Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 1

message: Perhaps I missed it, but does this article explain that Nixon ran as a "states rights" (i.e., anti-desegregation) candidate, which helped solidify the realignment of the south behind the G.O.P.? I don't know what the go-to book is on the subject, but it's discussed in Kurlansky's 1968. Bds yahoo 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: States Rights?

message: This article states:
was feeling sick, having recently injured his knee while campaigning
while the article U.S. presidential election, 1960 states:
because he injured his knee on the way to the studio
Anyone want to clear up this inconsistancy?
--130.184.31.21 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm far from being a conservative or a Nixon-defender, but it seems to me fair and NPOV to mention that wiretapping was not a Nixonian innovation (Johnson let Hoover conduct atrocious surveillance of Martin Luther King, etc.)--that is, if Nixon's use of wiretapping is going to be discussed in this article. Bds yahoo 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old

message: Richard Nixon delivered an address to the nation on the evening of Thursday, August 8th, 1974, declaring he would resign the next day.  For the text of his remarks, from the official Public Papers of the Presidents series see http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research_Center/1974_pdf_files/1974_0244.pdf 
The next morning after making farewell remarks to the White House staff at 9:36 A.M., he took a helicopter that took him to Andrews A.F.B., and there boarded Air Force One to return to his home in California.  While Nixon was airborne over southern Illinois, White House Chief of Staff General Alexander Meigs Haig Junior presented, in accordance with Title Three of the U.S. Code, the resignation letter to the Secretary of State, Henry A. Kissinger, in his White House office.  That was at 11:35 A.M.  At noon on the ninth, the resignation took effect and Chief Justice Burger swore in Ford in the East Room of the White House.  At that moment, Nixon was 39,000 feet over Jefferson City, Missouri.  The pilot of Air Force One then radioed in to change the plane's call sign from "Air Force One" to "SAM 26000" as the plane no longer carried the president.
For the resignation letter (all eleven words of it) see http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research_Center/1974_pdf_files/1974_0246.pdf
PedanticallySpeaking 13:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon Resignation 

message: 207.whatever's Aug 20 entry needs work, and I don't know where to begin. Nuke it? Wiki it? Is it redundant? We need that nice administration table here. --Golbez 14:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on a "nice administration table".AlistairMcMillan 17:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Submitted. AlistairMcMillan 17:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  207's entry 

message: I want to start off by saying that I am not a Nixon scholar by any means but I noticed some things I would like to bring up. Didn't Nixon bomb Laos
in addition to Cambodia. And my understanding was that these bombing were kept secret from congress as well as the American people. Plus, the article
puts quotes around the word "secret" when describing this deception, as if to say "some people consider this lie to the American people a 'secret'". It 
seems like an unambigues secret to me. At least the article should expain why it is a "secret" and not a secret.
I would have corrected these things but like I said, I don't know enough about Nixon to be so bold. JesseHogan 04:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticed some problems 

message: The main picture in the article is wrong.  It is currently one of Dick Cheney, not Richard Nixon.  And I cant find why the page is doing this in the page edit section.  If anyone can correct, please do.  tiepilottillard 20:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture in article 

message: I eliminated the quotes contributed by User:202.156.2.138.  I'm assuming they may have come from the White House Tapes but no sources were cited, that alone is cause enough for removal.
Even if some of these quotes are on the tape I hardly consider them quotations.  It is well known the tapes contain a lot of inflammatory and nasty comments and are about the furthest thing from politically correct.  That has been established.  I think picking out some zingers to include as quotations adds nothing to the accuracy of the article in any way though I'm certainly willing to listen to other opinions on it.
This user has a history of adding items that get reverted due to their nature and most of his/her contributions have been on characters from the Smurfs as opposed to some meaningful work on Nixon or other presidents.
--Wgfinley 08:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you said regarding the need for citations and the validity of considering them notable quotations. However,
I would not like to see (cited) quotations from the tape disappear from the article. They offer a candid glimps into the well
known irrational, paranoid, and anti-Semitic side of Nixon. Instead of putting these into the Quotation section, perhaps 
there should be a section
detailing the tapes themselves, giving a general understanding of what was said on the tapes, and what people have surmized from the
contents of the tapes in regard to Nixons character and so forth.JesseHogan 18:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what quotes are or are not included, I do think we need a separate article on the Nixon tapes, which I do not believe we have. They are certainly important and encyclopedic. -R. fiend 18:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbing Quotes 

