forgone conclusion.


 * If anyone has a counter argument, I welcome your opinions. Thanks and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was being snarky, but in truth, I think that this 'would he have been convicted' issue is very speculative, and probably should not be in the article. A lot of biographers have come to the conclusion that Nixon committed illegal acts, and so perhaps it should be left at that. Nick.wiebe (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The speculation, at this point, is with the phrase "likely conviction", over "possible conviction". To say likely implies that it would have happened if he had not resigned. (speculation).--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to get to the party so late. I actually had read this earlier and mistakenly thought that it was a discussion of the probability of Nixon's conviction on criminal charges after leaving office.  Where I got that idea, I don't know.  Anyway, I think that "likely conviction" is acceptable regarding the phrase in the article right now.  Though it was not as much a part of the news cycle 30-40 years ago as it is now, polling of people and canvassing of politicians did exist back then.  My recollection is not perfect, because I don't remember if the number I read back then was 12 or 14, (but it was one or the other), but anyway, I remember reading a wire story on August 6 or 7 in which the reporter had canvassed the members of the Senate Republican caucus, and they had come up with 12/14 Senators who said that they would still vote to keep Nixon in office. This was either the same day or the day after Barry Goldwater had announced that he would no longer support Nixon if it came to a Senate trial.  The point is, yes, it is speculation that Nixon would have been convicted in a Senate trial, but it's about as speculative as the statement, "There will be celebrations in Nashville if the Titans win the Super Bowl this year".  Speculation?  Sure.  But not the same thing as "If the Titans can keep their offensive line healthy, they will win the Super Bowl this year."  Yeah, I know, neither of those statements are competing for placement in a Wikipedia article, but that's not my point.  I'm just saying that speculation comes in all shades of gray, and this speculation is dark enough that it's near impossible to tell the difference between it and a bona fide fact.


 * Anyway, by saying "likely" instead of "certain" I think we cover our bases here. I think it is vital that people learning about this from our article understand the duress that Nixon was under which precipitated his resignation.  Young people today (i.e., under 40) might think that the Nixon and Clinton impeachments were comparable, since both of them faced a Congress controlled by the other party, but the comparison fails on many, many counts.  Nixon and Clinton made the same calculation, and Nixon resigned because he knew he would become the first President removed from office, and Clinton stuck it out because he felt certain that he would survive a Senate trial.  Still, having said that, I think it would be not too much to ask for this verbiage to be supported by some citations.  If I wasn't following the matter very closely at the time, I too would probably object to the "near certain" and "likely" verbiage used here.  It needs support.  Unschool (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

nixon was not the only man to be on his party's presidential ticket five times
The article states that Richard Nixon was the only person to be on his party's Presidential ticket five times. This is incorrect. Richard Nixon was one of only two persons to be on their party's Presidential ticket five times, the other was Franklin D Roosevelt. FDR was on the Democratic ticket in 1920 as the Vice Presidential nominee, with James Cox as the Presidential nominee. FDR was then the Democratic nominee, and winner for four terms as President of the US. In five contests each, Nixon and FDR have the identical record of four wins versus one loss. Nixon won two terms as VP, lost one try as President, then won two terms as President. FDR lost one try for VP, then won four straight terms as President. Please see Wikipedia article on FDR under the Cox/Roosevelt ticket of 1920.Midnight flyer (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. You are right and I made the change. You don't need to wait for discussion on issues like this. See WP:Bold. As long as you make a viable change and add a reason in the edit summary, most editors will agree with you and will assume good faith. Again nice catch, and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He was in fact the only man to be nominated on his parties presidential ticket five times, as Franklin D. Roosevelt was on Democratic party tickets, and Richard Nixon was on Republican party tickets.RSFSG (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Added photo of copy of letter
Added a photograph I took of a multi-generation photocopy of the original resignation letter of Richard Nixon. I got my copy from my lawyer in 1976 who had it framed on his wall as a reminder that no one is above the law. He said a lawyer friend had its parent copy and he asked to photocopy it. I did the same. Thus, it is likely that this at least a fifth or six generation photocopy and possibly more. This is how information moved around the world in the era before digital cameras, jpgs and the internet.

