Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 3

Removal of miscellaneous section

The extremely long miscellaneous section must be removed. Trivia sections are highly discouraged on Wikipedia, and this extremely long one has to go. There is no point to it! yeah, some of the cited information can be integrated in to the correct sections in the article, but the majority is, for lack of a better word, trivia. This is probably the reason it failed a GA review; GA's definetly shoulnd't have trivia sections - especially one as long as this. I tried removing it, but was reverted. I am going to integrate some of it into the article though. I'll keep the section for now, but it has to go. Happyme22 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should go. The miscellaneous/trivia section is mostly just a junk bin of pointless factoids. Plazak 04:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also do agree. Extremely sexy 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet

Recommend converting the cabinet table to use {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of miscellaneous section, part II

Per the discussion above from back in October, I am removing the entire miscellaneous section with three votes to none. Much of the information in there is, well, trivia which is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, and most of it is also speculation. This includes the potentially libelous section on Richard Nixon and Jewish people, which included one cite from the NYT and apparently something from youtube. First, youtube cannot be cited on Wikipedia, as it is not a reliable source. Secondly, the NYT article is used to cite one claim, out of the at least three pretty stong ones being made in the section. The quote doesn't even appear in the cited article! Also, whomever authored this section must be very anti-Graham and anti-Nixon because the whole purpose of it was to show Graham appologizing. I searched the web and found nothing more of these anti-Semetic claims. I have no idea what to think of all this - I knew President Nixon. I met him at three seperate fundraisers and he remembered my name. We spoke about God; it was one of the most inspiring conversations I've ever had. Anti-Jewish? I think not. Happyme22 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "something from youtube" was a report from the respected news channel MSNBC [1]. There are however more sources - I'll add a transcript of his words from CNN. Suladna (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point: youtube cannot be cited. I would get some more credible information and present it here before making such radical claims. Plus, does Nixon's supposed disresepct of Jews deserve an entire section? I don't think so. If credible information is found, it would be better to make this poorly focused section into one or two sentences and integrate into a part of the article (see FA Ronald Reagan). I have renamed the section and shortened it, focusing soley on Richard Nixon, and adding the second part of Nixon's quote (oddly neglected) from that same CNN transcript. Happyme22 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing language

The section "House and Senate: 1946–1952" contains the ambiguous/confusing line "Nixon believed Whittaker Chambers, who alleged that Hiss, a high State Department official, was a Soviet spy." I can't tell from the section whether or not Nixon aggreed with Chambers and I'm too unclear on the actual history of the event to clear up the language myself. BCoates (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Poker / Congressional Run

At the end of paragraph 4, it sounds like he used gambling proceeds to fund his way into congress. Is that really true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.73.4 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. This article is chalk-full of crazy, uncited claims. Happyme22 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Health Insurance

I have reverted back-in the section on Health Insurance, and added a link for his quoted speech direct to the American Presidency Project at the UC Santa Barbara where his full speech is there transcribed. I did not verify the bullet points, and I did not independently verify the McClatchy excerpt. I have no opinion on those portions, however State-of-the-Union speeches are all extant for easy access. Wjhonson (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your citation is much more credible, so I thank you. Because the bullet points cannot be verified, I will tag them with a {{citation needed}} template. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to help the project. I wouldn't say the bullets points cannot be verified, only that I personally did not read through the speech to verify them. But it seems possible to do so, I just didn't do it. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest adding that Sen. Edwards also proposed a plan similar to Nixon's, indeed Edwards' plan preceded Clinton's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.162.159 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

whats with the photo?

how come there is a strange photo as the main picture? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hestem%C3%B8j.jpg) 161.73.53.97 (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Sorry about that, but you luckily accessed the page in a small window of time so I was able to revert the edit. Thanks very much! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

allegedly wild theories concerning watergate

I assert that the theories are not being mis-respresented. All I do is mention that Stone adn Freed "implies". Killen a respected professor at CUNY http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/history/fulltime/fulltimefaculty/andreaskillen.html discusses this theory also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosis wiki (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

why so threatened by a theory recognized by an academic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosis wiki (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing much better sourcing is necessary. So far, you reference a movie, a dubious looking fringe source, and a general book on the 1970s without indicating a particular passage or even particular page. For my part, this addition fails WP:V. Another issue is that offbeat theories do not belong here in the main Nixon page. Maybe Watergate scandal is the right place, if they accept the material there and can suitably work it in to the article. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not the place to mention every theory dealing with Watergate and President Nixon's life; in fact, Wikipedia is not the correct place to do that. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we include his nickname?