message: I reverted some edits that a new Wikipedia author made, they were far afield from NPOV.  I think whether the bombings were illegal or not is a matter of debate.  Be that as it may, the article makes it more than clear that the runs on Cambodia were kept from the Congress and the public. 
I also think the editor deliberately tried to hide his edits by marking them as "minor".  Sorry, substituting "murdered" for "killed" and calling the bombings illegal is not a minor edit!   --Wgfinley 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambodia Bombing 

message: I made a mistake in my comment about my edit, however is there any policy about full names ? See George W. Bush 
Ericd 05:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: General style guidelines indicate once you use a person's full name in an article you don't have to use it again for readability.  Of course, there are exceptions (for instance, if you were discussing George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush in the same article it would only make sense to be more specific).  --Wgfinley 05:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Full names

message: *Text of press conference , extracted version . 
:::Neither of the above partial and incomplete transcripts contain Nixon's quote, or the question to which he responded.
::::you can't find it in the official text of http://watergate.info/judiciary/APPI.PDF, or the extrated version, cause it's not there. The House Judiciary Committee which was holding the Watergate hearings, it appears, did feel question's on Nixon's personal finances and taxes returns were not germane to thier proceedings.
:::::Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.  I'm sure there is a transcript out there that contains both the question asked of Nixon, as well as his response, that the 'plumbers' haven't gotten to yet.  165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
*From Facts on File 1973, Volume 33, No. 1719 Oct. 7-13, 1973, pg. 854, 
:"The White House refused to confirm or deny an Oct. 3 report in the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin that President and Mrs. Nixon paid only $792.81 in federal income taxes for 1970 and $878.03 in 1971"
*From Facts on File 1973, Volume 33, No. 1725 Nov. 18-24, 1973, pg. 964, 
:"The President made the declaration in discussing his personal finances.  The President was asked about a press report he paid $792 in federal income tax in 1970 and $878 in 1971 and whether public officials should disclose their personal finances."
:::Still no transcript of the question above.  Accuracy and POV of the above quotes questionable as well.  "persoanl?" "Presidnet?" "inbcome?"
::::So I am a half blind clutz who can barely type 30 words per minute, nonetheless they are accurate citations that can be found in virtually any public library.
::::: I didn't mean to demean your typing skills.  I make my fair share of mistakes as well.  My intent was to point out that the above 2 extracts from "Facts on File" do not specifically relay the content of the question to which Nixon was responding when he mentioned never having obstructed justice. 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)  
*"New York Times article by R. W. Apple, November 17, 1973 
:::The above cited NYTimes article does not present the question to which Nixon responded.  
::::You will find this in virtually all press accounts of the event, because the question had nothing to do with Watergate.  The best they can do is call it Watergate related, or allied.
::::: Actually, you are incorrect.  The Post article specifically states that he was responding to Watergate related questions.  Of course he is talking about his personal finances and taxes when he says he has never profited from his position -- but that is not the whole quote.  You seem to keep evading discussion on the part where he also denies obstructing justice.  I believe that if we had a transcript of exactly what he is responding to, it would go a long way to clearing things up. 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
:::It does, however, support the fact that the cursory investigations were indeed related to the Watergate investigations: "After months of torment over the Watergate and allied scandals, the President gave detailed answers to more than a dozen questions."  Further support that Nixon's quote and the Watergate scandal are at least somewhat related can be found in the Washington Post article here:
:::*"Declaring that "I am not a crook," President Nixon vigorously defended his record in the Watergate case tonight and said he had never profited from his public service ... In an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press managing editors, Mr. Nixon was tense and sometimes misspoke. But he maintained his innocence in the Watergate case and promised to supply more details on his personal finances and more evidence from tapes and presidential documents."  165.247.213.33 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
:::::"at least somewhat related", 
:::::the only relationship is that Nixon was asked questions on both, Watergate and his personal finances.  He was not under investigation by the any Congressional Committee or Independent Councel regarding the filing of his tax return.  IRS was performing an audit at the time, and it was the result of an illegal leak of the confidential information of a taxfiler, in this case, Richard Nixon, to Jack White of the Providence Journal-Bulletin.  When Nixon answered the question regarding his personal tax matters, journalists bent over backwards to insert "Watergate" into the same sentence as "I am not a crook".  However, none of the transcripts, or for that matter press reports, can support the charge that Nixon was discussing Watergate.  And video clips of the entire conference will support that.  And please be respectful of my request not to vandalize my hard work that is not cut and pasted.  Thank you. Nobs01 7 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
::::::Actually, the audit of Nixon's taxes wasn't in response to a leak to the Providence JB; it was in response to the results of an audit of Agnew (he pleaded guilty to Tax Evasion crimes), and the public outcry that Nixon's finances be investigated as well.  You constantly avoid explaining just what Nixon referred to with is "obstructing justice" denial, and I'm sure a transcript of the Q&A session, or even a video of it, will show he was NOT referring to his tax returns.  As for your accusation that anyone is "vandalising" your "hard work" *chuckle*, give it up.  You'd do much better at trying to find reds under beds.  Inserting my comments immediately following your comments is a very common form of discussion on Talk pages, and you'd do well to get used to it.  Rest assured that I strive to be careful to never disrupt the continuity of your comments, and I'll never ever edit the printed word of another contributor. 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) 
