Jump to content

Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

States Rights?

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)

Dan Qayle

"(Vice presidents who) sought the presidency (exceptions being Nelson Rockefeller, Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew)."

Dan Quayle tried twice to become the Republican nominee. I'm removing him from this list.

I think Nelson Rockefeller sought the office in the 1960's while Governor of NY.

Old

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)

ok, what about the china thing? that is huge! and the gold standard. that is huge too. and the EPA?

yeah vietnam was horrible, but really, how come it gets 50% of the article text while these equally earth shattering (especially china) events get 1 line?

Agreed - honestly, this is one of the most POV articles I've seen at wikipedia. How can you possibly have an article about Nixon's presidency without even mentioning China? - happydrifter

"The year 1977 saw the publishing of a book by Victor Lasky called It Didn't Start With Watergate. The book came to Nixon's defense pointing out that Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson used wiretaps and engaged in many of the activities Nixon was accused of, but were never pursued by the press or the subject of impeachment hearings." It seems to me that this is out of place as being in the timeline with Nixon's death; but moreover, goes out of bounds of NPOV with Lasky being a known conservative of the period. Maybe this should go under media portrayals or not even be included at all??

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)

Nixon's Mother

I'm not a cheerleader for Nixon, but can someone explain the relevance of this quote: "His mother was a devout Quaker and a wonderful parent. But his father, Frank Nixon, was a slightly paranoid, bitter man, and Richard took more after his father." Could we have a reference for this statement? Since when are the words "Quaker" and "paranoid" antonyms?

I stand by my statement that Nixon's mother was a devout Quaker and wonderful parent; that Nixon's father was slightly paranoid and bitter, and that Nixon took more after his father.

True, "Quaker" and "paranoid" are not antonyms, but "devout Quakers" are very rarely paranoid, as the religion places a heavy emphasis on trust and love of all people, and paranoids are very rarely able to make that commitment.

You asked for sources. "In Search of Nixon," a respected work by Bruce Mazlish, makes clear that Hannah Nixon was devout and that Richard felt close to her as a boy; that Frank was somewhat bitter and that Richard felt more distant from him.

Nixon's 1968 speech to the Republican Convention was also revealing. He spoke of himself. "I see another child....he is helped on his journey through life. A father who had to go to work before he finished the sixth grade, sacrificed everything so that his sons could go to college. A gentle Quaker mother, with a passionate concern for peace."

Fathers who sacrifice EVERYTHING are often bitter, and it's revealing that he spoke of his father in terms of total sacrifice, his mother in terms of gentility and peace.

That Nixon took more after his father than mother is abundantly clear by his angry and paranoid behavior around the Watergate scandal that drove him from office.

Your statement is still too conclusory to be appropriate for an "encyclopedia," even though I AGREE with it. And of course YOU stand by YOUR statement. That's not the point. Please read about Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you. --Anon.

Besides, the author of this section cites a book (Mazlish) that says Nixon felt "distant" from his dad. Doesn't that contradict the author's own point here that he "took after" his dad?

According to biographer John Doe, Nixon had a "wonderful parent" . . . (please change article like this).

And what's the social security number doing here? Isn't that private, like his wife's bra size (unless she's a fashion model)?

Richard Nixon grew up in the Quaker EVANGELICAL CHURCH, not the classic Religious Society of Friends which holds unprogrammed meetings and believes in pacifism.

A Republican and a Democrat are discussing Nixon.

REPUBLICAN: Nixon was an unimpeachable character.

DEMOCRAT: Pardon?

On January 5, 1972 Nixon ordered the development of a space shuttle program that would eventually lead to Neil Armstrong's historic step on the moon in 1969.

What has it got to do with the Apollo program? Nixon approved the shuttle program after Apollo 11, how could it lead to Apollo 11? whkoh 10:36, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Nickname "Tricky Dick?" I don't think that belongs...

I yield to no man in my detestation for that loathesome, slimy, dishonest, crooked, Red-baiting, creepy, pompous, self-inflated, cold, calculating, lying, tape-erasing, unindicted-co-conspiring son-of-a-bitch, Richard M. Nixon.

