Talk:Nixon's Enemies List

message: Maybe the names shouldn't be italicized, only the descriptions. --RobbieFal 02:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are people today (such as Anne Coulter) who will argue that Nixon gets a bad rap, specifically because "Nixon's Enemies List" didn't really exist. Of course, the list (and several longer subsequent lists) did exist, which this article shows. They rely, however, on the fact that Nixon did not create these lists - they were compiled by staffers such as Colson and Bell. But of course these lists were compiled on Nixon's behalf, and likely as the result of meetings with him, and perhaps at his specific direction. And so the debate rages on.Bigdatut (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Page thought

message: Through judicious use of the 'requested articles' on the recent changes page, I've made sure that all but 5 of the people on the list have articles :) →Raul654 12:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I got three more, but two of the ones I did are substubs. Jokestress 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the last one today! Jokestress 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! :) →Raul654 00:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What??? Did Nixon try to  kill them??????--4.154.123.40 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he ordered the Department of Justice to harass them with trumped up criminal charges, the IRS to give them severe audits, 'etc. Nixon *did* give orders to firebomb the Brookings Institute though. And remember - that's just what we know about. He resigned rather than turn over his tapes (most of which have never been released), and you can bet that's a goldmine of evidence of other crimes he got away with. Raul654 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we know pretty solidly about some even nastier stuff, like the government spreading a rumor when Nixon "enemy" Jean Seberg was pregnant in 1970 that the father was not her husband, Romain Gary but one of the Black Panthers she was working with. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a pretty stupid question. President Nixon didn't have to kill those people. The point is, he was the president, and he has more important things to do than worry about what someone is saying about him in the press. Newscaster and moviestars are not politicians, and they are not world leaders. It was a reflection of the paranoia of the day, and frankly, most people don't like the idea of their president behaving in that way.Bigdatut (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting close

message: From the article:
Leonard Woodcock, United Auto Workers, Detroit, Michigan: No comments necessary.
Well I hardly the phraze 'no comments necessary' is encloypedic. Prehaps American readers know why no comments are necessary, but I have no idea. Is it because he is a trade-unionist? Was he particulary militant or extreme? Is there an incident that I am not aware of? Could someone please fix this, I was going to add a 'world-wide view' tag but it is unnecessary just for one line, but could editors of this article please consider international readers. Thank-you. Teiresias84 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the verbatim text of Colson's memo. The editorializing was part of the original memo. Jokestress 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Teiresias84 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leonard Woodcock

message: There's a reference to the uber-complete enemies list, with over 30,000 names. Is that list available online anywhere? While it would certainly be too long to include in an article, a link would be very useful. A quick Googling on my part turned up nothing, but I have to think someone's put it online somewhere. Jbenton 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The master list of Nixon political opponents was published in the New York Times, but I'm not aware of a published source for the 30,000+ name list. We have only heard people involved make mention of it. Jokestress 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas. I'm working on a research project about a strange older fellow who, like many others, takes pride in proclaiming he was on Nixon's enemies list. I doubt he's correct, but I figure that 30,000-person list could include a whole lot of people. Thanks. Jbenton 18:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jbenton, I recently had one of those too. David Steinberg "came out" in 2002 as being on the list. He doesn't appear on any version. What was quite bizarre was his claim that Nixon sent hecklers to his shows, and that story changed a lot at every telling. No claim of IRS harassment. No claim of messing with his legal status in the US (he is Canadian).SteveJEsposito (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete enemies list?

message: Sources at bottom give not one but two sources of publication for the verbatim list. Please explain what else is unreferenced here. Jokestress 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think maybe the actual-verbatim-text part of the article should be protected such that only administrators can edit it. The problem is, to protect just part of a page, it would need to be transcluded, and there's a guideline against templates masquerading as article content. So, firstly, do y'all agree that it would be good for that part of the article to be protected? And secondly, if so, do y'all think it's sufficiently worthwhile as to warrant violating that guideline? —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it might be nice to protect it, I'm not sure there's a precedent, and the number of revisions, while mildly frustrating, aren't that common. If you know of other cases where that's been done, we can look at those, but I don't know if any. Jokestress 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect actual verbatim text? 

message: I don't believe verbatim text belongs to Wikipedia, although I cannot find a direct prohibition for it in the policies. I do however propose that the entire memo be copied to Wikisource and that we include a -template. Then we rewrite the list NPOV-ly and add encyclopaedic comments to the entries. The original comments ought to be removed at first, but can be brought back in as evidence. HymylyT@C 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbatim text on Wikipedia? 

message: What does this word mean in the context of this list?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.219.41 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmed 

message: The list was illegal, right? because its never mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.81.63 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, making a list, even for an expressed illegal purpose, is not illegal.  Even making a list and saying ON THE LIST that these are people you intend to kill, is not, in itself, illegal.  I could make a list right now and say that I intend to kill all of the people I have listed, and it isn't illegal.  It's covered under free speech.Bigdatut (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal?

message: Why didnt Nixon like Bill Cosby?--76.173.255.40 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosby is seen as "conservative" now, but not so much then. This letter from Jet Magazine shows him as very against Agnew and opposed to Nixon's re-election. Granted it's after he'd been on the list, but some things in it likely mean he opposed Nixon then too. (Dislike of Agnew, concern about a "bigoted court", etc) Although "The Master List" included many names without explanation, like Joe Namath.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Cosby? 

message: How did this list come to light?  Why do we even know about it?  This article is silent on what seems like should be central to the story.  Really poor job guys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.53.70 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Article 

message: The IMDb's biography for actor Gene Hackman states that he was on "Richard Nixon's infamous "List of Enemies" during the 1972 presidential election", but he doesn't appear in this article or on the longer list that is linked from it. I can understand that he might appear because of The Conversation (for example), but that was released in 1974. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hackman is not on The Master List either. Was it he who said he was on the list, or did someone else make it up? David Steinberg has been trying to pull the same thing since at least 2002. Not sure what it is with people who try to dream themselves onto such an easy verifiable list. However, he appears to be a contributor to the McCarthy Campaign. The list of McCarthy donors and staff is sometimes called a Nixon Enemies List.SteveJEsposito (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Hackman 

message: In answer to a couple of previous questions here, the "second enemies list" hit the newspapers on Dec. 21, 1973. I added a section for it today. Gene Hackman was indeed on it, along with some non-famous people like my parents. I've made a searchable list of Nixon's Enemies List at EnemiesList.info. There are a few other people who weren't part of a specific list who should probably be included. They were apparently included in the "Political Opponents and Enemies Project" file and their audit history was investigated by the Congressional Hearings (see  www.archive.org/details/statementofinfor08unit).
There is no way that there were 30,000 names in a file "a few inches thick." That's a nutty, unsupported statement that should be deleted. My database has 823 names, but some are duplicates while other entries refer to married couples. Given the Congressional testimony with a few additional names, it's hard to support anything more than "about 1000" names.
My lists come from the PDF of the Congressional testimony and from newspaper accounts. I'll comment more about sources on the "Master List of Political Opponents" talk page.Danaxtell (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Enemies List