Talk:Madman theory

message: user:129.118.15.218 (the IP resolves to the Texas Tech) keeps editing this page to state that the term is the work of historian Jeffrey Kimball, which flatly contradicts the Haldeman's quote here. In addtion, it makes all kinds of unreferenced assertions about Haldeman's book. In addition, the anon's version removes all the wikified terms here. Raul654 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right - I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. Please remember to wikipedia:Cite sources when making those claims. Also, please take care not to replace "wikified text" (text which links to other wikipedia articles) with unwikified text. Raul654 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon edits

message: This article doesn't even bother to cite the source who claims that the 'madman theory' defined Nixon's foreign policy.  One would think that such an interpretation would need at least to demonstrate how pretending to be insane was any more central to Nixon's policy than, say, triangulation. --WadeMcR 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The'' defining characteristic? 

message: The problems section makes unwarranted assumptions about cause and effect. It cites a book, but I know for sure that this book is not the only, or even the consensus viewpoint. In particular trotting out the old right-wing talking point that the only reason the North Vietnamese kept fighting was because of protests in the USA. A secondary problem is the tone; it seems more like a history class where the professor is trying to push his viewpoint (and what's with the archaic "whilst" and "unbeknownst"?). 66.95.123.6 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the "problems" section 

message: I just saw this article cited in an online discussion for a proposition that doesn't seem to be supported by the cited sources here. It looks like this article needs a flag to draw in more editing and source-checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing for this article is really poor.  

message: In addition to the problems above (in summary: there are few sources for this minor aspect of Nixon's presidency, and its importance is hugely overstated in the article. The rest appears to be original research.), we can't just tautologically repeat Nixon's pejorative usage of "mad": "madmen" who just randomly kill their neighbors are a (harmful) stereotype with very little connection to reality.
Was Nixon going for imitating a disease recognized by psychiatry, or the fictional "disease" he probably thought was an accurate portrayal of mental illness? Is it surprising that Nixon's strategy never worked, since anyone advised by a psychiatrist would recognize Nixon's alleged behavior as radically different from actual mental illness?
176.2.91.29 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what does "mad" mean? 

message: Other politicians were claimed to also follow this "theory" (strategy), like here. Should this be included? My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Other politicians

message: Trump is very clearly using this strategy for both foreign and domestic affairs. Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/02/26/daily-202-trump-suggests-his-embrace-of-the-madman-theory-brought-north-korea-to-the-table/5c7422741b326b71858c6c33/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.161.97 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This theory is not limited to Nixon alone, as the article suggests

message: The phrase "even less effective than Nixon's" used late in the article implies that Nixon's use of the strategy was ineffective, which is not established anywhere else in the article. The only judgement of it is that some experts are skeptical but it could be effective in certain circumstances. If the phrasing is intended to reflect Stevenson's point of view, it should probably be a direct quotation instead of stated in the body of the article as though it were an established fact that the tactic as used by Nixon was ineffective. This type of phrasing can be caused by the editor's personal opinion of one or both Presidents being discussed, and we have to avoid that in objective reference sources. EGarrett01 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Even Less Effective" 

message: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/john-farrell-nixon-book-excerpt-214954/
per this politico article, it was actually Charles Colson who thought Nixon had suffered a stroke or heart attack on the phone, and he reached out to Sanchez. 76.84.186.230 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  politico story contradicts Manolo Sanchez thinking Nixon had stroke/heart attack