Nevertheless, I think including "Tricky Dick" in the "nicknames" section is inappropriate and not NPOV.

Some might even regard it as a cheap shot.

There could be something about this in the article itself (if there isn't already), to the effect that his detractors used this as a nickname for him.

I'm not going to remove this myself without discussion, but I don't think it belongs. (Do the other Presidential bios include the names by which Presidential enemies referred to them?)

Dpbsmith 21:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Before you call Nixon names, take look at the facts. In these past 30 years, no one has produced any direct evidence linking Richard Nixon to the actual burglary on 6/17/72. People have tried and they all failed. Congress in 1973 didn't have anything so they charged Nixon with one thing and that was him trying to coverup the stupid mistakes of people like G. Gordan Liddy. Also the coverup tapes were from the White House Taping System which Nixon installed himself! Richard Nixon brought justice upon Richard Nixon when nobody else could. In my opinion he remained an honorable man by doing that. --Secret Agent Man 06:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nixon was being called "Tricky Dick" well before Watergate. At any rate, the point is not whether you agree with the implications of the slam, but whether it's notable enough to be reported. I deleted "Shrub" from the George W. Bush article, because even though it's been published it's not all that common, but "Tricky Dick" was much more widespread. JamesMLane 06:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The nickname seems universal enough that it should be mentioned. Even I knoew he was called that, and I was ten years old and on a different continent during Watergate. But I don't think it should be in the table - otherwise someone will add a few dozen Bush nicknames and claim equal treatment. DJ Clayworth 21:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see that currently Bill Clinton's table does list "Slick Willie." However, Franklin D. Roosevelt is just "FDR" (not "That... man in the White House").
If we're really going to have this stuff in the table, I think there should be separate entries for "Nicknames (used by supporters)" and "Nicknames (used by detractors)".

Dpbsmith 21:44, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved "Tricky Dick" out of the main table. I didn't have any very good ideas where to put it;, I created a section on "Nixon in Popular Culture," please rearrange if you have better ideas. I'd love to do a section on how comedians parodied his ill-at-ease manner, etc. but I have a vague feeling that might not be really NPOV. Dpbsmith 13:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I'm not the worlds greatest expert here, but I thought Nixon was called 'Tricky Dicky'. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd always heard "Tricky Dick," never "Tricky Dicky," and "Tricky Dick" was what someone had entered in the main table as nickname, so "Tricky Dick" was what I moved.

Google search on 'Nixon "Tricky Dick"' Results 1 - 100 of about 6,590 Google search on 'Nixon "Tricky Dicky"' Results 1 - 100 of about 1,050

No doubt both have been used.

Since I never heard it myself, I'm not going to add it. I'm confident that the statement that he was called "Tricky Dick" is NPOV and solid enough to put in an "encyclopedia."

If you're certain you've heard "Tricky Dicky" yourself and that it was in general use--or if you have any sort of external authority for its use--by all means, add it.

Really wild guess: could it be that "Tricky Dick" was prevalent during his lifetime and that "Tricky Dicky" has evolved subsequently?

He was also sometimes referred to disparagingly by his unusual middle name, "Milhous", most noticeably as the a documentary by what's-his-name? in which it was deliberately misspelled as "Millhouse."

"Dick" or "Dick Nixon" was his legitimate nickname.

Actually I need to be really careful personally about doing any editing here as my loathing for Nixon makes it really, really, really hard for me to achieve anything resembling an NPOV. I don't think I'm going to do anything more to this page. I'd certainly love to make some subtle defacements--such as replacing his dignified portrait with a picture of him in his characteristically geeky "victory" stance with both arms raised in a "V" and a "V" formed with two fingers of each hand...

Dpbsmith 15:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article: However, this is doubtful, as the evangelical sect of Quakerism known as Friends Churches, having been largely organized by itinerant Methodists, bore little resemblance to the traditional 'unprogrammed' Quaker religion, with its silent worship, avoidance of paid clergy, and strict adherence to pacifism.