I was wondering whether his nickname, "Tricky Dick," should be included in the article.Yankees1994 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. Happyme22 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Statement

"Nixon's sense of being persecuted by his "enemies," his grandiose belief in his own moral and political excellence, and his willingness to use power ruthlessly to achieve political goals led some experts to describe him as having a narcissistic and paranoid personality.[39] "

No one has a "commitment to use ruthless power at all costs." Power is not ruthless, and even so, the ruthless use of power is a tactic to achieve other goals. This statement is clearly intended to vilify and draws its source into question. If someone else doesn't rephrase it to mean something neutral, I'll rephrase it to mean what I think it should. Further, under its current use, it is plagiarism and should have been quoted.

It should read more like this: "Nixon's sense of being persecuted by his "enemies," his grandiose belief in his own moral and political excellence, and his willingness to use power ruthlessly to achieve political goals led some experts to describe him as having a narcissistic and paranoid personality.[39] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.112.156 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Power can't be ruthless, because it hasn't got emotions, but it can be used ruthlessly. I say make the change. -- Zsero (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I woud remove the useage of "ruthlessly", however, because it is POV. Happyme22 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How? We're talking about a remote "psychoanalysis" of the man by people who've never examined him, so its notability and value is dubious, but within the context of that analysis how is their assessment that he was ruthless more POV than the rest of it? Ruthlessness is a matter of fact, not opinion; it's a trait that he either had or didn't, and we're reporting that in these people's opinion he did, and what conclusions they drew from it. -- Zsero (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is these people's opinion. If the section or paragraph is dealing with these people's opinions, then I suppose it can stay because it is their view of RN. But we, Wikipedia editors, cannot label him or his use of power as ruthless. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to get a link to the "experts" as well. The entire sentence just seems non verifiable propaganda... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.59.106 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower's health problems

There seems to be vaguness about Vice President Nixon's 'temporary take over' during President Eisenhower's illnesses. Remember this is before the adoption of the 25th Amendment. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Eisenhower's letter authorising him to take over in emergencies came a year after the last time his stroke. It would be good to have a source that Nixon did indeed take over on these three occasions, even though there was no formal legal authority for him to do so. -- Zsero (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to find those "experts as well", as sources... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.59.106 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

This page was just mentioned on 30 Rock, which is usually the signal for all sorts of vandalism. Then again, 30 Rock probably has a more intelligent viewership than American Dad, so... -R. fiend (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inadvertent?

The article says "On April 3, 1974, Nixon announced he would pay $432,787.13 in back taxes plus interest after a Congressional committee reported that he had inadvertently underpaid his 1969 and 1972 taxes." No, Nixon attempted to pretend he had donated some papers in 1969 -- when the donation would be deductable -- when he actually donated them in 1970, when he could not take the deduction. One does not "inadvertently" make a false declaration on one's tax return by deliberately back-dating something. I am changing the article to match the facts. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interactions w/ Kissinger

In Thank You For Arguing, it notes that Kissinger frequently manipulated Nixon by giving two extreme options and the strategy he wanted for Nixon to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

documentation of afl-cio opposition to the Nixon Comprehensive Health Insurance Act

The current posting has the following statement.

The AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers lobbied to kill the plan, not because they were fundamentally opposed to universal health care, but because they hoped for an even better plan after the next election.[citation needed]

Here is some documentation on the issue that someone who is registered might like to post.

JOURNAL OF COMMERCE February 21, 1974, Thursday BYLINE: BY ROBERT M LEWIN SECTION: Page 3, Column 42 LENGTH: 36 words AFL-CIO opposes Nixon Adm's proposed natl health ins plan charging that it would further enrich doctors and ins cos. AFL-CIO Exec Council reaffirms its support for Griffiths-Kennedy natl health security bill (L). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.14.142 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dicks Everywhere

Just a heads-up about some recent vandalism. The page is semi-protected, but I guess that ain't enough.

