Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 2

message: Should the two judges that Nixon considered but did not actually nominate be listed?  PedanticallySpeaking 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Court nominations

message: Did Nixon really say this? 
: Did Nixon say what? That's just a weekend update skit.
:: Chevy Chase: Well, after a long illness, Generalissimo Francisco Franco died Wednesday. Reactions from world leaders were varied. Held in contempt as the last of the fascist dictators in the West by some, he was also eulogized by others, among them Richard Nixon, who said, quote "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States. He earned worldwide respect for Spain through firmness and fairness." Despite Franco's death and an expected burial tomorrow, doctors say the dictator's health has taken a turn for the worse. 
:: I think that's what he was talking about. I doubt that it really happened, no real evidence was found by my research. Also, it would be a little ridiculous for him to say. --Matt guthrie 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Nixon really this stupid?  

message: I have noticed a bunch of small vandalism here and there, on the article today (02/22/06).  I corrected the most recent ones but someone with more background on Nixon should take a good look.  I almost put up the cleanup tag but decided to comment here.  J. Straub 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article quality, vandalism 

message: I find this section ambigious:
"Further tape releases, however, removed all doubt as to Nixon's involvement both in the Watergate cover-up and also the illegal campaign finances and intrusive government surveillance that were at the heart of the scandal."
Removed all doubts... but positive or negative? Was he cleared or was he not? I'm sure others who are not familiar with the Watergate scandal would find this section ambigious too. --Coolspot 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt pertaining to his innocence. When there is a question that has doubt, and there is a common opinion towards the answer, doubt always pertains to that common opinion being wrong. So, in this case, he was guilty. This is all irrelevant, seeing as he was pardoned from any wrong doing, however. But yeah, it would be doubt towards his innocence. 74.12.8.44 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He must have known about it as President. Extremely sexy 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed all doubt - tapes 

message: One sentence on the 1972 election is hardly sufficient. And the reduction of much of his presidency to a list of initiatives reflects poor quality in the article. There needs to be more on Bretton Woods? 1973 oil shock? Shuttle diplomacy with Israel and Egypt? 18.251.5.83 10:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1972 election 

message: From the anthrax article: "Weaponized stocks of anthrax in the US were reportedly destroyed in 1969 after President Nixon ordered the dismantling of US biowarfare programs."  Shouldn't Nixon's order to dismantle biowarfare programs be mentioned in the aricle?  24.199.116.198 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dismantling of biowarfare programs? 

message: Did the man have one? The article skips directly from his first campaign for Congress to his election to the vice presidency. Surely there must have been something going on in the intervening six years. Like, for example, his Senate campaign. --12.217.121.245 08:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional career 

message: . I think it should be moved to somewhere else in that section or to "Trivia".   John R Murray 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great-Grandfather

message: I've reverted the move of this article from "Richard Nixon" to "Richard M. Nixon". The Manual of Style and naming conventions all recommend that middle names or initials not be included; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Unless the person is heavily referred to as one title and not another, the inclusion of a middle initial is discouraged; I don't think that Nixon is heavily known as "Richard M. Nixon" more than "Richard Nixon". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: How is this line relevant to Richard Nixon's policies?
"He was also vocal in abusing Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi as an "old witch" in private conversations with Henry Kissinger, who is also recorded as making derogatory comments against Indians."
If anything it should appear in the quotes section. Also, it doesn't appear to be cited. Does anyone else think it should be removed?  Thanks  
Sandbreak 12:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gandhi

message: Things that should be changed before continuing the GA assessment :
* Remove the lists or make them a nice prose.
* Remove the quotation and trivia section.
* Trim down the External links.
* Table in the Vice Presidency section should be removed as it is a duplicate of the information mentioned (gives a look of almanac to the article. Lincher 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination pending on modifications 

message: There seems to be a big gap in the information about Nixon between the time he came back from the Navy and became VP.  Having one line about his involvement in the Hiss trial is shocking, seeing as this is one of the defining moments of his political career.  There should also be some more info concerning his Senate race against Helen Douglas - it is infamous for the tactics he used to win.  There is also little about the fact that he pretty much made a name for himself early on with his Red-baiting.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, I tried to touch on that a bit by re-wording the China section, I don't want to make a whole editorial, but it is quite interesting that someone such as Nixon who was so hostile to the Chinese on so many levels was the first to reach out the proverbial olive branch.  Also it could be pointed out better that this was a very wise strategic move considering the circumstances. --Ccosta 06:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importing missing information 