This followed this sentence which remains: His upbringing is said to have been marked by such conservative Quaker observances as refraining from drinking, dancing, and swearing.

Basically, this is a misunderstanding of a couple of things. Evangelical Friends (who are the majority of Quakers in the Western U.S.) are still fairly conservative by modern standards, and the description of them eschewing drinking, etc. is very accurate for a century ago. The unprogrammed meeting more common in the East are not "conservative" in those senses, and I think whoever originally added that was conflating older Quaker practices such as plain speech and dress with things like not drinking and swearing. BCorr|Брайен 05:16, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

The article link to Nixon's wife is entitled "Pat Nixon", not "Patricia Nixon"; just wanted to clean that up. And I don't see any reason to delete the Presidents table. If there's any questions, ask here. --65.73.0.137

Hold your horses, User:Kingturtle. Apparently, George W. Bush was planning on manned missions to Mars and so was Russia. Why undo my edit? --65.73.0.137

Because nobody has actually walked on Mars yet. Meelar 17:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is the social security number there? --Golbez 05:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No good reason. It's gone now. JamesMLane 18:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When did Nixon really resign?

According to this link at washingtonpost.com (and many others around the Internet), Nixon resigned on August 8th not the 9th. Sucks that it was the featured event on aug 9...

Nixon Resignation

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)

207's entry

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)

Working on a "nice administration table".AlistairMcMillan 17:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Submitted. AlistairMcMillan 17:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Origin of Tricky Dick

Tricky Dick was not coined by Helen Gaghan Douglas. It was coined in the spring of 1950 by a small newspaper Independent Review. It did not catch on until late September when the paper used it again in an editorial and it was subsequently adopted by Douglas supporters.

Source : The Arrogance of Power by Anthony Summers - Chapter 9 Note 2 P494

Supreme Court Appointments

This section needs work. There should be some mention of the fact, for example, that Blackmun was Nixon's third choice for that seat, the name to which he resorted only after the defeat of both Haynsworth and Carswell in the Senate. I don't have time right now, but leave this as a marker in case someone else has a chance.

Richard Nixon on November 22, 1963

The Richard Nixon article mentions he was in Dallas, Texas the day John F. Kennedy was killed, speaking to the Coca-Cola Bottlers covention. I thought it was the Pepsi bottlers--can anyone confirm? PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't he on the grassy knol-- um, nevermind. ;-) func(talk) 05:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. I've just looked throughly into this, it was Pepsi, not Coke. I'll change it in the article. func(talk) 15:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can you write up a proper reference and cite that point please? Thanks - Taxman 20:43, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sites connecting Nixon to a Pepsi-related meeting in Dallas. Now admittedly, many of these sites have a credibility problem, in that they are conspiracy-related, (the whole JFK thing). However, many of these sites have the same supposed direct quote from Nixon:

I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [ in Dallas ]and left on Friday morning. November 22, from Love Field. Dallas, on a flight back to New York , . . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the city the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway . . . a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,"

Nixon is said to have made the above quote in a November 1973 issue of Esquire magazine.

Nixon appearently had a very good relationship with Pepsi because of the "kitchen debate (at pepsi, it seems that Nixon and Khrushchev shared a Pepsi together, or something), and it seems that Nixon was a representive for Pepsi's law firm, given as "Mudge, Rose, Nixon et al".

Here are some sources with better credibility:

Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031120-121736-4309r.htm

Paul Kangas essay: http://www.sumeria.net/politics/kennedy.html

As far as proper citing goes, I'm afraid I have been out of school too long to remember the appropriate APA or The Chicago Manual of Style bibliographic formats. ;-)