The Providence Journal-Bulletin came into possession of detailed information regarding the Presidents tax returns for 1970 and 1971, then published the information.  This information came from the IRS, which is required by law to keep all filings confidential. Jack White is the reporter for the Providence Journal-Bulletin who wrote the story.  At the time of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association press conference, disclosure laws of public officials were not what they are today.  Also, Nixon was not the subject of a Congressional investigation regarding his personal finances.  An outside group had requested the IRS to audit Nixon's return in July of 1973, regarding a deduction Nixon took for the donation of his Vice Presidential Papers, which the Supreme Court later ruled on.  There was no allegation anywhere in the Watergate proceedings that Nixon somehow ever personally profitted or benefitted from the Watergate breakin.  The "I am not a crook" quote has absolutley no baring on the Watergate breakin, or any Watergate investigations.
Nobs01 6 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
::Investigations into his finances were indeed related to the ongoing investigations regarding Watergate.  You still fail to provide the exact text of the question to which Nixon was responding, as well as the reason for his "obstructing justice" response.  165.247.213.33 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
:::Additionally, it appears that Nixon's famous quote came at the end of a long (6 minutes), rambling monologue covering Watergate, personal finances, impeachment bills and presidential responsibility.  See this article. 209.86.0.192 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
Extended extract from Facts on File 1973, Volume 33, No. 1725 Nov. 18-24, 1973, pg. 964:
:"The President made the declaration in discussing his personal finances.  When he had left office as vice president in 1961, he said, his net worth was $47,000, but he "made a lot of money" in the next eight years: $250,000 from his book, Six Crisis; between $100,000 and $250,000 a year practicing law; selling all his stock in 1968 for about $300,000; his New York apartment for $300,000; and another $100,000 due him from his law firm.
:The President was asked about a press report he paid $792 in federal income tax in 1970 and $878 in 1971 and whether public officials should disclose their personal finances. [See p.854A1] Nixon said he had disclosed his personal finances and would make another report available "because, obviously, you're all so busy that when these things come across your desk maybe you don't see them."
:In reply to the query, he said he paid $79,000 in income tax in 1969 and "nominal amounts" in the next two years. Why the nominal amounts? he asked. "It wasn't because of the deductions for shall we say a cattle ranch or interest or you know all the gimmicks that you've got where you can deduct from."  But because his predecessor Lyndon Johnson "came in to see me shortly after I became President" and suggested he take a legal deduction from his income tax for his vice presidential papers, as Johnson had with most of his Presidential papers.  He did this, Nixon said, his papers being appraised at $500,000, "many believe conservatively, at the moment," he added.  He would be glad to have the papers back, he said, and pay the tax, "because I think they're worth more than that." [See p. 853B3]
*From Facts on File 1973, Volume 33, No. 1719 Oct. 7-13, 1973, pg. 853:
::::I have no doubt that Nixen was asked those questions about his tax reports and about his finances.  However, nothing in the "Facts on File" extracts above state that he was responding to such questions during his November press conference at Disney World.  165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
:The Administration
:Nixon tax audit asked. An audit of President Nixon's tax returns for the past three years was requested July 29 by Tax Analysts and Advocates, a public interest law organization.  The group challenged a possible deduction during those years for a donation by Nixon of his vice presidential papers to the National Archives.  The papers were valued at $570,000 and, under a law in effect until July 25, 1969, an income tax deduction could have been obtained as a charitable contribution of the gift to the government.
: The tax group was not challenging the legality of such a deduction but wether in fact the gift was made before the cutoff date of July 25.
:The donation was said to have occurred in March 1969, when the law would have permitted Nixon to count its value against 30% of his income in 1969 and 50% in subsequent years.  Such tax write-offs were barred after July 25, 1969.  The tax group contended that there was neither a signed deed nor a signed receipt for the gift and that certain restrictions, such as access to the papers, were attached to the turnover, signifying some retention of ownership rights.
:In a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, the tax group called for appointment of an independent auditor to review the Nixon tax returns.
:A White House statement later July 29 said: "The matter has been previously raised and considered.  The allegations are unfounded.  The suggested procedure would be inappropriate."
:The White House also declined comment Sept. 11 on New York Times and Baltimore Sun reports that Nixon might have been among 111 persons in 1970 and 72 in 1971 who earned more than $200,000 but paid no federal income taxes.  The reports were premised on the possibility that the President claimed deductions for the vice-presidential papers and for loan-interest payments and real estate taxes paid on his California and Florida properties, which, taken together, could have offset his tax liabilities for 1970 and perhaps 1971.
:Although White House Deputy Press Secretary Gerald L. Warren refused to comment Sept. 12 on "a personal matter," without attribution, that it would be incorrect to assume that Nixon paid no taxes for those years.
:The White House refused to confirm or deny an Oct. 3 report in the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin that President and Mrs. Nixon paid only $792.81 in federal income taxes for 1970 and $878.03 in 1971 despite the annual income in excess of $200,000.  The totals were equivalent to the amount of tax paid by a family of three with a maximum income of $7,550 in 1970 or $8,500 in 1971.
Nobs01 6 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
:::I gave your recent additions a cursory glance, and still don't see the text of the question asked of Nixon.  If it is buried somewhere in there, can you please point it out? 165.247.213.33 7 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
:::The above 8 paragraphs, while interesting, are 100% irrelevant to the question at hand. 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
One more example from PBS American Experience Program Transcript, quote extracted below,
:NARRATOR: Questions now arose about every aspect of the President's life: campaign contributions, taxes, friendships, vacation homes.
:Everything seemed fair game. The President struggled to defend himself against assaults that came from all sides.
:Pres. NIXON: I want to say this to the television audience. I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.