message: Gaddis is 20 years out of date.  As part of the 'new Cold War History', of which he is a leading proponent, see instead Ilya Gaiduk, 'The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War' or Qiang Zhai, 'China and the Vietnam Wars'.  Nixon did not receive promises of reduction in aid to North Vietnam.  Aid did gradually decrease after the American withdrawal however. Cripipper 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used as well:  Ending the Vietnam War: The Vietnamese Communists' Perspective by Ang Cheng Guan; 2003. Page Number: 61, 69, 77-79. Rjensen 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a copy at hand - could you tell me what sources Cheng Guan quotes? I suspect they are probably the Vietnamese White Book and Gaddis. Cripipper 04:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In early May, Nixon told his National Security Council that he 'didn't get a damn thing on Vietnam" after coming back from Communist China'"  The Vietnam War Files by Jeffrey Kimball; 2004; p.229 Cripipper 05:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guan cites: 42 Memorandum of Conversation between Zhou Enlai and Henry Kissinger, Beijing, 21 October 1971, William Burr (ed.), National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book Number 70: Negotiating US-Chinese Rapprochement. National Security Archive Website.  43  Zhou Enlai and Le Duan, Hanoi, 13 July 1971, in Westad, et al., op. cit., p. 180.  44  Luu and Nguyen, op. cit., pp. 191-193.  45  Zhou Enlai and Le Duan, Beijing 1971 (day and month not provided) in Westad et al., op. cit.  46  Stephen J. Morris, The Soviet-Chinese-Vietnamese Triangle in the 1970's: The View from Moscow, CWIHP, Working Paper Number 25, April 1999, pp. 12-14. Morris's account is based on Soviet sources. See note 11, p. 12.    47  Ilya Gaiduk, The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), pp. 231-232.  48  Le Duc Tho and leng Sary, 7 September 1971 in Westad, et al., op. cit., CWIHP, Working Paper Number 22, pp. 180-181.  Rjensen 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction in Soviet and Chinese aid to DRV 

message: The generally accepted manner of referring to a woman's maiden name is to put that in parenthesis.  This has the added advantage of making it crystal-clear, at a glance, that that was her maiden name, instead of some extra name.
Familiar names like "Pat" for Patricia go in quotes.  This wasn't her name per se, it's an abbreviated form of her name, even if it's what she normally went by. Wjhonson 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature of spouse 

message: According to Google and whitehouse.gov, Nixon's middle name was "Milhous". "Milhouse" is probably a misspelling on phonotactical grounds, helped along by the Simpsons character of the same name (who was named after Nixon). JRM · Talk 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has always spelled it Milhous, until this edit two days ago by an anon changed the spelling to Milhouse.  Good catch.  --tomf688 (talk - email) 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: Some editors want to use this article to attack American foreign policy or to criticize American allies (like Pakistan). That is POV and is not allowed in Wiki. Furthermore it is not germane to an article on Nixon. Finally, it seems to be based more on original research rather than on a consensus of scholars. Only consensus history based on solid scholarship can be allowed here. Rjensen 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After accusing me of POV - when you failed to even glance at the sources let alone read them - you go and falsify facts about "outcast" etc. which the source doesn't mention just to sort of "get even" in a puerile manner. I can now clearly see that you are a pro-Nixon editor and/or a highly biased American and wishes to keep a sanitised version of your presidents etc. Rest assured that your attempts to deny history in this case the genocide of the bengalis is no less devious than the Holocaust Denial. You have also exposed your lack of depth on this subject matter by claiming that is nothing more than original research! Shocking. --Idleguy 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign policy POV not allowed 