WP:WEIGHT

I respectfully disagree User:Happyme22's interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. This was not the purpose for which this policy/guideline was created. In trying to ascertain why someone might think that mentioning Nixon's resignation in the opening sentence is somehow a violation of NPOV, I'm guessing the following may have been the trigger points (words taken directly from the guideline have been placed in bold):

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Well, the issue of Nixon's resignation is not a point of contention, it is, as Happy of course knows, a historical fact. So there are no different "viewpoints" regarding the accuracy of his resignation. There is, however, a legitimate question as to the "prominence" of that fact, but I'm not sure that that's specifically relevant to this point here, because the policy is at this point specifically discussing "minority viewpoints", and again, there's no minority out there that doubt that Nixon did, in fact resign. (I may appear to be speaking in a patronizing tone, but I assure you, while I may be pedantic at times, it is now out of a lack of respect for the reader, I'm just trying not to leave anything out.)

• The entire next paragraph specifically addresses minority viewpoints, and, as I said, I don't really think that that' the issue here.

• The third paragraph is where things become more relevant. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. I suspect that here lies the heart of Happy's argument. By placing the resignation in the first sentence, it is undeniable that my edit placed greater weight on the fact of Nixon's resignation than, say, his honorable service in WWII, his precedent-setting role as Vice-President, his unparalleled political comeback, his earthshaking foreign policy coups involving both the Soviet Union and China, his successful extraction of the US from Vietnam, and everything else. Yes, more weight has been placed on his resignation. But WP:WEIGHT does not forbid placing more weight on his resignation. It forbids placing undue weight on his resignation.

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note the last part of that sentence from the policy says that an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." [italics added by Unschool for emphasis]. It is clear from this that we not only can make distinctions as to the importance of some of the information in the article, but in fact, policy obligates us to attempt to do so. But how can we do this? Many editors choose to organize articles based upon chronology, because a chronological organization can never be accused of being POV. "Hey, man, I just wrote it the way it happened." And in writing about some things, chronology or sequence may well be the best way to present the information. But encyclopedic writing does NOT have follow a uniform pattern. Open up any other encyclopedia and compare articles on the presidents of the US. Each article will start off with a declarative sentence (as does Happy's opening here), but they will also in that first sentence attach importance, in the vast majority of cases, to something that sets that person apart. In the 1969 edition of World Book encyclopedia, for example, the article on Nixon noted that his election as president constituted one of the greatest comebacks in American political history. The 1973 edition of World Book changed that, noting that Nixon was the only president in US history to be elected twice to that office without carrying his political party to a majority in either house of Congress. (Yes, I know that it's obscure, but go to an old bookstore and look it up--that's what they chose to mention. The 1975 edition noted in the opening sentence that Nixon was the only president to have resigned the office. And that is how pretty much every English-language encyclopedia's article on Nixon begins: the resignation is always mentioned in the opening sentence. Why? Is this POV?

Well, frankly, I think it constitutes POV to not place that in the opening. Good writing demands, when explaining about a particular subject, to tell what is most salient up front. A reader coming to Nixon's article will fall into one of two categories. Either a) he already is cognizant of the fact that there was a president named Nixon who resigned, or b) he will not be aware of this fact. If a), then we should include the resignation in the opening because—as evidenced by everything else written about his presidency—it is the most noteworthy and distinguishing characteristic of his career, and its inclusion here validates to reader A that he has come to the right article. If b), and the reader is unaware of it, then he needs to become aware of it right away, in case he goes no further. The article does not treat the reader fairly if it keeps this important information at bay.

Look, we are not writing mystery novels here. Neither our articles nor our headers should "lead up" to anything, to a climax, if you will. We need to inform, and to inform efficiently and in a traditional expository manner. Good informative writing does not have to be sterile; starting off every president's article with "John Smith was the 44th president of the United States" may be NPOV, but it's not the only way to be NPOV, and it's certainly not the way to help the reader. Please don't tell me that we don't have to do things the same way as do paper encyclopedias, because I agree wholeheartedly with that. But neither do we need to be different for the sake of being different. There is such a thing as good writing and better writing. This is good the way that Happy has it. But it can and should be better. It does not violate NPOV to acknowledge that which everyone else acknowledges. Look, I am willing (and would be eager) to find a different lead, if I thought that something else was more significant. Nixon truly did have an enormous impact on American policy (and not just foreign; his shifts in domestic policy are routinely overlooked).