Comment: "Questions now arose about every aspect of the President's life: campaign contributions, taxes, friendships, vacation homes" clearly places the quote outside of Watergate investigations, especially given the record that neither the House Judiciary Committee nor the Independent Counsel had cause to investigate any of these matters; the "questions that arose", were from journalists.  This treatment of President Nixon's Troublesome Tax Returns has excellent timeline and sourced analysis of the subject.  An IRS audit was concluded September 5, 1973 (two and a half months prior to "I am not a crook" quote); Nixon requested the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT) chaired by Wilbur Mills on December 9, 1973 (3 weeks after "I am not a crook" quote) for a ruling on the charitable deduction,
:as a way of reducing the press speculation, the criticism, and the public pressure for impeachment (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 10, 1973). 
Given the evidence above, it is obvious (1) the Judiciary Committee had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973; (2) the Independent Counsel had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973; (3) the IRS had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973;  (4) the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT) had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973. The only "questions", or "investigations", were from newsreporters. 129.24.95.227 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
:::Given the evidence above, it is obvious (1) you still can't come up with an explanation to what Nixon was referring to when he claimed to have "never obstructed justice."  It certainly wasn't in reference to paying taxes.  Until you can come up with the transcript of Q&A that proves otherwise, we'll just have to assume the reporters were correct when they said he was responding to questions about Watergate. 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
::::Putting these two links in provides the reader with the best NPOV available as of now using internet search engine resources; the Associated Press itself does not have a transcript available; Lexis-Nexis produces nothing.  There maybe a full-length video available for purchase through a site, and I'll be happy to providee that link if necessary.  the House Judiciary Committee's transcript http://watergate.info/judiciary/APPI.PDF is the most complete unadulterated transcript available (and there is a reason the Impeachment Committee did not consider anything Nixon said regarding his personal financial affairs). And the site on Nixon's tax problemms is very well researched, and contains information not available on most Watergate chronogoy's and other Watergate memory lane type sites.  Let the reader decide themselves.  I think we're close to resolving this, but without those two inclusions, I will declare that secteion POV. Nobs01 7 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
:::::I can't agree with you that since your links have omitted sections of the Q&A press conference that it proves they weren't related to Watergate.  I can't see any reasonable objections to adding those links to the External Links section, but to link text to a quote when that text doesn't reference that quote...  that's a POV stretch.  And again, you fail to offer a reason behind Nixon's "obstructing justice" comment.  Hey, how about just your opinion?  Maybe even a nod to indicate that you even know it exists? 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
Did you read the title to http://watergate.info/judiciary/APPI.PDF? 
:Statement of Information, Appendix I, Committee of the Judiciary, Presidential Statements on the Watergate Breakin and Its Investigation.  "I am not a crook" appears nowhere in its findings. Hence, under the law, the United States Congress Committee on the Judiaciary rendered the legal opinion, under H. Res. 803, Ninety-third Congress, that "I am not a crook" was not a Presidential Statement on the Watergate Breakin and its investigation. Nobs01 7 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
:::I did indeed read the title.  The title does not indicate that the "Statement of Information" is all inclusive, containing every utterance ever made by the President on the subject.  Nor would it be reasonable to assume that it does.  And my question still remains (no matter how many times you try to delete them):  To what did Nixon refer when he made the comment about never having obstructed justice? 209.86.0.51 8 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
:::I've located a snippet of audio from that press conference at 
:::Unfortunately, it doesn't answer our questions about what question Nixon was responding to, nor does it explain his "never obstructed justice" comment.  I'm still looking... 209.86.0.192 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
:::It appears press editor Dick Smyser asked the question to which Nixon famously responded.  See the article located here: 
::::Dick Smyser, who served as president of two national editors' associations and posed the question that led President Nixon to declare, "I'm not a crook," at the height of the Watergate scandal, died yesterday. He was 81 ... During the 1973 APME convention, Mr. Smyser asked Mr. Nixon about the huge demands on the presidency. "To what extent do you think this explains possibly how something like Watergate can occur?" he asked. Mr. Nixon concluded his answer, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook."
:::It's looking more and more like Nixon was NOT responding specifically and solely to a question about his taxes. 209.86.0.192 8 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
::::(A) What is the question; (B) non-contemporaneous, which makes it (C) irrelevent. Simply having "I am not a crook" in the same sentence as "Watergate" is evidence of nothing. Nobs01 8 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
:::::Try reading the article located here.  It supports your assertion that Nixon's "never profitted" comments were about his finances, but also supports my assertion that his "obstruction" comments were in regard to Watergate.  It also appears that C-SPAN may have a copy of the whole press conference. 209.86.0.192 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
More evidence of the significance of :famous quote": What They Said In 1973, The Yearbook of Spoken Opinion, Compiled and Editied by Alan F. Pater and Jason R. Pater, published by Mentor Book Company, Beverly Hills, Calif., , Part One: National Affairs, Politics, The Watergate Affair, lists lengthy quotations from 110 prominant personages alphabetically over 40 pages,  Richard Nixon occupies 4 full pages with 14 extenisve quotations given in chronological sequence; the last entry on pg. 298 is enscribed Broadcast address to the nation, Washington, Nov. 7/The New York Times, 11-8:32..  Significance of this finding: (1) the so-called "famous" quotation is not even listed the book What They Said in 1974; (2) nothing, absolute nothing from the Nov. 17 Press Conference in Orlando is even considered worthy as a quotation by Nixon relating to Watergate.  Nobs01 15:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "I am not a crook" & "never obstructed justice"