message: The citation from the NSA is superfluous.  The US support for Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan war is well known and uncontroversial.  The piece of text that Idleguy keeps adding seems a bit superflous and is stylistically jarring.  Saying Nixon's support for Pakistan was 'vocal' is, for starters, silly.  The important fact is the military support that Pakistan received from the USA, not Nixon's vocal support.  How terrible a dictator Khan was, and the widespread human rights abuses have their place in the article on that particular historical incident, not here.  Cripipper 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idleguy - you said that "India was never in the Cold War loop".  What on earth is that meant to mean? Cripipper 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that unlike Pakistan which was an ally of USA, India was never regarded as a USSR ally in the Cold War. India was a founder-member of the NAM and while it may have leaned heavily on USSR for political and military support it does not equate itself with a Cold War ally. That was the meaning. Idleguy 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't square with the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty of August 1971, when the crisis in East Pakistan was accelerating.  It included security clauses, such as a pledge not to support any third country that the other party was at war with and an agreement to take measures if the other party was attacked.  This made India a de facto ally of the Soviet Union. Cripipper 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the meaning inferred by some analysts, mainly in the US. Take a look at :Image:Cold War Map 1959.png and :Image:Cold War Map 1959.png from the Cold War article and let me know on which side India is portrayed. Even if for the sake of an argument that we do label India a "de facto ally" for all practical purposes it was hardly one of the frontline states that actually involved itself in any "fronts" of the war unlike its neighbour Pakistan (in Afghanistan). btw, I don't have any issues with your edits only the other guy who keeps inserting biased info without sources. Idleguy 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon and Pakistan 

message: Could we include a list of military awards, comendations, medals etc?
149.55.30.100 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Record 

message: I just want to note that the phrase "Indian claims that there were widespread human rights violations against the Bengalis by the Pakistan Army."  diff, is not accurate. Rather, a host of references/citations are provided  in Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 regarding the genocide (1-1.5 million civilian deaths, estimates range from several hundred thousand to 3 million max). The atrocities committed by Pakistan Army in Dhaka was reported back to the State Department by Archer Blood, the US Consul general in East Pakistan. So, calling this "Indian claims" is similar to calling the holocaust as "claims" - denying such vast number of deaths is deplorable. --Ragib 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: using an article on Nixon to vent Indian hatred of Pakistan is a deplorable violation of Wiki standards, especially when it involves deleting actual information on Nixon. Just cut out the pro-Indian POV please. Rjensen 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care about other details about this article. The only thing I was trying to point out here that, the sentece in the version I pointed out is incorrect as there are independent sources including even the US consul general in Dhaka. I don't have any opinion about the rest of the article or any disagreement therein. Thank you. --Ragib 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. adding material to an article on an American politician in order to attack Pakistan is POV. (even worse was the effort to delete info on Nixon) Rjensen 21:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what POV do you see here in *my* comment above? Or were you talking about some other issue unrelated to my comment? --Ragib 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an Indian POV to interpret American foreign policy from India's perspective and not to understand Nixon's goals. That should be in the India article not the one on an American president, whose goals were to help the refugees, avoid war, stabilize and ally, and keep open the channel to China that would help end the Cold War. Those goals have to be listed. Rjensen 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said above, I don't really care about whatever edit disputes are going on in the article, or whatever POV problems this article has. My only point, as mentioned in the start paragraph, is that the number of deaths in Bangladesh Liberation War is an established issue, backed by independent references, and not an "allegation" on any side. Whether that relates to, or not, with this article is something the regular editors of this article can fight over and decide. But if the issue is mentioned, calling it as an "Indian claim" would be totally wrong. You can solve the POV issues with the regular editors, I have only commented out about this single point. How you interpret these numbers of deaths in this article, is not something I care about. Thank you. --Ragib 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Idleguy risks blinded by pro-Indian POV and ignorance of vast American literature on topic (none of which is cited). The sources he lists has Nixon repeatedly insisting his goals were to help refugees, to avoid war, to stabilize Pakistan, and to keep open channels to China. The atrocities perspective is an Indian perspective designed to attack Pakistan, and not designed to explain Nixon's actions (which is what the article is actually about). Wiki can not take the POV perspective that Nixon should have been primarily interested in boosting India, rather than the US. The second front of Cold War is nonsense--Nixon was using Pakistan to end the cold war. Rjensen 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the sources yourself before confusing yourself. The NSA archives indicate that Nixon was seeking China to attack India. If you still didn't read it it's not too late to open up your mind and realise this isn't a pro Nixon personal blog where you can end up writing pretty much anything from an American perspective. maybe in your blind admiration for Nixon, you are willing to overlook these aspects, but it doesn't work like that in an encyclopedia. Merely stating POV doesn't mean your edits are neutral, far from that. Since this has been submitted to the RFM let's see. btw, I still see that you haven't grasped the south asian history by believing that 71 massacres were an "indian claim". this despite other edits not really subscribing to your narrow minded take on history, just like your ex-President. Idleguy 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the same applies to you. It would be equally dangerous if with a limited knowledge on South Asian affairs attempt to edit articles where the scope extends to beyond Nixon's portrayal in the American media. Drop the pro-Nixon edits and wait for the RFM. btw, you didn't add these materials until I came back to reinclude them (they were deleted somewhere in the editing line sometime back, most likely by a Nixon afficianado like you). Your simple explanation on this event stating "this is POV based on original research" was laughable. Since then I realise you have tried to feverishly catch up on this aspect of Nixon's failure and still are not yet up to the mark. I have an array of books to quote if you want me to do so and I am no amateur in the 71 war. Unlike you. Idleguy 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Indian claims"

