Jump to content

Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Nick name

I heard that Richard Nixon had the nick name 'Bojangles', is this true? Because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the page. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected "which ended in a vicrory over the five term[...]" should be "which ended in a victory over the five term[...]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.66.209 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He helped finance the campaign with his World War II poker winnings.

The source for this statement is a throwaway line in a Time Magazine article from 2008.

If there isn't a better source for verification of this statement it should go. This his how bogus history can get made friends and how Wikipedia can mislead. Andrei nzv8 (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref added from Stephen Ambrose, Nixon: the Education of a Politician 1913-1962. Plazak (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nixon's poker winnings is a story dating back at least to his Vice-Presidential years and I don't think he ever denied it. It wasn't dishonorable to be a good poker plaer. You could say, with some truth, that Nixon's 1946 campaign was financed by the California Republican Party, but no doubt Nixon felt financially secure because he made some money during the War, and had he been really impoverished, he might not have chosen to run for office then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.140.235 (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Very strongly suspect it begins with the 1949 Saturday Evening Post article, "How to Pick a Congressman". They took a number of liberties with the facts about Nixon's first campaign. He probably won money at poker, and he certainly advanced some money into the campaign (not much, at most a couple of grand in what cost by his (the highest) estimate, $37,500 (per Aikman). He was reimbursed though. Multiply by about 14 to get today's dollars. Remember, he had to live off his savings too, he had ten grand (or so he said in the Checkers speech) and he didn't work in 1946 that I can tell. Oh, he rejoined his former law firm, but he was always out campaigning, I doubt he had much of an income.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

edit protected

Please add a link/paragraph to Chilean_coup_of_1973#U.S._Role

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo Vandalism

The current photo should be changed. RicoRichmond (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sickeningly NPOV Legacy section

Ugh, the Legacy section is written in the most disgustingly fawning eulogising style this man could ever hope to expect. In amongst the numerous selectively citated "achievements" of Nixon's presidency, I find one tiny sentence appended to the end of a paragraph, stating that Watergate had a negative effect! In the Legacy section? Who wrote this stuff? Watergate IS Nixon's legacy. But no, instead the article continues in its kow-towing style and takes a series of quotes by clear Nixo-philes and passes them off as factual conclusions on his life. I particularly enjoyed the last one which stated that history will give him really high marks. I mean, seriously? Was this written by a Republican party spin-doctor? Also a lengthy paragraph about "the great man's" personality has no place in the "Legacy" section, I'm assuming it was simply placed there to stoke the fires of some right-wing wannabe hack's fervent Nixon obsession. The one vaguely negative quotation by Burns which addresses Nixon's lack of morality, also states that he was "brilliant". How about for a bit of balance we use some quotations from Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Nixon? Or would that be too subjective? Not at all like the hyperbolic nonsense spewed forth by the Nixon fanclub in this extremely "objective" article! Shame on you Wikipedia. 87.254.75.34 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you regard "narcisitic and paranoid" as a fawning description, and George McGovern as a "Nixo-phile." There is room for negative assessments by experts in politics or history, but Hunter Thompson certainly does not qualify as an expert in either politics or history. Plazak (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No comment on the current state of the section, but to say that Watergate is Nixon's legacy is nonsense: even without Watergate, he was one of the most important presidents of the twentieth century (I happen to think mostly for ill). Steve Smith (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I read the anon's comments that opened this section and thought that it was probably written by an anti-Nixon fanatic (of whom there are many). But I've read the section now, and it is AWFUL. While only the beginning part of it is the fawning crap of which the anon complained, that part does lack balance. Just as bad is the inclusion of the psychological analysis of Nixon. Yes, this does belong in the article—just not in his legacy section. I don't have time to deal with it now, but I'll be looking at it later sometime. Unschool 12:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it as well. At some point, I know Happyme22 is going to drive to take this towards FA, so anything questionable is going to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Futurama

Is it worth mentioning that Nixon is a major recurring character in Futurama, as President of Earth? 151.203.51.97 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No. That would be far too great a level of detail to go into in this main article. It might be worth creating, at some point, a "Cultural portrayal of Richard Nixon" article; I suspect there would be enough material, and Futurama would probably be worth a mention there. Steve Smith (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nixon's name

Someone has messed with the first sentence in this article, replacing Nixon's real middle name with a profanity. Agkenner (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)agkenner

These things happen. I was on it even as you were writing it. We're pretty vigilant when it comes to high profile articles like this!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

removed again?