The original is most likely in the US archives. Akonga (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nixon_Resignation_Letter.jpg#Summary

New election Boxes
The boxes that contain Nixon's election results make the article look gangly and disturb the flow. I like the addition of the information though and as long as it doesn't hurt the articles chances for WP:GA, I think that the info should stay. We will find out when the article gets renominated. There is still problems with citations, particularly citation #1 which is formated incorrectly and is not even in the bibliography.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joj's point about the election boxes. Though they are attractive and useful in isolation, their placement does disrupt the flow of the whole article.Unschool (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, we agreed on something. Mark the date and time for this historic occasion. By the way, LOL. Thanks Unschool. Louie I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship--Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Joj, I've seen enough of your contributions to guess that we'd probably agree with 97% of each other's editorial decisions. And, like you, when I do disagree with someone, it's sincere, as is my desire to work things out.  And, given that it appears we have a few articles in which we share a common interest, it's quite probable that we haven't had our last lengthy discussion.  I'm just glad that you're as rational a contributor as you are.  Even when you're wrong. :-)  Unschool (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Resignation letter image
Hi, can someone with edit privileges replace the resignation letter image with Image:Richard Nixon letter of resignation 1974.png? This new image has fewer brown spots (a US federal govt scan, so I guess its from the original). 118.90.59.31 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, this copy of the letter is much better than the previous one. I made the switch.--Gloriamarie (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just uploaded a color version, would this be even better? Image:Nixon_Letter_of_Resignation_Color.jpg? Acdx 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein
MicronXD (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it might be nice to create a link to ben stein as one of his speech writers. (link not just a note about him)

Law Career
I think you might flush out the law career section to include his career in NYC: Nixon, Mudge, Rose Guthrie & Alexander Partner (1964-69) Mudge, Stern, Baldwin & Todd Counsel (1963-64) Adams, Duque & Hazeltine Counsel (1961-63) (Ref: http://www.nndb.com/people/110/000024038/) (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudge_Rose_Guthrie_Alexander_&_Ferdon)Azulita (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Azulita

Notes and References Section
I think that the titles for the Notes and References should be switched 66.16.158.235 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost ready for another GA review
A few hard working editors have been painstakingly fixing and reworking parts of this article. No amount of thanks or gratitude can say enough. There is still a section that is completly uncited, and an uncited sentence near the end of the section on public perception that begins It should be noted..., which is a bit weasely if you ask me.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing citation tag
I am going remove the citation tag from the section on the space program. User:ERcheck has done a great job on the article and the section by provididing citations for just about evrything that needed them. If anyone still feels that the section needs the tag, then place it back and we can discuss it here.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting the Template Name Right
(an editor insists on more discussion: this duplicates my post at George W Bush)

The template is Template:Infobox Person.

Under Parameter, name, it states the following: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name).".

Name use, identity, here should reflect what's found in our secondary and tertiary reliable sources. Is Richard Nixon not his common name found in these sources? There is no reason Bush and/or other US presidents should be treated any differently than senators, big city mayors and Nobel prize-winners. Its undue weight. The guideline provides consistency for all biographical subjects. There are other practical considerations too which I can discuss, as there has been extensive discussion on this issue on the Barack Obama talk page due to his new status as President-Elect.