message: We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Richard Nixon's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Richard Nixon. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Richard Nixon's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Richard Nixon. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed your link for now, because anonymous IPs have been adding your links to many articles since you posted this request. That's not an acceptable way to get around the requirement that you get support here. Wmahan. 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added it.  It seems a perfectly reasonable link to have in the article.  Zsero 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Will and Testament of Richard Nixon 

message: Nixon's religion is down as scientologist. I don't believe this to be accurate.
:That was yet another vandal. I've reverted it. Thanks for noticing that. --Ragib 05:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientologist? 

message: A lot of the quotes seem to be lifted directly from Stone´s "Nixon" film. More citations would be good. andreasegde 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: This is not an annotated bibliographical essay of the sort that one finds in Britannia.  Encyclopedia entries in Britannia are generally sole-authored; I think you are just setting Wikipedia for further POV allegations and edit wars by annotating the bibliography.  Furthermore, it interrupts the integrity of the list on the computer screen, making it much more difficult for the reader to scan/read.  Also the lumping of all the Ambrose books into one line makes it difficult to read as the names and dates all run into one another.  Since this is meant to be a list of references, not a bibliography and certainly not an annotated bibliographical essay, I propose books in the reference section be restricted to author and publishing information without any opinion given on them; it smacks of a rather professorial approach as if one were setting a class reading list.  Other editors - yes/no? Cripipper 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked: Both Encarta and Ency Brit annotate their reading lists. Our goal is to tell readers more about the books--Many will have to order them inter-library loan and need this help. The abstracts of articles likewise summarize main points. The editors have this information and we should share it with users, not keep it from them. It's all at the bottom so it will not disrucpt any reader. "professorial" = an insult?? goal is to look more like an encyclopedia britannica or Encarta. As for Ambrose that is a good point. by the way the JFK and LBJ articles also have annotations and no one has complained there. Rjensen 21:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Professorial' is a value-neutral term, I just don't think it is the right tone for wikipedia; scholarly, yes; professorial, no.  IMHO.  Indicating significant works is ok, but labelling books 'favourable', 'hostile' etc. strikes me as being unnecessarily prescriptive, particularly on a subject like Nixon where even the most lay of readers will still hold some sort of an opinion and if guided may well only tend to read works which support their preconceptions.  And that is aside from the readability issue; if every book and article has an abstract attached it is going to be a huge mass of text which no-one is going to want to read!  Cripipper 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annotated bibliography

message: In this article on former President Nixon, it states that some thought Nixon to have a Narcissistic or Paranoid personality.  From my understanding of personality disorders, I would hardly think he was Narcissistic; by definition, Narcissists care nothing about others around them and are so full of self-aggrandisement that they crave being around people, holding centre stage, and receiving accolades and praises (so much so that they cannot survive without the company of others).  Nixon, however, was known to dislike the company of others, even his cabinet colleagues.  Richard Neeves, in his book "President Nixon: Alone in the Whitehouse" (p. 12), states, "[Nixon] was always a man alone.  A strange man of uncomfortable shyness, who functioned best alone with his thoughts and the yellow legal pads he favoured [etc] ..."
Perhaps Nixon had paranoid and narcissistic traits, but calling him either of those would be a far fetch. I believe it's also misleading and an unfair assessment of his character, as it's not qualified in the article but merely stated without support.  Geelin 14:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality Description Disputed 