Nixon's career was frequently dogged by his persona, and the public perception of it. Editorial cartoonists such as Herblock and comedians often exaggerated Nixon's appearance and mannerisms, to the point where the line between the human and the caricature version of him became increasingly blurred. He was often portrayed with unshaven jowls, slumped shoulders, and a furrowed, sweaty brow.

History:

So as mentioned, I've read the discussion am not convinced by it to remove this passage. Discuss.--Louiedog (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're not convinced, tell us why you feel it should belong in the article. A consensus decided it should not go in; consensus can change, so tell us why you feel what you feel and see if you can gain a consensus. Happyme22 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion consisted of "I'd axe the first and third paragraph" and then agreement. I don't see any voiced reason for the removal.--Louiedog (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that it should be sourced to reliable sources if you want it in. I think it would be better in an article about the public image of Nixon, rather than in a main article, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What? It had a source when you guys elected to take it out: [1]. This is nothing new under the sun.--Louiedog (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights

Nixon used racial epitaphs and appointed strict constructionists to the Supreme Court to undermine Civil Rights legistlation. Why is this not allowed to be put into the Article? Why aren't Nixon's White House tapes allowed to be a source for this article or blog? The Civil Rights section is very biased and unwilling to make adjustments. It is good to have both sides represented on Civil Rights. There needs to be more information for the reader to further understand Richard Nixon.{Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}

Nixon used racial epithets (not epitaphs - look it up) in private conversations; so does Jesse Jackson, for that matter, but I'm not sure what that proves in either case. The tapes indeed demonstrate his occasional offensive language, and might be briefly noted, documented, and left for the reader to draw conclusions. However, your assertion above that Nixon appointed justices with the intent "to undermine Civil Rights legistlation", is, as far as I know, unsupported by the source. Also, your continued attempts to insert highly POV statements about a "repressive national security state" and so on are completely out of place in a Wikipedia article. This is not a blog for your political views. Plazak (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is not a blog, it is just the truth. The article is on Richard Nixon as a person and President. Nixon gave America a gift with the Nixon tapes, and that information is being suppressed in this article. The Nixon tapes allow us to visualize who the real Nixon is, not just the myth. The Nixon tapes are a primary source also, not an interpretation from another historian. Withholding information is also an opinion. {66.81.218.77 (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}

The fact that it is a primary source is a reason to use the tapes cautiously, see WP:PRIMARY. In addition, see WP:SYNTH on why it is not a good reason to put this in the civil rights section, you are making a point, claiming Nixon was a racist. No change is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Secondary sources are just opinions about primary sources and to keep primary sources a secret is exactly what Nixon did with the Watergate tapes. People will make better decisions with primary sources, not secondary. Wikipedia is going against the fundemental principles of Historical research. It appears Wikipedia only uses secondary sources that Wikipedia does not consider being opinionated, therefore, Wikipedia only uses secondary sources that in Wikipedia's opinion is not opinion, thus, making Wikipedia opinionated. :) {66.81.216.15 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}
Well, you need to go argue with Jimbo Wales then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's OK. Wikipedia wins. I surrender. {66.81.216.15 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}
Although said in a tongue in cheek fashion, 66.81.216.15 makes a good point about Wikipedia's opinioned position. --75.4.27.220 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article length

This article is extremely long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.10.200 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is an article about an important topic, a two term VP and two term President. What do you propose we cut? --rogerd (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Newly released papers

Information recently released from the National Archives should be incorporated in the article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/11/us/politics/AP-US-Nixon-Papers.html --Jorfer (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I heard, the recently released info has a valuable content showing Nixon's opinion on the Korean War. Here's a relevant article of close date of NA release with an interesting quote to start looking. From what Nixon said,

If you look back at it now and see the weak Japan at that time, if Korea had been overrun, and Japan with its very, very strong Socialist party leaning toward the Communists might have -- even with the enormous dependence it had at that time upon the United States economically and with certainly even the power that we guaranteed in terms of their defense -- Japan would have been pulled inevitably into orbit and toward that orbit,

Title: Korean War about defending Japan: Nixon dossier (By Hwang Doo-hyong) http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/01/11/86/0301000000AEN20100111002200315F.HTML Perhaps we need more research. Komitsuki (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Post presidency visit to Greece

At the end of the Pardon and illness section, the article states that:

He would visit China four more times, and Greece once at the invitation of then-president Heironimus.