Perhaps one thinks that mentioning Nixon's resignation is POV because it reflects badly on him. Well, that's bogus. It's simply (in the view of every encyclopedia out there) the single most noteworthy fact of his career. And for the record, I'm not anti-Nixon. His was the first campaign I worked in, and I'm still proud of the microscopic role I played. I think that, without Nixon's overtures to the USSR, and the subsequent opening up of cultural, social, and economic connections, that the Soviet Union would have held on quite a bit longer than 1991. It is a tragedy that this man's career is most remembered for his resignation. But history is replete with tragic figures. That's just the way it is.

Respectfully revert. Unschool (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it is hard to argue with that, but I must say Unschool, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

Thanks for going through WP:WEIGHT; there is only one aspect I believe that you overlooked at that page. It is within the sentence "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." - Like it or not, placing the phrase that Nixon is the only man to resign the office of the presidency in the first sentence of the article is in direct violation of the sentence above. I know that you attempted to justify your edits in context of this and wrote, "But WP:WEIGHT does not forbid placing more weight on his resignation. It forbids placing undue weight on his resignation." So what is undue weight? Well later in that same paragraph at WP:WEIGHT, it says, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." - Ah, depth of detail, prominence of placement, and jutxaposition of statements (my italics). By placing Nixon's resignation in the very first sentence of the page, it highlights it as the single most important part of his life. Why else would it be included in the first sentence other than prove that biased point?

Regarding depth of detail: this is also a matter of consistency; you said above that other encyclopedias mention this in the first sentence on Richard Nixon. Well, Wikipedia is not always about staying consistent or similar to other encyclopedias, rather we are about staying consistent to other articles on Wikipedia. FAs Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt do not mention anything in their respective first sentences regarding specific accomplishments or events in their lives, other than the fact that they all became president. And consistency is an important thing on any encyclopedia. This also has to do with WP:NPOV (see below).

So now we are treading into WP:NPOV, which states, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." So what you said above about allowing readers to form their own opinions goes both ways.

I also disagree with your revert of my edit because that went against WP:LEAD. I added in more material generalizing the "Early life" section, and reworded sentences for grammar, structure, and sentence flow.

So, yes, we disagree. I think your analysis was very proving of your point, although as I stated in my first paragraph, I believe you left out something vitally important. It's also not only a WP:WEIGHT issue, but a WP:NPOV issue and consistency issue (and the edit iself is a WP:LEAD issue). Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Over the years I find fewer and fewer editors willing to devote the time to genuine discussion, and I appreciate your willingness to do so. Right now I do not have time for a thourough reply. But the most significant point I see is this: We disagree, I think, on the meaning of undue. I believe it is quite clear that the inclusion of that word makes it clear that it is acceptable to place more weight (weight as indicated by both quantity and placement of information) on some facts. The word "undue" means that this extra weight given to some facts over others must be justifiable. If 500 pathologists believe that Zachary Taylor died of natural causes, and one pathologist believes that he died of arsenic poisoning, we are not obligated to give equal weight to the two positions. To provide equal coverage to the lone promoter of the Arsenic Assassination theory would actually to place undue weight on that theory. The prohibition against undue weight does not mandate equal weight for all parts of the tale, nor does it require that we treat all facts as equally important.

You worry about the order indicating POV. That's an intelligent concern, but think about this: We exercise POV just by deciding what goes in the article and what doesn't. There are countless facts of Nixon's life that have been left out. Collectively, the editors have decided to include some facts and not others; whether we're willing to admit it or not, this is an exercise of POV. How do we then justify choosing to place some facts in the article but not others? Simple: Notability. Deciding to include Nixon's wife's name, but not his previous girlfriends, is a matter of noteworthiness. But these distinctions of noteworthiness are inherently subjective, and thus constitute an exercise of POV. The fact is, some parts of Nixon's life are more significant than others. And just as we use our judgement as to what should be included, we can and should use our judgement to decide what prominence to give certain facts.