message: Without Watergate Scandal, Cold War was ended a lot before. Blessed the memory of Richard M. Nixon--87.17.30.170 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "When they look at you, they see themselves as they want to be - when they look at me, they see themselves as they really are." Although neutral about Nixon, he did stop the Vietnam war. --andreasegde 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Watergate 

message: This page needs serious help. Everything is squashed to the side, like its all trapped in a picture text. It needs to be fixed. 68.39.127.114 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format fix!

message: It's important to see that the "moon landings" are an important euphoria strategy  for the Johnson and above all  for the Nixon years. Nixon could cover-up  all his failure in Vietnam by decorating himself with astronaut heroes, so he himself was seen as a hero at the end an won the reelection. This manipulation is important to see, with a culmination point from 1969 to 1972, and all media went along with it. A chronology can be seen here: 
Nixon and the euphoria strategy with the faked "moon landings"
(The moon landings were performed at the simulation centers and in foto studios at Langley and Houston. CIA headquaters with it's foto studios are - by chance - also at Langley. And NASA stands under military order, so the astronauts never speak). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.219.87.53 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't sign in. (The italics in your comments are mine, BTW.) --andreasegde 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bolded some of the errors Andreasegde graciously let slip by, and added helpful notes (Sorry...you have to click edit to see them...)!  Whee! Tomertalk 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nixon and the moon landing euphoria strategy

message: What do you mean China in the UN　was a 'critical part of the deal'?  There was no deal, and the U.S. was still working to prevent Taiwan getting thrown out, a scenario that was unacceptable to the PRC. Cripipper 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In fact, the Chinese had not expected to win the vote in 1971 and found themselves quite unprepared for entry in the autumn of that year. Cripipper 09:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *The chronology is out for starters - China entered the UN six months before Nixon went to China, so it is a bit stupid putting it after the visit to China.  Beyond that, I am not quite clear what your citations purport to demonstrate.  As Nancy Tucker puts it, Nixon viewed the UN vote as a defeat.  Perhaps we should include something on that then. Cripipper 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: China in the UN

message: I read thi s artiacle seven times but I can't find a mention of his final resting place. I mean, did Nixon ascend into Heaven or is he burning in hell?  As a devote Quaker he has acepted Jesus Christ as his LORD and Savior, but did the Good LORD deam his sins too great? I mean he went to China too!  Well, anyways, thanks for writing this book and I am getting the use out of it :)4.224.222.21 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question, is really best placed in a wiki-blog. 'Talk Pages' are usually for recommendations to add OR subtract items from the article, to make the article better. Nixon's (body) final resting spot is Yorba Linda - Calif. His sole? No living human being can & will ever know, if it's in Heaven or Hell. Therefore, it can never be added to the article. GoodDay 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His sole is at the base of his foot.  His soul, on the other hand, could be in heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, or elsewhere depending on your theological beliefs. *Dan T.* 22:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's right soul. GoodDay 17:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn GoodDay, you just got served! 74.140.50.114 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His sole, on the other hand, was sold in an auction, where my gramma bought it for $13.79 (quite a bargain!), in 1996.  Sadly, it passed away 4 months later, and its final destination remains a mystery to all of us... Tomertalk 10:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaven or hell? 

message: I added fact tag to mention of fathers volitale temper. This was added back on July 1st 2005 along with alot of other unsourced material.--68.99.154.144 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: The external links - videos section has two campaign videos that are hosted on youtube. I hesitate to consider them copyvios because they are essentially campaigning materials and I vaguely recall something about such things before being retained despite doubts about copyright but I don't remember what they were. Any thoughts?
I also took down the today show link - defn a copyvio. 
--Spartaz 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in theory, the copyright to a campaign video is owned by either the person who produced it or Nixon's heirs.  I don't know of any legal exceptions to campaign material in copyright law, but I could be wrong.  I'll take a closer look at it when I get home tonight. ---J.S  (T/C) 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I tracked down the original source of the images... http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us - It's actually a much better website.  It contains a whole bunch of advertisements and other whatnot's from the political campaigns (from 1952 to 2004 actually)... and I'm much more confident that movingimage.us is doing it legally. ---J.S  (T/C) 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube Links 