I looked in the President of Greece article and found no president by that name. This sentence is not referenced. I was not able to find anything by googling "nixon visit to greece". Does someone have any information on this visit? --rogerd (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That may have been vandalism. Suggest you look back a year or so and see if it says the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I found this from an editor with only one other edit. I took it out. --rogerd (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

The synopsis of the Wikipedia article should mention Nixon's legacy at the end, after the sentence describing his death. Example: "While Richard Nixon is rated poorly in popular opinion polls, his legacy has slightly improved amongst historians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationmonopoly (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

sure, come up with some reliable sources and we can put that in. --rogerd (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

he was a good man ,bad point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.10.179 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


War on Cancer

Why is there no mention of the War on Cancer, which Nixon began when he signed the National Cancer Act of 1971??? 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.25 (talk)

Moon Landing

In the section labeled "US Space Program", it states "In 1969, Nixon's first year in office, the United States sent three men to the moon, becoming the first nation in the world to do so". It should state "In 1969, Nixon's first year in office, the United States sent three men to the moon, becoming the first - and only - nation so far to do so. How come I cannot edit the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brprivate (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brprivate, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I request that a line be changed in order to reflect the fact that the United States of America is the only country to have ever landed men on the moon. In the first sentence under the heading "US Space Program", please change "In 1969, Nixon's first year in office, the United States sent three men to the moon, becoming the first nation in the world to do so" to "In 1969, Nixon's first year in office, the United States sent three men to the moon, becoming the first (and only nation so far) in in the world to do so". The original sentence implies other nations have landed men on the moon, which is of course not true. Brprivate (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done I have added the statement to the article in a slightly different way. If you need it adjusted, just request another edit. Thanks! Avicennasis @ 04:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologist tone

The facts seem ok but the tone is less of encyclopedia and more of an apologist revisionary nature. The guy is still the only sitting president to resign in shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.81.162 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I blame the fact that Conrad Black's apologist biography is used as a source throughout a lot of the article. TomeOne (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Agust777, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the section regarding Richard Nixon and "Watergate," there is an incorrect caption to a photograph of him giving a farewell speech in the White House East Room.

It says that the speech was on August 9, when in fact it was on August 8.

A minor mistake, however, it might be misleading to someone at some point.

Agust777 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not the 8/8/74 speech. It's him saying goodbye, just before Ford was sworn in, which was on the 9th. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Officeand

 Done good catch ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"The resignation speech was delivered on August 8, 1974, at 9:01 p.m. Eastern time from the Oval Officeand was carried..." Anybody mind fixing this? I can't fix it because the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.115.126 (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"No other American has held office in the executive branch of the federal government as long as Richard Nixon did."

First of all, that sounds like the answer to a trivia question. Second, it's probably not true. The military is part of the executive branch, so an officer with 30 years would exceed Nixon's longevity. The point is probably that 14 1/2 years as VP and President is a record. It should be removed, or restated correctly. Don't Be Evil (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Election of 1960

In the election of 1960 section, the text reads:

"After all the court battles and recounts were done, Kennedy had a greater number of electoral votes than he held after Election Day.[43]"

The source referenced is a 2000 Washington Post article which says no such thing. The entire thrust of the article is that the 1960 election was "stolen" in Texas and Illinois. The article states: "there was no recount and Kennedy was inaugurated."

If the Wikipedia text is true - that recounts would have granted JFK more electoral votes - it should be sourced properly, or removed. There is substantial evidence that voter fraud in Illinois and Texas pushed the election in Kennedy's favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdhulljr (talk • contribs) 03:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a better source to back up the claims in the current text: http://www.slate.com/id/91350 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdhulljr (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

FA drive!