message: Questions on this wording: "he held up members of a Politcal Action Committee (PAC) that Vooris received substantial campaign donations from"; (1) shouldn't this read "he held up a list of members" (2) what evidence is there for the use of the term "PAC" in 1946.  Thank you. Nobs 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eary Career 

message: If nixon supported Pinochet, he was a war criminal.
:Big deal, he was a war criminal even if he didn't support Pinochet.  You forget that conscripted innocent US civilians to fight the war in Vietnam.  He tortured them in special camps using sleep deprivation, verbal and physical abuse, conditioning to follow orders and desensitization to killing.  After do that to his "own" people, what he did to the Chileans is nothing.--Silverback 13:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
What camps are you talking about? Sleep Depravation? Surely you must be over sensationalizing the various boot camps for the different branches of the military. The above statements are not coherent with history. By using this logic, if Nixon was a war criminal for his actions in Vietnam, then for sure John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were also war criminals in that they started and escalated our involvement there. Even more so by Robert Macnemara's own admition.
Again, on your comments about "special camps using sleep depravation, verbal and physical abuse, conditioning to follow orders and desinsitzation to killng..." If that makes a president a war criminal, then the same logic dictates that ALL US Presidents are war criminals, even Carter and Clinton.
64.1.207.242 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a war criminal