I changed the template to the default accordingly (although I forgot to fill in the birthname parameter), but an editor (presently blocked for edit-warring at Barack Obama) came behind me and reverted my good faith edit. Another editor is not accepting this change, but its unclear why. Modocc (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can not form a consensus on one page and disrupt other pages. Its obvious that you want the name in the info box to be Richard Nixon, without his middle name. Thank you, your request will be considered. Also, many editors have worked very hard on this article and the article is currently up for GA review. Any contributions are welcome, but please do not disrupt the page to prove a point on the Obama page. That is all I ask. --Jojhutton (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I made edits to improve these articles, not disrupt them. Since you are the reverting editor, I am following process to get consensus here. The review process involves making improvements, especially those that help the article conform with standards. Pointing to any consensus can be helpful, but its not the end-all be-all. Does the consensus here differ from the guideline instruction and why?   Modocc (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please link the guideline instruction--Jojhutton (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was told on the Obama page that it can be found at Template:Infobox Person, under the name parameter. I have not actually looked, but I've no reason to doubt, but will check anyway. Modocc (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Its there and here is a better link to it Template:Infobox Person. Modocc (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is a conflict, since this page Manual of Style (infoboxes) is the actual policy, and not the template. Scroll down to Design and Usage. Number four is what you will be looking for.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think the current version lacks some clarity, but there have been four different versions recently. The first change, the second change here was by me, the third change was a copyedit.  The instruction there is for an item. My understanding is that infox person is for biographies. Its impossible to state "official" names for all people. A lot of very good biographies would need modifying (say to birthname, married name, etc) and we would be ignoring many common "unofficial" identities used by reliable sources.  Modocc (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I'm going to try to "fix" the ambiguity again, so its closer to the original wording. Modocc (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we should just let each article form its own consensus, rather than push some type of consistency. I see where you are going, but it may just be best to have everyone stop using consistancy as an argument on the Obama talk page. That way the rest of us, not involved in that discssion can move on.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I never care for the "we should do this" cause of otherstuff exists arguments. Common ground is nice, but sometimes its more like quicksand. Modocc (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec x 2) (Note that these are guidelines, not policy.) The general infobox guideline addresses items (noted above), while the specifics for people is in the Template:Infobox Person guidelines:
 * From Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes), item 4: "For items, the top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for persons, see Template:Infobox Person".
 * From Template:Infobox_Person, description of name: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name).
 * The common name for a particular person could obviously differ from their "full name". For example, President Carter's common name is "Jimmy Carter" (it was even on the ballot).  For other presidents, it might not be as straight forward. For Nixon, Richard M.. Nixon was the usual formal name used for him during his presidency, not his full name.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest?
 * I think the more formal common name is most appropriate. Modocc (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we know that, I was refering to ERcheck, but you meant less formal, correct?--Jojhutton (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. You didn't sign your comment and I though he was asking. Richard M. Nixon seems more formal than Richard Nixon and its common even if its not the most common. Modocc (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right, I didn't. I must be getting tired. I'm off to bed. So, I've said my peace. Everyone knows where I stand. Personally I like the full name. It just sounds good, but my feeling is that if consensus is reached here that is different, then that is OK too.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion &mdash; Richard M. Nixon. Definitely not Richard Milhous Nixon. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the reference titles given in this article, I'm torn between Richard Nixon and Richard M. Nixon. I see very very few titles using his middle initial (and none that use his middle name). What I do see is Richard Nixon plastered everywhere, including the name of his library. Furthermore, the signature shown is Richard Nixon. If its good enough for him, its good enough for me. I'm not sure how often he signed like that though, but perhaps we should be reflecting these sources. Anyway, the purpose here is to reach consensus and I've other things to be doing and can't contribute any more for now, so good luck with the article review. [a quick update before I go, I just checked the Britannica and they titled their article Richard M. Nixon., so I'm running in circles here, but this tertiary reference supports using the initial with the title of our infobox caption Cheers.]    Modocc (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Modocc (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The amount of sources on names is relevant, but I don't think we are bound on wikipedia to follow that logic every time. I just think (and this has nothing to do with the Obama discussion) that the full name is perfectly acceptable in most cases. The exceptions being Ford and Clinton, mostly because they took adopted names. In the end Richard Nixon is just as acceptable, but if we were voting, everyone knows what I would prefer.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All that I want is for everything to be consistent. Right now, it seems that the norm has changed from being full name in the infobox to simply common name. Ronald Wilson Reagan is now Ronald Reagan. George Walker Bush is now George W. Bush. James Earl Carter, Jr. is now Jimmy Carter. Of course this all stems from a discussion at the Obama page because of negative connotations surrounding Obama's middle name of Hussein, but it seems to be the consistent form and Nixon's page shouldn't be the odd one out. Happyme22 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no norm. There is no precident for consistancy. Each page has its own consensus. It has been his full name for over two years on this page, and if not for the dispute on the Obama page, no one would have cared. I am reverting.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Resignation photo caption
The persons shown standing behind Nixon are Tricia Nixon Cox and her husband Edward Cox, not Julie Nixon Eisenhower as the caption claims. Julie was out of the picture, standing behind Nixon on his right with her husband, David Eisenhower (to the left of the frame.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.49.51 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs?
This article is missing a segment on Nixon's involvement in Bay of Pigs. A reliable resource exists here --75.48.22.63 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured
It should be one cause it's good. 74.179.103.244 (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for complimenting the article, however, speaking from personal experience, this article still has a way to go. Fist it needs to get up to GA. It may be a future prospect, though. Happyme22 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Just some thoughts: I did a lot of work with this article before many other wonderful and dedicated editors stepped in, so I know the article pretty well. I really appreciate everything that everyone has done for the article.