I've finally started work on the long-delayed drive to get this article to FA. Expect it to take several weeks before it can go to another peer review. I'd like to get it to FAC, with Happyme22 as conominator, by the end of the summer. Please feel free to join in. Help needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Famous image

Can someone upload a better quality image of File:Nixon-depart.png. Its one of Nixons most famous scene as President(departing). We should have atleast a FP quality image of that. Spongie555 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chile

It is a scandal that Chile, Allende, and Pinochet are not mentioned AT ALL in this article. Nixon, the CIA, Kissinger, conspiring with Brazil...all of this should be discussed here. More important than who has played Nixon in popular culture. 1973_Chilean_coup_d'état

Here are some sources to start with anyway: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html#6 ("In addition to political action, Nixon and Kissinger, according to Helms’s notes, ordered steps to “make the economy scream.”)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/Box%2022,%20File%203,%20Telcon,%209-16-73%2011,50%20Mr.%20Kissinger-The%20Pres%202.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/world/americas/17chile.html?_r=1&ref=salvador_allende 168.103.196.53 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Futurama

Nixon's recurrent and featured role in the TV show, Futurama, is notable. He is represented as the President of Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.57.221 (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


So what, you want that included in this article? What's your point here? I wouldn't mind it being briefly mentioned however it isn't something that should take up its own section. All in all his appearance in some cartoon series isn't all that important to his biography as the president of the US. I'm sure most people would agree with this. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, I think all these things will be farmed to a sub-article, as this article advances towards Featured status (I have this on my agenda for next year), FAC reviewers will insist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it's worth a mention in the "In Popular Culture" section. He plays a major role in the series. Arguably more important than the "Black Ops" reference. Let's be consistent, shall we? IrDewey 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA. Futarama decided to include Nixon in its lexicon of references to the 20th century. The only people this is notable to is people who watch Futurama.--Louiedog (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so a reference to a video game (in which he is portrayed once) is more worthy than a popular TV Series in which he is portrayed multiple times, and in which he is the focus of many entire episodes? IrDewey 03:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing information

I find that this line in the section about his funeral to be a bit confusing.
"Nixon's funeral took place on April 27, 1994, the first for an American president since that of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1973, which Nixon had presided over as president."
Could this line be clarified? Emilhem (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He was the first former president to die since Johnson. Thats a long time between deaths.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the Nixon administration on his alliance with China should be more labelled.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shryock (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nixon and music

I just watched this movie in youtube: 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCsGSMze_6Q

It's interesting to know that Nixon actually composed music. It seems his piano playing was an important part of his personal live, maybe this article could have some information about that. (I have no further info on that, sorry.)

Just to add my opinion, I think this is an interesting facet of his personality and would add to the value of the article Basiclife (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that Nixon has been portrayed so many times in film, TV etc - it seems that the most prominent of these should be noted. I have started the section but it needs help from others. Davidpatrick (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What is usually done is that this should be its own article, Richard Nixon in popular culture with a link from this one. This section would never survive once it starts moving again toward FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this topic merits its own article - certainly not at this point. But there does need to be text about depictions of Nixon. Obviously in its optimum state this must be an encyclopedic paragraph not a list. But this is an evolving process. First of all a list of the most significant depictions needs to be assembled. Then that needs to be woven into text form. Nixon was the subject of an opera as well as numerous film & TV productions. Far too pertinent for an FA article to ignore such a relevant matter. Davidpatrick (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to hasten to delete it. However, when the article gets to FAC it's in the hands of the reviewers. Accordingly, by then, it must be relevant and sourced. Not merely that Nixon's head is a recurring character in Futurama but a secondary source that finds the fact of significance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You have time, this is on my list of improvements, and I already have six FA's that deal with Nixon's career. But it is such a massive project it is unlikely that it will get to FA until early next year. The idea is to have the article run main page for the Nixon Centennial on January 9, 2013.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Information about his portrayal and role in the film "Watchmen" should also be referenced seeing that his presidency played such a pivotal role in the history of the movie's America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hp137 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please add Lane Smith, who portrayed President Nixon in the 1989 TV movie The Final Days? To leave him off a list of notable portrayals is criminal, considering the quality of the performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.25.73 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Venturas Conspiracy episode on the jfk assassination portrays nixon as a suspect. you should mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.196.62 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2 recent Doctor Who episodes in which Nixon was portrayed by Stuart Milligan have been mentioned twice in this section. 86.184.137.98 (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Odds are we'll be putting popular culture in its own article, which will allow for greater discussion of such things and still be quickly accessible from the Main Nixon article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Butcher

