Talk:Checkers speech

message: Sadly, both the obituary links cited are no longer available from their respective newspapers. Robert K S 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. I found in in the NY Times.Killiondude (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links broken

message: More interestingly, how about some REAL commentary on the speech?  NO mention of the tactic of pulling away fromt the main issues at hand and focusing on family values, and essentially distracting attentions from the idea of corruption.  This is a public and VERY successful example of a concept (I forget the name) utilized by spin doctors.  This article is poorly written and the analysis is just pedestrian.
*It seems to me that it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when writing anything concerning Nixon. Either way you find his detractors or apologists grinding out their biased rhetoric. Seldom have I read anything about him that takes a middle ground. Incidentally, I met him in 1962 when he was running for Governor of California and found him to be a self-absorbed person who was totally uninterested in talking about anything with me. Or maybe he was just having a bad day. T.E. Goodwin 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is that the best we can do?

message: Hi, I've started to revamp and expand this project with the goal of bringing it to FA level in the next few months.  Please feel free to help out.  Images are an especial need here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: The article lists a quotation naming attacks against Nixon as a "viscous smear". Shouldn't this be "vicious"? 151.204.151.188 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, typo, it has been corrected.  Please feel free to correct any spelling or other errors you may see; WP is the encyclopedia anyone may edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Viscous"? 

message: I don't feel I should add to the GAN page once the article has been promoted, so I will note some unresolved issues and what I've done about them here:
*Nixon's expense allowance:  I've given more detail on that.
*Engraving bill:  Morris really doesn't give much info on that.  Dana Smith wrote Nixon in July 1952 that it was unpaid, and that he was hoping to pay it off once $500 that a contributor had promised Bernie Brennan came in.  I rephrased it to take out the word "major" because the source won't actually support it.
*Today's dollars:  I will play with that website later in the day, as in the Woodes Rogers article, and get present day, or at least 2007 figures, most likely for Nixon's salary since that is the most obvious figure to use.
I think that was it on specific concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved issues from Good Article nomination 

message: Shouldn't that have been resolved? 198.203.177.177 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead needs to be relatively long in order to fully summarize such an extensive article, so I'd say it's fine. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the information is repeated in detail in the article body. I still think it would be more concise if it ended at the first paragraph, merging some of the content from the last paragraph of the lead. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: *Well, that's kinda the idea.  The lede is supposed to be a summary, broadly, of the article.  Sort of "in a nutshell".  Have you read WP:Lead section?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely long lead for an FA 

message: This article sports pictures of buildings and other locations that became marginally significant months later, and of people somewhat connected to the topic, and even includes a mention of where "Checkers" is buried, fer cryin' out loud, but no picture of Checkers.  Am I missing something?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had a free use photo of Checkers, I'd use it.  We don't.  I don't think a fair use photo would be justified as the article is not about Checkers, but the speech.  I took most of the photos for this articles (two buildings, and the notes), and the article needed photos.  I'm sorry if they are marginal, but what else could I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, per WP practice, fair use issues are addressed at file's page, not here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I think now it is too small to be useful.  Perhaps make it about 200 x 300.  It has to be large enough to be useful to the reader.  I will probably move it, but I won't take it out.  However, if it is challenged, I'm not going to defend it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove an image for size issues. Simply resize. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no article about Checkers himself, this article is the logical place for a photo of the dog. I think it should be positioned within the "Preparation and setting" section where the puppy is first discussed. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of an NFCC rationale relating to this article is the concern, actually.  Someone needs to write one.  Not having one is inappropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The template used at the file page said, to wit: "Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Checkers speech."] But, never mind, I've now put the article's name right up in the template's title on its file page. (I've also blown the image up on this page to 110 pixels, here.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows Checkers in 1962, as a 10 year old dog, rather than a months old puppy when Nixon made the speech.  I am at a loss to figure out how an illustration of her helps people understand the article.  However, I said I would let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No picture of the title character? 

message: I noticed that there's a few Harvard errors present in the article. You can see them easily if you install Ucucha's script, which makes them show up in bold red font. 
To install the script, add:
:importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
to Special:MyPage/common.js. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few Harvard errors 

message: I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Checkers speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417094233/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/psources/ps_checkers.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/psources/ps_checkers.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection. This is a relatively minor adjustment but as a section this title is usually placed first in the appendixes related to biographies or named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography" per MOS:BIB. Using a separate source related "Bibliography" section is confusing and out of place. We commonly practice placing relate subjects in a subsection so it seems appropriate to follow this with source links (generally listed), and links providing inline text-source integrity, that combined form the citations.  Otr500 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography section 

message: Should it be noted that he told two lies about his wife? "Pat's ... name was Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick's day."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:3:DEE2:3549:216C:AE55:8466 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies About his Wife