Speaking from experience at Ronald Reagan (featured), may I say that the presidency paragraph of the lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, and at the same time, I would nix most of, if not all, the lengthy last full paragraph on all Nixon's "firsts". They are notable, but the lead is not their place.

I'd also check over the material, fix any spelling mistakes, and keep on adding citations.

Great work!

Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review at Talk:Richard Nixon/GA2

 * See GA Review at Talk:Richard Nixon/GA2. Will be looking at the article today; will probably finish today as well. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to Fail the GA nom at his time. Remarks are at Talk:Richard Nixon/GA2. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani war section
Indo-Pakistani War section needs corrections:
 * 25 million refugees is a mistake. Sources give 10 million.
 * The section reads as though West and East Pakistan were different countries -- they were the same country then. The Indo-Pakistani war resulted in the East breaking off to form a new country, Bangladesh.
 * Here is a suggested change to the section, with better sourcing:
 * "Pakistan's president General Yahya Khan in 1970 and 1971 cracked down on demonstrations in East Pakistan demanding independence for East Pakistan. The Pakistan army conducted widespread atrocities against the civilian population of East Pakistan. An estimated 10 million refugees fled to India. American public opinion was concerned with the atrocities . But Nixon liked Yahya Khan personally, and credited him for helping to opening a channel to China, thus Nixon felt obligated to support him. Nixon recalled from his post the consul general in East Pakistan, Archer Blood, who complained about US policy.
 * Nixon relayed messages to Yahya, urging him to restrain Pakistani forces. His objective was to prevent a war and safeguard Pakistan's interests. He was also fearful of an Indian invasion of West Pakistan that would lead to Indian domination of the sub-continent and strengthen the position of the Soviet Union, which had recently signed a cooperation treaty with India. Nixon felt that the Soviet Union was inciting the country.
 * Nixon issued a statement blaming Pakistan for starting the conflict but blaming India for escalating it. He favored a cease-fire. The United States was secretly encouraging the shipment of military equipment from Iran, Turkey, and Jordan to Pakistan, reimbursing those countries despite Congressional objections. The Indian army invaded East Pakistan on December 3, and a cease fire was reached on December 16 with the surrender of Pakistani troops and the creation of Bangladesh.
 * bostonbrahmin 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions for the section. I have implemented many of them. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Conrad Black Write This Article??
While I don’t know all of the Wiki rules for citations, I do know that this page has become heavily over-reliant on citations from the book by Conrad Black. Kind of makes it look like Conrad Black wrote the article, with a few diversions so that it does not look so blatantly single-sourced. Without saying anything specifically about his book, I think this article would have the appearance of a bit more objectivity by including a broader mix of authoritative citations, considering that there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of serious authors who have written about the man.

And this is said with absolutely all due respect to the author(s) who spent so much time citing the book as much as they did. It was definitely no small amount of work, and diligently done. --Fizbin (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently bought the book on Nixon by Conrad Black, with the sole purpose of using it to help write an informative article on the 37th president. I chose it because it was said to present a relatively fair picture of the man, recording both his achievements and failures, and the book is over 1000 pages long. Futhermore, it records many of Nixon's innermost thoughts and feelings on certain matters, many of which are appropriate for the article and boost its' prominence. The book goes into especially detailed accounts of his presidency and does not soley focus the entire presidency on Watergate, as so many records of the Nixon years do.


 * That said, this article is not near being "completed", so to speak, but it has come a long way. Black's is only the first book that I am reviewing and writing from; next is Richard M. Nixon by Elizabeth Drew. So more will come -- no need to worry. Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some missing points?

The article makes no reference to the purpose of the Watergate break-in. As I understand it, it is now accepted that the break-in was undertaken becuase Nixon could not believe that Lyndon Johnson had kept his word and destroyed the file relating Nixon's negotiations with the Viet Cong.

I also see no reference to Nixon's active participation in the McArthy anti-communist witch-hunts.

Drg40 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a number of theories as to the purpose(s) of the break-in. As for anti-communist activities, the article already discusses Nixon's activities with HUAC, particularly the Hiss case.  Plazak (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)