The lack of information surrounding the atrocities of an American initiated war against civilians is sad indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.41.206 (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The lack of information can be fixed with edits using sources. etc .But it seems that some "people" really dont want this to be known. This its much more sad indeed. 190.118.9.11 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Its clear for me that this butcher its still praised by many wikipedians(americans, britishs) as a remarcable president.But in the end this SOAB was a butcher.I see no metion of the usage of agent orange on vietnam , no single mention of critisism of the vietnam war policy(nothing about My lai,etc). There only a critic mention of his silence about masacres made by Pakistani army units in the east of India(1971). This is like the guy above said, Sad indeed.190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a regular editor so feel free to take this lightly but... I don't think the vehemence demonstrated above is particularly useful. That said, the author has a point in that some reference to agent orange, etc. would be beneficial. The article feels very pro-Nixon and adding a little more negative information might help with regards to NPOV. I'd like to hear others' thoughts Basiclife (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: Zhou or Chou but not both

In the section regarding China, sometimes Zhou EnLai and Chou are used interchangably. Please pick either Chou or preferably Zhou, and use it every time.

Rodchen (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Awkward photo caption

In the 'Legacy' section, the grave-site photo caption states: "The graves of President Richard and first lady Pat Nixon." IMO, by using the informal/uncommon 'President Richard', this is an awkward caption. Wouldn't a better caption be: "The graves of President Richard Nixon and First Lady Pat Nixon." (I am not sure if 'first lady' is supposed to be capitalized or not.) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: Only person nomined 5 times

Along with being the only person elected twice to the presidency and VP, Nixon is also the only person nominated five times on national ticket by a major party. This is noteworthy, and should be included in the opening paragraph.

Rodchen (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific source for that assertion, or would we be making that calculation on our own? By my count, FDR was also nominated five times, once as VP in 1920.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Both are indeed the only people to five times receive electoral votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO comments

1. I'm proud of you for working on an article like this with high "school" service as well as high Google notability. (And I know you've done all kinds, done Speer, but this sort of thing makes my heart swell).

2. I'm not sure if I'm getting old, or that is just a great picture, but 73 Nixon looks pretty good in that picture. Not a Herblock caricature.

TCO (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've only nibbled at it, but I think it will all come together in the end. And yes, that is a really, really good photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Village pump thread

I used this article as an example...to dare disturb the universe...by suggesting raising the penalty box external links higher in article.TCO (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Tempting fate.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rayrab, 28 June 2011

"his older brother, Arthur, died of the illness in 1933" should read: "his older brother, Harold, died of the illness in 1933"

Rayrab (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Verified on Harold's page as well as date listed in previous paragraph in article. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely right, my dumb mistake in doing some renovation work on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism

Should there not be a seperate section for Nixons racist views his anti semitic remarks are included in this article. Also his 'enemies list' contained many black congressmen and congresswoman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The improvement project is under way!

I will be working intensively on the article over the next week (I do not expect to finish in that time) as part of the process to improve it to FA and get it on the Main Page on Nixon's 100th birthday in January 1913. I already have seven FAs on Nixon's career, associates, opponents, and depictions, so it's time to do the main article. I will put the under construction tag on it in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please drop a bomb on that pop culture section so people won't think that WP is edited by a bunch of 3rd graders :). Brad (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I will probably make it its own article and leave a see also. So far so good. I haven't added images yet but I am done up until 1959.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget the stamp pics. Brad (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just so anyone who is interested knows, we're on hold so I can go through some files at the Nixon Library (and do an image hunt for pre- and post-Presidential images). I expect to start writing again sometime around July 15, after returning home. With luck, I will have it at a renewed peer review around July 22 or so and am hoping to start a FAC around August 1. Simply because Nixon is a controversial subject, it may take multiple attempts, but that's what the schedule looks like right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Substantively, I'm done. However, it is going to take me hours of work to straighten out all the nitpicky stuff in the references and bibliography, study it for continuity and so forth, and other fun stuff like that, before I feel ready listing it for peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Created new article on US Supreme Court case = Time, Inc. v. Hill