message: Someone has vandalized this page under the 1960 election and Post-vice presidency sections. I don't know how to revert or edit. Just letting someone know. (unsigned comment)
Seems fine to me - what do you perceive to be the vandalism there? MarkThomas 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But all vandalism you mentioned was already removed. Extremely sexy 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: One of the trivia facts says that he was the 37th president to serve and the 36th president to be born and die. It later says that he was the same numerically for all three categories, which contradicts with the statement above. Can someone please clarify this, please? Wikster72 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been rectified. Extremely sexy 12:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia again 

message: Upper case, lower case, which case is capitalized?
A number of well-meaning wordsmiths are firm about two aspects of capitalization. First, if it refers to the first letter of the first word of any given sentence, then choose upper case. Secondly, if it refers to a title of office, then choose upper case (for that first letter).
For instance, as examples, they might cite:
1a. John Kennedy was the most beloved President of the United States.
2a. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be Governor of California.
3a. Historians agree that George Washington was the first President of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.
Each instance of capitalizaton, re reasons of title, is incorrect.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Associated Press Manual of Style, Chicago Manual of Style, and Guardian Manual of Style, simply being a title is insufficient cause for upper case.
The title must be intimately united to the name of the individual, such that, it constitutes their name and not solely a description of their occupation or function.
So that, in the same examples, these authorities would cite:
1b. John Kennedy was the most beloved president of the United States.
2b. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be governor of California.
3b. Historians agree that George Washington was the first president of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.
More examples of correct and incorrect usage:
1a. Only when President (correct) Johnson . . .
1b. Only when president (incorrect) Johnson . . .
2a. We'll take this to Governor (correct) Libby, the 3rd governor (correct) of Nevada, . . .
2b. We'll take this to governor (incorrect) Libby, the 3rd Governor (incorrect) of Nevada, . . .
Only when the title is tight with the name and preceeds it, is it capitalized - all other instances, you don't.
Note, I don't hold this because my daddy, mommy, or 3rd-grade teacher, told me so; likewise, I don't hold this because I heard or read "something", "somewhere", about the need to capitalize titles.
Look up any specific American president, English prime minister, or Big Cheese governor or premier, in a reputable reference (as those mentioned), to prove my thinking wrong.
If my understanding is incorrect, please demonstrate in what manner - with a supporting reference - that I can access and verify via the library.  Thanks. --Curiouscdngeorge 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "president", when in reference to "President of the United States", may be capitalized.  Formerly, this was the standard, and it was actually incorrect to write "George Washington was president of the United States": it should be "George Washington was President of the United States."  Now, this has changed, and either way is considered perfectly formal.  Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers & Editors mentions this, as do several college textbooks on grammar, one of which is in my possession. Squad51 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct style for title of office 

message: In addition to losing his great grand-father, Richard Nixon also lost two beloved brothers. His seven year old brother Arthur who died of meningitis and eight years later he lost Harold, the oldest of the four boys to tuberculosis. Shafer.Stephanie 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family life 

message: After being defeated at his run for Governorship of California against Pat Brown, Nixon went into exile with a firm of Wall Street bond lawyers. His failures in 1960 and 1962 allowed him to revamp himself, dubbing his new attitude the, “new Nixon” a statesmen of foreign policy and a reliable man to leader the country in a turbulent time. Shafer.Stephanie 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post VP 

message: Nixon campaigned like Dewey had done in 1948, avoiding controversy, promising little, and explaining nothing – winning by almost as narrow a margin as the election he had lost in 1960. Shafer.Stephanie 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign tactics of 1968 

message: The secret bombings in Laos provided to be proof that the aims of the war were broadening instead of moving toward closure - as many Americans had perceived. In the beginning of May 1970 marked the largest antiwar demonstrations that left six students dead at Kent State University in Ohio and Jackson State University in Mississippi. Shafer.Stephanie 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiwar demonstrations - Vietnam War 