message: I did not see any mentions of RN's frequent anti-semitic remarks on the tapes, or his 1971 order to Fred Malek to compile a list of all Jews in the Labor Department. Anti-semitic comments by Harry Truman show up in his wiki article. 
An example from the Washington Post, June 20, 2005 regarding Mark Felt: Nixon: "Is he Catholic?" Haldeman: "Jewish." Nixon: "Christ, [they] put a Jew in there," exploded Nixon...
I would have absolutely no problem with this, provided it was balanced by words of support for Nixon by famous Jews, such as Ariel Sharon referring to Nixon as "one of the best friends of Israel ever in the White House", or this quote by Barry Farber:
"Give me a Nixon who curses Jew boys over in Treasury but resupplies Israel ... over a Franklin D. Roosevelt who professes great love for the Jews but lets all those Jewish refugees aboard the S.S. St. Louis be returned to the death camps of Europe rather than land in the U.S. even though they were close enough to see the lights of Miami Beach." - Anon
:Or the fact the Golda Meir and others credit Nixon with saving Isreal in the Yom Kippur War (see Yom_Kippur_War#Long-term_effects_of_the_war, reads: " Nixon then appealed to Congress on October 18th for $2.2 billion for arms shipments to Israel. On October 20th, in the midst of the war", for example). nobs 21:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-semitism 

message: There is no mention of Nixon's involvement with Naval Intelligence, to which if rumors be proved, Benjamin C. Bradlee worked at the same time. nobs 19:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval intelligence