I have created a new article on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Hill. Feedback and especially help with additional research would be appreciated, at the new article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing queries

Wehwalt, Malleus, Harry, et al., please feel free to revert any change I make that you don't like. Let me put a proposed c-e of the first para to you, since I'm not sure about a few of my suggestions:

Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974, and was the only president ever to resign the office. During his presidency, he opened up US relations with the People's Republic of China, negotiated a cease fire that ended US American involvement in the Vietnam War, and he achieved détente with the Soviet Union. His Nixon's second term saw increasing controversy over the Watergate scandal. When His remaining political support evaporated when it became clear that Nixon he had been aware of and had approved his underlings' subordinates' efforts to cover up the scandal, his remaining political support evaporated, leading to his resignation on August 9, 1974. In his final years, he became a prolific author and elder statesman, [to an extent repairing his reputation ("to an extent" is a bit vague, and did he really repair his reputation by authoring? Was it prolific? If he had ghost writers, this would be an overstatement I think—consider removing this last phrase?)].

By moving "His remaining political support evaporated", have I distorted the meaning?

Can I make some of the images a bit bigger? Tony (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've distorted the meaning and you can adjust the images. I am inclined to leave the bit about repairing reputations in, simply because he did, certainly not in everyone's eyes, but enough to take the harsh edge off Watergate when he died. I can find no indication Nixon used ghostwriters; certainly he had competent researchers but I don't think they did writing for him. He was very much writing for his place in history. Yet he did not come all the way back, I've found one reference that points out, yes, Nixon had Bill Clinton listening to him, but he was never used as a channel for diplomacy in the way that Adlai Stevenson was.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in here -- awesome work being done to the article, and kudos to Wehwalt and others. I had some concerns about the way that the lead was re-worked, and made changes to reflect the following:

--The first paragraph was much too lengthy and put way too much undue weight on Watergate. Richard Nixon served in public life for 30 years -- Watergate made up roughly two of them, and Nixon's role in Watergate made up much less than that. Everything about Watergate is still debated among historians, and this historian has taken it upon himself to research Watergate as well over the past several months, but that's a conversation for a different place... In any event, the first paragraph should be very general and outline why he was famous and what makes him a noteworthy figure to deserve a Wikipedia article. The new first paragraph reflects that.
--I noticed that there was nothing about the Hiss Case in the lead. The Hiss Case defined Richard Nixon in the late 1940s, and it was that which elevated him to national prominence and caught the eye of Dwight Eisenhower -- which led to him being nominated for VP and furthered his career. I would say that that is much more important than the previous line about red-baiting, at least for the lead.
--The line about the Pentagon Papers is, first of all, poorly integrated into the rest of the text; in other words it doesn't flow. And it places undue weight on an event that may or may not have led to Watergate. I am also unsure of the purpose of including it in the lead, which is meant to be a very general overview of the subject as a whole; it's all well and good to write about it in the body article, but the lead should be very general facts.
--His re-election was not darkened by the Watergate scandal. Despite Democratic efforts during that election year to tie him to directly to the break-in and a case brought by the DNC against the CRP, the public overwhelmingly re-elected him. Even the media really wasn't pursuing it. It was a nonevent until January/February 1973, during which the burglars were convicted and Congress established the Ervin Committee to begin to investigate. But it really never had any impact on his re-election.
--The last paragraph changes were mostly just rewording, and adding more about Watergate where it should be added.

I look forward to reading the rest of the article very soon! Again, excellent work. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at least a mention of his resignation should be in the first paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed -- the first paragraph of the lead now reflects that. Happyme22 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Though I support the overwhelming majority of the edits thus far, and have just supported the article for FA, I do have one major concern, in regard to the detail the lead places on Watergate. It read: "During 1973 and 1974, a continuing series of revelations about the Watergate scandal diminished Nixon's political support. In early August 1974, an audiotape of conversations between Nixon and his aides was released which demonstrated the President's knowledge and approval of the cover-up; he lost much of his remaining support, and he resigned in the face of almost certain impeachment and removal from office."