message: Nixon also became the president of the Student Bar Association at Duke Law School. Shafer.Stephanie 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education - Duke Law 

message: In addition to many of Nixon’s domestic policies discussed on this page Nixon also attempted to introduce a plan to reform the welfare system. The objective of the plan was to create a guaranteed annual income for every American. The federal government was to assume most of the welfare cost that were initial the states burden and then to introduce a system of automatic payments to families whose income fell below a certain level. The payments would not seize when the person got a job but instead would gradually decrease – therefore it would never be lucrative for anyone to remain on welfare and in turn increase the employment rate. However this plan was failed in Congress when it was killed in the Senate. Shafer.Stephanie 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So will you edit the article with all this information you provided, dear Stephanie? Extremely sexy 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you obviously can edit its talk page, it would be rather strange if you wouldn't know how to edit the actual article. Extremely sexy 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Assistance Plan 

message: This is a famous quote that the article should contain and contextualize as well. SchmuckyTheCat 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "I am not a crook"

message: I've heard he liked cottage cheese and ketchup. This is really weird, but it doesn't suprise me because it's about Richard Nixon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wayne Neptune (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Nixon's favorite snack 

message: Nixon was known to have various psychological and health issues which plagued him through his political career. These include drinking (with episodes of violence), anxiety and shyness (ironic for a politician). He took many prescription drugs including dilantin and sleeping pills. He also was seeing a psychotherapist for a time. Can this article maybe dwelve more into the overall complexity, vulnerability and sensitivity of his personality as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.157.64 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: How would others feel about splitting the pop-culture and trivia (cunningly labelled as "miscellaneous information", but we know what it is) to separate articles? Deiz talk 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting pop-culture and trivia 

message: As a child, Richard suffered from motion illness as well as hay fever. He wasn't the only one who had a horrible sickness though, since his brothers suffered from turberculosis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.131.192 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He did suffer illnesses 

message: Someone put: 
-butterItalic textTemplate: Poop
i stink-
At the top of the article. I request it be removed.
Guess who 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has already been removed. I've warned the person who put it there. Hut 8.5 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have restored the semi-protection tag too. Extremely sexy 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something that should be fixed

message: Hi everyone. I removed a great deal from Nixon's page, because none of it is included in the FA Criteria, which describe the best articles on Wikipedia. Sections such as long lists I deleted (there is still one more, but everything in it should be incorporated into the article), and I can assure you that my edist are for the better. This article still needs some clean up, though. Happyme22 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removal 

message: It wasn't Nixon who initially proposed the training and use of Vietnamese troops, it was actually Johnson who put a ceiling on U.S. troop commitments with the hope that this would result in the ability for US to withdraw.
Nixon, did however, expand upon this in the "Nixon Doctrine" in which it was proposed that the U.S. would provide military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with treaty commitments. But with the use of the nation that is directly threatened to assume the primary responsibilty of providing manpower for its defence.
Reference: Gaddis, John Lewis.  Strategies of Containment: A critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War. pp.272, 296. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85jt11 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamisation 

message: Hi everyone. Due to the long list of sources for this article, I made a seperate article called the Richard Nixon Bibliography, in which I essentially just copied and pasted the sources into that. Being probably the main editor of the Ronald Reagan article, I know that a similar act like this was done to that one as well, because of its long list of sources. This should help with navigation of the page, the KB count, and after the "Miscellaneous" section is removed, the "list" tag at the top of the page can be removed.
Also, I created a page on WikiCommons for Pat Nixon, which includes some new pictures. I've also added some photos to the Richard Nixon Commons page, one of which is now the infobox pic in this article.
I am available to help if needed, so just leave me a message if you need anything. Thanks, Happyme22 17:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Richard Nixon Bibliography]] 

message: How come I don't see any real reference to Nixon's alleged antisemitism in the article? 204.52.215.107 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of Anti-Semitism 

message: How did he get that name?--Kingforaday1620 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question indeed, although that's pretty obvious. Extremely sexy 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tricky Dicky 