func(talk) 21:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the...? Why don't we have an article on Paul Kangas??? func(talk) 21:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nixon was Vice President at the time of the "Kitchen Debate" in 1958. Jonathan Aitken writes in Nixon: A Life (Washington: Regnery, 1993) at p. 262 that "Don Kendall became a lifelong Nixon friend and financial backer. He was on the verge of being fired from his job of President of Pepsi Cola International . . . for having wasted too much money and time on Pepsi's investment in the Moscow exhibitionion. However, after Nixon and Krushchev had been photographed drinking Pepsi together on the stand, the corporation's directors were so delighted with the impact on their sales (their advertising slogan 'Be Sociable, Have a Pepsi' was given the twist 'Krushchev Learns to Be Sociable') that Kendall survived and was eventually promoted to the chairmanship of Pepsico. He liked to say, 'I owe my career to Nixon and the Kitchen Debate.' " I read somewhere years ago that Coke was shut out of the Soviet Union for decades, but Pepsi was available because Kruschev had liked it.
    After losing the 1962 election, Nixon moved to New York City and joined the Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd law firm, which was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, and Alexander. Don Kendall then steered Pepsi's legal business to Nixon, Mudge.
    Had I bothered to check Nixon's own memoirs RN (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978) I would have found it was a Pepsi board of directors meeting he was attending in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Nixon writes (p. 252) "Early on the morning of November 22 on the way to the Dallas airport I aw the flags displayed along the motorcade route for the presidential visit. Arriving in New York, I hailed a cab home. We drove through Queens toward the 59th Street Bridge, and as we stopped at a traffic light, a man rushed over from the curb and started talking to the driver. I heard him say, 'Do you have a radio in your cab? I jhust heard that Kennedy was shot.' We had no radio, and as we continued into Manhattan a hundred thoughts rushed through my mind. The man could have been crazy or a macabre prankster. He could have been mistaken about what he heard; or perhaps a gunman might have shot at Kenneddy but missed or only wounded him. I refused to believe that he could have been killed.
    "As the cab drew up in front of my building, the doorman ran out. Tears were streaming down his cheeks. 'Oh, Mr. Nixon, have you heard, sir?' he asked. 'It's just terrible. They've killed President Kennedy.' " Nixon lived at 810 Fifth Avenue and when he called J. Edgar Hoover that afternoon, Hoover say "it was a Communist" who had done it.
    Thanks, Func, for your help. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dr Hutschnecker

Why is there no mention of Nixon's relationship with Dr Arnold Hutschnecker who he saw from fall 1951 to his death and who in a rare public appearance accompanied him to Pat's funeral.

Noticed some problems

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)

Wrong picture in article

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)

Disturbing Quotes

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)

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)

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)

I agree that a tapes entry is likely the way to go. I just thought it was important to make a distinction from a real quotation (inferring "public") and something that was taped and thought to be private. It doesn't excuse it, just needs to be put in the proper context. --Wgfinley 04:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cambodia Bombing

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)

Full names

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)

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)

the madness never ends.

Quotes

Quotes mentioned should be in {{wikiquotes}} not here.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 14:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

"I am not a crook" & "never obstructed justice"

  • Text of press conference [1], extracted version [2].
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 [3]
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." [4] 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 [5]
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: [6]
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., ISBN 0-9600252-6-X, 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)

Methodology

In the absence of a full transcription, which can be made from the full video which is available (not one of the 19 audio sites available none, none, of which have the question), the old fashioned method of reconstruction, kinda like how the Lincoln-Douglas debates were reconstructed, from various written accounts. The three best are

The Facts on File has much detail; it is however problematic, in that it uses the journalistic disclaimer, "At another point in the hour session", which gives no clue at what point this occurred, and the material following it, as reproduced above, is the background of the question. Here is the full text of that paragraph:

At another point in the one-hour session, Nixon said: "I made my mistakes, but in all my years of public life I have never profited, never profited from public service. I've earned every cent. And in all of my years in public life I have never obstructed justice....People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

The problem with the phrase, "At another point" is, we don't know if it was before the first four paragraphs before that entry, or after the eighteen paragraphs after that context. And this is validated by the fact that the Judiciary Committee transcript has the first question, "Can the Republic survive?" (ominously setting the tone of the conference), and Facts on File has that question in the second from last paragraph. Nobs01 8 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

User Nobs01 Sandbox

Anon 165.247.213.33 comments have been removed from above textual references and placed here (though Anon 165.247.213.33 has raised valid points about the coloring contemporaneous journalists placed upon the event, posting within the text of the materials maybe considered vandalism)

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.
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.
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.