First of all it's undue weight when compared to the lack of detail in regard to his foreign and domestic policies. Second, it implies something that is historically inaccurate, which is that the President approved a cover-up on his own; in actuality, the "smoking gun" came from an idea by John Dean, White House counsel. On the morning of June 23, he suggested to Haldeman that the President call on the CIA to halt the FBI investigation of Watergate, falsely invoking CRP Director and close Nixon friend John Mitchell as supporting the idea. Haldeman relayed the idea to the President, who agreed to it, but took it back on July 6, only about two weeks later, and instead told Acting FBI Director Pat Gray to proceed with a full investigation. That the President ordered a cover-up is a myth propagated by the harsh political climate of the Watergate-era and the sheer happenstance that documents and accounts that prove it was Dean's idea had not yet come out.

In any event and whatever the reason, the lead places too much undue weight on this matter. I have reworked it to something I hope we can all agree on. If the reader has an interest in Watergate, much like I do, he/she can scroll down to the Watergate section or go to any of the Watergate articles (which I plan on tackling soon when I have more time...).

Also, what happened to the part in the introduction of the lead about Nixon being the only person nominated 5 times on a major national party ticket, only POTUS and VPOTUS to be elected to 2 terms? I think it's important stuff to document the rarity and longevity of his political career. Again, though, fabulous work! Happyme22 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at what you've done. I felt that the statistic looked a bit trivial in isolation; I do put in a mention late in the article that he was nominated by five out of the previous six conventions (discussing 1976). I'm open to adding more but this being FAC I am also not rocking the boat!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for a broader way of relating Nixon to his times than just stating the bare statistic.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

missing refs

Thanks for going through it. They are there now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

His homophobia

I see nothing is said here about that despite it being well documented [2] [3] [4]. "Good article". Posh. What's the matter, is he still alive and protected by the BLP squad? FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful not to judge yesterday's politicians by today's standards. Nixon's views on gays were not unusual for his time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
FuFo: instead of showing up with attitude, just edit the article.--Fizbin (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If you do, please make sure you reference it appropriately in the style in the article. Perhaps you won't, but I asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I saw that there was some debate about the lead. For what it's worth, I do think it's good to have a cursory summary of the subject's overall significance in the first paragraph, rather than just a list of his jobs. I like what was done with these presidential articles (FA and GA respectively), for example:

Rutherford Birchard Hayes (October 4, 1822 – January 17, 1893) was the 19th President of the United States (1877–1881). As president, he oversaw the end of Reconstruction and the United States' entry into the Second Industrial Revolution. Hayes was a reformer who began the efforts that would lead to civil service reform and attempted, unsuccessfully, to reconcile the divisions that had led to the American Civil War fifteen years earlier.

George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799) was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1799. He led the American victory over Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in 1775–1783, and presided over the writing of the Constitution in 1787. The unanimous choice to serve as the first President of the United States (1789–1797), Washington presided over the creation of a strong, well-financed national government that stayed neutral in the wars raging in Europe, suppressed rebellion and won acceptance among Americans of all types. His leadership style established many forms and rituals of government that have been used ever since, such as using a cabinet system and delivering an inaugural address. Washington is universally regarded as the "Father of his country".

You get an immediate sense of the dominant themes of the article—the historical backdrop, the major accomplishments, the legacy—in just a few sentences. They go into detail in the subsequent paragraphs. I think this goes along with the "brilliant prose" quality. Not all the presidential FAs/GAs follow this design, of course. Just my two cents. —Designate (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and for the work on the article I see you've done. Personally, I believe that the lede paragraph should be the capstone of the article in the manner you suggest. However, I see the current state of the lede as a compromise between those who feel a heavier emphasis should be made on Nixon's difficulties in office, and those who feel a passing mention of Watergate is more than sufficient. I'd like to lay this aside until after the FAC closes, if possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I kept this out of the FAC so it wouldn't be an issue there. —Designate (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Managing this article can be like the classic running back and forth across a tilting floor.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Succeeded by" linkless

I just noticed that, as of now, the link to Gerald Ford's article is missing in the info bar to the right. It should be fixed for completeness. Arobicha (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your eye for detail! Actually as Ford is linked as VP, it isn't necessary to have a second link as Nixon's successor, given that they are within a few lines of each other. That would be overlinking, I guess. It's not the sort of thing I would revert if someone did it, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable addition