Look, Wikipedia does not need to do what paper encyclopedias do. But you surely understand that NPOV is not a Wikipedia creation. While you will not find NPOV articulated as such within the pages of Britannica and World Book, the fact is that they subscribe just as much to NPOV as do we. The very reason that we adopted NPOV was because we aspired to be taken as seriously as those venerable publications. But their neutrality does not prevent them from providing the best possible writing to their readers. You will not open up a major paper encyclopedia and find articles beginning with "Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States (1801-1809) Period." "James Madison was the fourth President of the United States (1809-1817) Period." The reader needs to be provided with information, but that information does not need to be sterile. Uniformity does have value, but that uniformity needs to be found in formatting, headers, and infoboxes, not in the text of our articles. Making each article on each president start with the same pre-formatted sentence is a step towards having our writing done by bots, and I, for one, am not interested in reading that project. Unschool (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, this is a very interesing discussion! My conclusion is that we are going to be in disagreement on this issue, so I've asked for a third opinion from User:Ferrylodge. He is a dedicated editor who spends most of his hours at the John McCain article, and I've asked him to give us his thoughts on the matter. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The issue seems to be whether the first sentence should mention that Nixon was the first president to resign. No! That makes it sound like there were others after him who resigned. If the resignation is mentioned in the first sentence, then it should say he was the only president to resign, but I have no definite opinion about whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence. The article on Andrew Johnson mentions how he became President in the first sentence, but the article on Theodore Roosevelt does not. The article on William Henry Harrison does not mention in the first sentence how he left office, but the article on Abraham Lincoln does. So, this is a matter of preference that is apparently not really controlled by any pattern in other Wikipedia articles.

If you decide to mention the resignation in the first sentence, I'd suggest changing "first" to "only", and also saving "Watergate" for later in the article (e.g. the next sentence or paragraph). I hope that helps. I could be wrong, so take it with a grain of salt.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ferrylodge, I am embarassed that I did not notice the use of "first" instead of "only". You are, of course, correct, and I have made the change.

I think that Happyme22 was hoping that you could discuss whether the mention in the opening sentence constitutes POV. I firmly believe it does not, for the reasons I have provided above. Happy has given his/her reasons as well. I think our difference comes down to the issue of how much "weight" is given to facts. I think that Happy's interpretation of the policies would be correct, except that the inclusion of the word "undue" clearly indicates that some facts are, in point of fact, properly due greater weight than others, and should thusly be placed more prominently (as do most encyclopedias). I see this as a matter of good writing. But Happy thinks it violates NPOV to do this. Happy has a lot of respect for your opinion, if you have the time to read the diatribe above and could comment further, it would be nice. For myself, I think that you are correct, that it is a matter of preference, and I prefer a style of writing that provides an immediate answer to the question, "Am I at the correct article?" Unschool (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved Watergate from the first sentence, because it's already covered later in the intro. Watergate is really a detail, and of course it's alleged that other presidents got away with similar behavior. The main thing is that Nixon was the only president to ever resign, and I feel comfortable with it being in the first sentence, though I wouldn't mind either if it were only mentioned later. Nixon also was a wartime president, and he presided over a tumultuous time, from the Moon landing to Roe v. Wade. All of this is very notable stuff, but for better or worse he'll probably always be remembered as the president who resigned.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

for better or worse he'll probably always be remembered as the president who resigned. Exactly. Unschool (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

At least he was man enough to resign. He did the same thing that all the other presidents have done. The only difference is that he was caught. Also, when I mention, "Man enough to resign" I'm hinting at Mr. Clinton; he did the same thing some people do only difference is he was caught and didn't have the huevos to take responsibility for his actions.

Geogo3r (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

nixon

im impressed because i learned alot i stoped using this site because it wasn't fun but i love it now

Neutrality of a Statement

The neutrality of the statement under the Vietnam War is highly debatable. It states, "Nixon ordered secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia in March 1969." The President can't "order" anything. If he could, then the other branches of government aren't doing their job. I suggest the word in question be changed to "approved," "agreed" or something along those lines. (This is my first post or whatever you want to call it on wikipedia so I apologize if I did anything wrong)

Congratulations on your first post to Wikipedia! You did not do anything wrong, but I would say that anytime you are beginning a discussion, click the "new section" link at the top of your screen, next to "edit this page" and "history". That will place new posts at the bottom of the discussion page. Also, if you are interested in the doings of Wikipedia and our mission, I would recommend creating an account for yourself, as doing so would give you many benefits. After anything you write on a talk page, remember to sign what you wrote with four tildes (~~~~) and that will generate an automatic time stamp, including your account name and the time and date.