message: I agree that the Nixon portrait looks better than his head shot but by moving it to the cabinet section it allows for an enlargment that I think gives a better visual of it and allows for the use of both Nixon photos. BCV 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon portrait 

message: I wanted to point out that turning the war over to the 'ineffective South Vietnamese army' failed largely due to the
Democrat dominated US Congress cutting funding for this to a dribble.
* Um, no.  ARVN was a corrupt organization that had no history or interest in protecting its failed state.  If we'd given ARVN a trillion dollars, it wouldn't have made any difference.
* Um, no.  We did not in fact fund them enough to prove the validity of the above statement.  If we had funded them a 'trillion' dollars and they still failed, then I would believe you.  This statement - After the withdrawal of U.S. troops, fighting was left to the South Vietnamese army, which was well supplied with modern arms, but whose fighting capability was in question. - is not NPOV, in that it states an opinion which is questionable regarding the SV Army ability to defend itself, and also factually inaccurate in how well they were supplied with weapons.
**Um, yes. SVN had vastly more and better equipment than the North, and a comparable population, and 10 years of intense training by US doldiers. Rjensen 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: Removed from article: "who was descended from a German family originally called Milhausen." All references that I can find say that his mother's family was Irish Quaker not German. Rmhermen 16:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German

message: The article is filled with too much detail -- making it too long and obscuring the important points. Time to trim! I also added a scholatly bibliography.  Rjensen 23:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: too much Trivia 

message: Had he not resigned, today he most likely would have been one of only three American presidents to have been impeached; the first being Andrew Johnson; the last, Bill Clinton.
stop me if i'm wrong, but surely Bill Clinton was never impeached? then what is meant by this sentence? Jdcooper 18:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Clinton was impeached. He wasn't convicted and removed from office. An impeachment is the indictment, not the conviction. So the sentence you reference is correct, but it is still poorly written. Mentioning Clinton in it is anachronistic. -EDM 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, i suspected it was something like that, cheers. Jdcooper 09:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton impeached?!

message: I'm no fan of Nixon's dad, but doesn't this statement sound POV to you? (Well it does to me.)
His father (known as Frank) was a former member of the Methodist Protestant Church who had sincerely converted to Quakerism but never fully absorbed its spirit, retaining instead a volatile temper.
Unless there is credible evidence saying that his father "never fully absorbed the spirit, retaining instead a volatile temper", then it shouldn't be there.
--The Mischief Man 00:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon's Father 

message: I made a very tiny edit about the foundation of the Othogonian Society in Whittier College. After extensive googling, I found that Nixon co-founded the society. It used to say that he founded it.--The Mischief Man 00:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthogonian Foundation 

message: Original sentence:
:He did not explain his plans to end the war in Vietnam, leading Hubert H. Humphrey to allege that he must have some "secret plan."
My change: 
:He did not explain his plans to end the war in Vietnam, leading Hubert H. Humphrey and the media to allege that he must have some "secret plan." Nixon didn't invent the phrase, but he also did not disavow the term, and it soon became a part of the campaign. 
If necessary, all of my new edits can be footnoted here, as they are currently footnoted on secret plan. 
I added "Nixon didn't invent the phrase, but he also did not disavow the term, and it soon became a part of the campaign." 
Because I felt it was important for readers to realize that: 
*First, Nixon never created the term (see my footnotes on secret plan for verification of this).  Which is implicit in the original but is now explicit, and 
*Second, and intertwined with the first reason, that although Nixon never created the term, he never disavowed it, and used it to his advantage. Since Nixon never disavoed the term, it makes me question whether the word "alledged" (a common weasel word) is the best word to use, but I will not change it.
I added the words "and the media" to show that the media picked up on the term and used it, not just Hubert H. Humphrey. 
I don't know enough about this period of history to even know if Hubert H. Humphrey used the term, but since it is in the original edit, before my edit, I will not delete it, but I don't claim it.
Again, I can add footnotes to these two sentences, if needed.Travb 14:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Plan