message: I don't see the appropriateness of citing the anti-Nixon opinions of Hunter Thonpson or Ashley Montagu in this article.  It's legit to cite opinions of historians, other politicians, and those who worked with him or knew him well.  I don't consider it useful or appropriate to cite opinions apparently chosen solely because of their anti-Nixon virulence.Plazak 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions in ''Miscelaneous Information'' Section

message: That's a surprise. Why didn't he pull us out of Vietnam ASAP if he was a Quaker? I thought they were nonviolent and afraid to be dishonest because they "quake" before God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.185.197 (talk • contribs) 
::Uh, here's the real origin of the term Quaker, from its WP entry:
::The name "Quaker" was first used in 1650, when George Fox was brought before Justice Bennet of Derby on a charge of blasphemy. According to Fox's journal, Bennet "called us Quakers because we bid them tremble at the word of God."[20] Therefore, what began apparently as a way to make fun of Fox's comment by those outside the Society of Friends became a nickname that even Friends use for themselves.
::74.73.111.23 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Quaker? 

message: I saw on the History Channel a show about some attemted assasination of Richard Nixon, in witch some guy tried to hijack a plane and fly it into the white house. I found nothing about it in the article. Xaritix 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination Attempt 

message: I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page. --Jean-Francois Landry 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Approval Rating Graph 

message: The article seems rather biased against Nixon.  There is too much focus put on the watergate incident and not enough put on his political acheivements.  Sure, we could live our lives going around denegrating others, but I would like to live in a society.  12va34 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed: I do agree with your statement. Extremely sexy 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree and something needs to be done. I would help out, but I'm really consumed by an FAC I'm conducting on Ronald Reagan. Best, Happyme22 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: :The site referenced states: "Bundy gives generally high marks to the Nixon administration's policies in the Middle East, especially Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, which isolated the Soviet Union and helped cement a relationship with the moderate Arab states. But even here, he excepts Nixon's embrace of the Shah of Iran, which he says, contributed in large measure to the anti-American flavor of the subsequent Iranian revolution, and Nixon's handling of the 1973 oil crisis, which, Bundy asserts, demonstrated that neither he nor Kissinger could truly grasp the importance of economic factors."
:To say that "some historians" make this assertion is not backed up by this reference. In point of fact, this reference clearly states that it is one person's belief. Multiple references would justify such a statement, or a single reference that refers to many historians, but this one doesn't cut it.
:VigilancePrime 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil Crisis comment and link 

message: : The Manual of Style doesn't say anything about the Misc. Info. section not belonging. I think what was meant was Trivia Section policy. But that is only a guideline, also, not a hard-and-fast rule. In addition, this section is properly tagged as Trivia/June 2007. This article needs that information section to be absorbed into the main article sections, but a wholesale cut of the text is not warrented by policy either. Trivia sections are a "should not" rather than a "will not". Yes, it absolutely needs to be cleaned, but not scalpeled. VigilancePrime 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miscelaeous Inforamtion in this case is just a euphemism for trivia, to skirt the policy.  Many of the factoids in this section have been integrated into the article, but others have been sitting there, lacking importance or citations, for many months.  At some point, we're just going to have to junk the remaining tidbits as not belonging in the article.Plazak 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It absolutely is a trivia section and is thusly marked. There's no attempt to "skirt the policy" - that's ridiculous. Yes, it needs to be integrated. Integrate it if it's that important to you! It's easy to do if you want to. I personally don't feel the urgent need to integrate it myself but believe strongly in the informational depth of Wikipedia; more is better, and Wiki is an ever-growing medium that constantly integrates additional information. So yes, the information is a trivia section (that was never in doubt) and needs to be integrated. We are in agreement. VigilancePrime 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Information 

message: Misspelled Schultz in this article.  He was my dean at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and I know how to spell his name.  Whoever has the "key" to this locked article should correct it.  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz  
Thank you.  12.144.107.5 06:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George P. Shultz, secretary of labor under President Nixon. 

message: The box of names with Nixon's cabinet is incomplete.
He made his UN Ambassadors part of his cabinet.
Charles W. Yost 1969-1971
George H.W. Bush 1971-?
157.150.192.237 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon Cabinet 

message: This article desperately needs a discussion of Nixon's visit to Latin America, how he debated and was threatened by mobs of violent communists in various countries (especially Venezuela). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.196.96 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Venezuela