That said, I agree with your proposed change, and I'm going to go ahead and make it. Thanks for starting this discussion! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Opponent!

In the presidential facts it says that his opponent was John F. Kennedy, he was dead by then! ROBERT F. Kennedy was his opponent! somebody should fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.203.33 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Look closer....he ran for president twice, once in 1960 against JFK and lost, and then again in 1968 against Humphrey and won. In the 1968 campaign, RFK was a candidate until he was killed. The infobox lists both the runs. --rogerd (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"New Nixon"

The following paragraph is part of the current version of the article: and before the decade closed, a "New Nixon," one who was "tanned, rested and ready." 1) Who is quoted with these terms, since quotation marks are used? 2) Isn't there a verb missing? Like, a "New Nixon" evolved, or something along those lines? --134.130.4.46 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Later life

This section claims "He gained great respect as an elder statesman in the area of foreign affairs". However this contentious statement is not justified with any references. Surely this sort of vague claim requires supporting statements either by notable political figures or authoritative commentators. Locking prevents a "Who?" tag being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

"his body die lie in respose" - surely should read "did lie"? THD TommyD (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should. I'll make the change, and thanks for pointing it out! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many typos and examples of poor grammar. I was not even sure I was on a legitimate Wiki page; too many errors. Is anyone editing this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.179.62 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error

I happened upon this article and noticed a small spelling error in the last line of the funeral section.

"In keeping with his wishes, his funeral was not a state funeral, though his body did lie in respose in the Nixon Library lobby prior to the funeral services."

I think that should be "repose".

Yes it should and I've fixed it. Thanks! --Happyme22 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

enlisted officer

I do not know about back in those days, but officers tend to not be said to enlist, they are commissioned. The ranks that enlist are E-1 to E-9. Ranks O-1 to O-11 (or O-12) are commissioned. No big deal except those that are sticklers for accuracy... Although to the general public and in general usage it might be okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionspoint (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

wrong date

In the "Early Years" section of this article, Nixon's birthdate is listed as Feb 9, but it actually Jan 9 as listed elsewhere in this article. 158.145.224.34 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Combat service correction

While Nixon may actually have served in SCAT - South Pacific COMBAT AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND, The United States Naval Institute mentions in it's journal NAVAL HISTORY (12/04, p.34) that Lieutenant (j.g.) Nixon managed artillery spotter missions for the Marines from the Torokina airfield (which was under continuous enemy sniper and artillery fire for the period, according to Samuel Eliot Morrison's BREAKING THE BISMARCKS BARRIER)(page citation on request). He had 4 Piper Cubs for the task. I am sure he was aboard some of these flimsy wood and cloth planes and under fire from time-to-time. Not quite the sissy mission the main page makes it out to be... oh, well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.90.139 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Portrayals of Nixon