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." [8] 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 Counsel 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)

Please continue the discussion here; we all are familiar with the source material.Nobs01 7 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

You'll do better to argue Monica Lewinsky on her knees had more to do with the failed land investment known as the Whitewater scandal than this one; the Independent Counsel in that case had the legal authority to investigate. This needs some disambiguation, cause the Truman scandals (plural) are all grouped collectively, as it appears the category:Clinton Administration controversies are being grouped collectively. The second mention of "Watergate" in the posting is a redundancy cause it's already listed in the subheader (besides it's historical innaccuracy, which I am confident, will be documented). Wikipedia should not be used to further innacurate distortions, if it is to be a credible resource. I will make one more reversion which I hope achieves the NPOV we all strive for. Thank you. Nobs01 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations on your election.

Looks like someone pulled a sniggle

You'll want to restore this from history, someone's editted it and inserted fallacious information and some really silly quotes.

1960

Why is there no mention of voter fraud on the part of JFK in the 1960 election? Even if you don't believe it (and you are probably alone in the world if you do not) there have certainly been enough allegations to promt an entry about them.

Eary Career

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)

Scottish-American

What is the reason that Nixon is in the Scottish-American category? I cannot find anything in the article that suggests that he belongs in this category. --Colin Angus Mackay 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. In fact, the article mentions that his mother was German, and his father was Irish-American.

NPOV issue regarding famous quote

"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." - President Nixon, November, 1973

Near the end of a press conference that had run longer than the alloted one hour, Nixon was asked a question about the Watergate scandal by the editor of the Oak Ridger Newspaper, Dick Smyser: "Senator Mark Hatfield said recently that we demand so much of a President, we ask him to play so many roles that no man can hold that kind of responsibility without having to share it with all Americans. To what extent do you think that this explains possibly how something like Watergate can occur?" Nixon responded with a lengthy (almost 10 minutes) monologue that covered not only Watergate, but also touched on questions about his finances, how busy he had recently been, how, as the "man at the top" he had to take the heat -- finally ending with the quote above.

Popular media has simplisticly portrayed Nixon's closing remark as relating solely to Watergate, when he clearly was adressing financial questions as well. Subsequent investigations would determine if he "obstructed justice" where Watergate was concerned, and if he "profited from public service" where his finances were concerned. It should be clarified in the main article that Nixon also referred to his finances in the above quote. The following wording is suggested:

Thank you, that is excellent research and you are to be commended; there is no objection to the quote being inserted under the subhead On Watergate, but than the term "Watergate" is repeated with reference to this specific quote, in fact before the reference to his personal finances. This is overkill. How about:
  • ...Nixon summarized his responses to questions regarding speculation and criticism of his personal finances and entire Watergate scandal.

That would separate his personal finances from the "Watergate". Bottom line is, Nixon was never accused of taking money, yet the distortion this quote produced has given that impression. Nobs01 19:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: working out some language that incorporates the clarification cited above may be Wikipedia.org's opportunity to become the authoritative NPOV resource it seeks to become, rather than just another mouthpiece of "simplistic popular media". Trust me, after 32 years of seeing this phrase revised the way it has, this is the dipstick that Conservatives (29% of the U.S. electorate) use to judge the veracity of any purported archival resource. Nobs01 19:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Case in point: CNN in 2004 purported to have archive material relating to the 30 anniversary of Watergate; anyone with 50 cents worth of reasoning knows (1) CNN did not exist in 1974; (2) CNN's 'archive' material was obviously recycled New York Times, Washington Compost, and NBC crap. Here is what exists on CNN's website now [9], with this quote,
The tape connected Nixon directly to the burglary, a fact he had long denied, including his famous quote, "I am not a crook."
which the above Smyser information clearly disproves any pretense to CNN's objectivity or reliabilty. It becomes a powerful arguement to 90 million Americans that "popular media" outlets such as CNN are outright deceptive liars, when this information is presented. If Wikipedia seeks to become an important, dependable, NPOV, encyclopedic resource, setting the record straight on the meaning of these four words is the measuring rod which tens of millions of Americans use. Else Wikipedia risks degenerating into just one more partisan mouthpiece of cut and pasted blast faxes, with no regard to facts.Nobs01 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's what is on the CNN site:

What was Watergate?
The June 17, 1972, burglary that became a constitutional crisis
Wednesday, June 1, 2005 Posted: 6:29 PM EDT (2229 GMT)
(CNN) -- Initially dismissed by the White House as a "third-rate burglary," the June 17, 1972...

Odd, cause there was no CNN in 1972, 1973, or 1974; yet this site deceptively purports to be contemporaneous reporting of facts by CNN, which obviously came from other sources. Wikipedia can continue to compound an obvious distortion like this, or it can use it's valuable research materials to build a name synonymous with reliabilty, since it now has been demonstrated "popular media" outlets, like CNN, are unreliable. Nobs01 22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to 165.247.221.162: Thank you. That does place some separation between Nixon's personal finaces (which were never the subject of investigation by the House Judiciary Committee or Independent Counsel) and Watergate. Nobs01 16:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

a war criminal

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)Matthews


This is simply solved.

Simply provide a link to a record of his conviction as a war criminal.

No? Then shut the fuck up already

Another book

What was the Muriel Spark book that was a roman a clef of the Watergate affair? (Should be included)

Anti-semitism

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)

... I will try shortly my best at putting together an NPOV section called "Nixon the anti-Semite?" I confess that I am somewhat sympathetic to RN so I would extra-appreciate any commentary on it I can get.

How is "I'm not pro-Israel" an anti-Semitic statement Fkh82 22:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Briefly reading the page of "anti-semitic" quotes attributed to Nixon they were hardly akin to Hitler, NAZI, KKK, or extreme Islamic rhetoric on the Jews. To label President Nixon as anti-semitic is very extreme. Its obvioslly very POV.

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)

Nixon portrait

Official Portrait of President Richard Nixon.
Official Portrait of President Richard Nixon.

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)

The "Checkers Speech" and the slush fund

Quoting from the article: "Nixon was accurately accused by nameless sources of having a slush fund provided by business supporters."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nixon was accused not of having a fund to cover business expenses; rather, he was accused of using the fund for his own personal gain. As worded, it seems the article accuses Nixon of wrongdoing for merely having a fund at all, which seems wrong. I have edited to read "Nixon was accused by nameless sources of misappropriating money out of a slush fund for personal uses". I have also added to the description of the Checkers speech. Besides waxing rhetorically about Pat's cloth coat and his new dog, he also provided some pretty solid proof that the fund was not being misappropriated.

You know, it's okay to say that Nixon was, on at least one occasion, in the right about something! - Anon

Vietnam

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)
    • Um, no. Each SVN soldier had about 20 rounds of ammunition and 2 grenades allocated to them. The best equipment in the world is not worth much without enough ammunition for it. In any case the statement in question is not NPOV.

Pull out Date

The article stated that the last troops left Vietnam in '71 but that didn't happen till '73 so I changed itLenbrazil

German

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)

Muskie

Deleted "The strongest candidate against Nixon, Edmund Muskie, had been sabotaged by underhanded tactics, probably on Nixon's orders." (Problems with objectivity, NPOV, etc.) Elaborated on the Muskie affair a bit.

too much Trivia

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) 71.143 is at it again, adding back in a lot of trivia and removing the serious history. Rjensen 22:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  • As an example, what's the relevance of "Nixon was the first president to visit all 50 states"? There weren't fifty states until 1959, so most of his predecessors never had the opportunity. MK2 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Clinton impeached?!

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)

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)
ok, i suspected it was something like that, cheers. Jdcooper 09:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixon's Father

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)

Orthogonian Foundation

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)

Secret Plan

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Nixon/Archive_1&oldid=1137157259"