Hey, Happy, I'm not sure that I agree with this edit of yours. I mean, by citing WP:V, you open yourself up to the possibility that if someone could provide citations that this was true, that you'd be okay with it. But I think you know that that could easily be verified, and I don't think that you are objecting on those grounds, are you? I suspect it's more to do with WP:TRIVIA, right? But if totally fictional cartoon characters can be included in Wikipedia (as they are in score of articles), is there no place for fictional portrayals of real people? And if that is so, where should such be placed? Should they be included in the article on that person, or should they get their own article? I don't know if an article on Nixon's talking head in Futurama would meet WP:N. So I have no answers, only questions. My first thought was simply to revert, but I think I see your point, and hope that you can see mine, and that we can figure out where to go from here. Unschool (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and questions, and I will be happy to answer them. First off, I stand by my reversion of the section, mainly based on the guidelines contained in WP:TRIVIA. At TRIVIA, the first sentence says, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.", which is exactly what this is. Similar attempts were conducted at Ronald Reagan, a featured article that I have worked very hard on, and was removed on the grounds of WP:TRIVIA. This very article once contained an extremely long "Miscellaneous" section, full of miniscule anecdotes and details such as these, and was removed upon my insistence per WP:TRIVIA. Despite this material being fairly easy to source, there weren't any sources, thus the revision was in line with WP:V and WP:RS. A Fictional portrayals of Richard Nixon article may or may not pass WP:N, as the question remains over why these cartoon characters are notable. Happyme22 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm a bit disappointed by your answer. You've not really answered my question about WP:V; I think you can easily infer that I acknowledge the correctness of your citation of WP:V, but what I'm trying to get at is: Would meeting the objections of WP:V cause you to drop your objection? If not, then make it clear that that's a peripheral point, and go on to the heart of the subject, which appears to me to be WP:TRIVIA. And then that brings us to the issue, if the material can be brought into compliance with WP:V (which would be ridiculously easy for an eight-year old), then would you think it better—in the name of WP:TRIVIA to fork off a whole new article, or would you prefer to integrate some items into the article text? And you know, WP:TRIVIA may not even apply here, since this was not actually a trivia section, in the sense of a random collection of miscellania (I think I repeated myself there), but dealt with one specific issue: fictional portrayals of Nixon. And besides, even if this was a true "triva section", WP:TRIVIA says Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. Truth be told, I probably lean a bit towards your decision on the revert, but I'm not certain, because I'm not really sure that policy supports your removal. It's certainly not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Unschool (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Fictional portrayals of Nixon is not a "miscelaneous collection of facts." On the contrary, it is quite narrowly focused, and more akin to the list of Nixon cabinet members than to a Trivia section. Neither does it need to be unverifiable: Hopkins' portrayal is, I presume, sufficiently documented in the wiki article on that film. There are other fictional portrayals of Nixon, such as in the opera Nixon in China that are well documented, and could be added. Are these trivial? Fictional portrayals of Nixon probably do more to mold modern public perception of Nixon than all the serious political and historical studies, so I don't think they are trivial. I was one of those who called for the elimination of the Trivia section in the Nixon article, but I think that this section should stay. Plazak (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If WP:V were met I would not drop my objection because TRIVIA is "the heart" of the subject and this is definitely, more than anything else, a matter of WP:TRIVIA. WP:V was a secondary reason for opposing the section. Better? TRIVIA definitely applies here. A section does not have to be named "Trivia" to classify it as a trivia section; "Miscellaneous", or in this case "Fictionalized portrayals", applies. TRIVIA says, "It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text", however, as always, that text needs to be relevant to the subject and critical to our understanding of Richard Nixon which I just do not see this as being. We also have to consider its encyclopedic value, which, again, I do not see this as having much of. Believe you me, policy is on this side. It may not be a list of different genres of miscellaneous facts, but it is nonetheless a list of miscellaneous facts.

Plazak, I do not quite understand your argument. But to answer your question, yes, unless a point in an opera or cartoon is central to our understanding of Richard Nixon, then it can be classified as trivial. Happyme22 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Misquoted "I am not a crook"

I think I have read in certain places that that phrase was about tax evasion, not Watergate. Is that true, or am I close? 69.223.52.183 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that was about Watergate. He said that the American people "have a right to know if their President is a crook; well, I am not a crook." I really shouldn't have put that in quotes, because I'm citing it from memory, but it came, (again, if memory serves) during a rare press conference during the Watergate period. It came before Dean's revelation of the existence of the tapes, I believe, when he felt quite confident that no one would ever know what he was into. Unschool (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The closing of "the Gold Window" and US near bankruptcy

Did this closing of Gold/dollar convertability (thus defaulting on previous promises), signal that the US government was near bankruptcy at the time, having overspent in the Cold War, The Vietnam War, The Space Program and in Social provision? Was Charles de Gaulle wrong? Anon 11:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would need a citation. Happyme22 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nixon would not have enlisted in US Navy

The article states:

He soon left that post, however, and enlisted in the United States Navy in August 1942.

Officers in the US Navy are considered "commissioned" not "enlisted". Enlisted is a separate classification and could never attain a rank of LCDR. Enlisted would also not have a college degree as Nixon had upon his entrance in to the Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.71.254.248 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Happyme22 (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)