User:Ksk2875 has twice added an addition of almost 1kB to the article, which deals with the fact that Air Force One, on which Nixon was traveling, changed its call signal at noon on August 9, 1974, the date and time at which Nixon's resignation became effective. The addition seems not germane, especially in a lengthy article like this, and I and another editor have each reverted once. Also, the grammar's not very good, but that could be fixed if the content was important to this article. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it is a weak trivial addition.--Fizbin (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be fine if anyone writes Resignation of Richard Nixon as an article, not a redirect. But the Nixon articles are like a pyramid, there's lots of space at the bottom, but at the top level article, not so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree that this is too trivial to be included in article; User:Ksk2875 continues to edit war, and has violated 3RR. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's hold off on a report until the FAC closes. This is no time for a fuss, and we can handle it for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nixon as member of the NRA

An editor keeps adding, first via category than via the body of the article that Nixon was a member of the NRA. I don't doubt it, but so what? Nixon was a joiner, like many politicians of the era. To my knowledge, he joined several churches, social organizations (especially in the 30s and 40s, you name it. It was a good thing for an aspiring politician. That being said, the NRA membership does not seem to have any relevance to Nixon's life in particular. Gun control was not a major issue during Nixon's presidency, as the Omnibus Crime Control Act was passed in '68 and it was years before it became a major issue again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I simply wanted to add the category and was asked for sources indirectly. Being an NRA Life member is significant, especially for a US President(only 8 US Presidents have been members). I would be satisfied with just the category at the bottom of the article. I wouldn't say he was a "joiner", if there were a list of other organizations of which he was a member, I would have added it there, the closest section was in the "early life" section. He definitely belongs in the category of NRA members.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that per WP:CATEGORY it has to be in the article, and really, what is the relevance to Nixon? I can't even find any information he owned a gun, other than the one Elvis gave him! At this article length, anything we add has to be relevant to Nixon's life, not just that it is a sourced fact about Nixon. Thoughts? A few hundred people have this FA watchlisted ... --Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I didn't know that about WP:CATEGORY, I just know I get bitched at whenever I create an article without categories at the bottom.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it! I just did some research, it is from the NY Times, 2/23/69, perhaps you can find it free but I will transcribe it:

Rifle Unit Membership Is Disavowed by Nixon WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 (UPI)-President Nixon has disavowed an honorary membership in the National Rifle Association, an aide said today. Mr. Nixon does not remember having been enrolled in the organization and does not even own a gun, Bryce N. Harlow, a White House assistant, advised Representative Richard D. McCarthy, Democrat of Buffalo.

The American Rifleman, the association's official publication, proclaimed in a January editorial that Mr Nixon would become the sixth President to hold membership in the N.R.A. Representative McCarthy, a supporter of gun control laws, noted this and wrote Mr. Nixon asking him to quit the association.

I think it's best to leave it out, with respect. Obviously there is a disagreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I honestly did not know that, but seeing the source material about his membership and then this sort of "duck and cover", I'm left with just a little bit less respect for Tricky Dick than I had. question on a related note, George HW Bush did the same thing. Now with Bush its a bit different as he rode on an NRA endorsement in 88 and then banned importation of 19 types of rifles in 89. In 92, NRA did not endorse him (which was significant, considering the times). In 93 or 94, Bush renounced his NRA membership due to an ad where NRA depicted BATFE as "jack booted thugs". Should I follow the same course of action as here? The major difference I see is Bush needed the NRA endorsement and stumped as "anti-gun control" whereas with Nixon it was a non-issue.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the difference is that Bush knew he was a NRA member and used it politically. He was a knowing member for years. I don't even know if Nixon got the magazine. But if you can find a speech by Nixon in which he mentions being an NRA member, pre 1969, I'll withdraw my objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What source material, by the way? If the NRA has an application an check, or a letter acknowledging his membership that is quite another matter. I saw another article in the Buffalo paper saying he wanted to resign from all organizations that did lobbying.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Various books and magazines, most just stating he was a member, but like you said...it didn't really help or hurt his presidency. Now the others like Reagan (remained pro-gun even after he was shot; and carried a revolver on occassion), Roosevelt (the hunting connection), Taft (saw civilian marksmanship as key to national defense), Ike (was a keynote speaker at an annual meeting), JFK(was a competitive shooter and advocated civilian ownership of firearms after Cuban missile Crisis), and Grant (was 7th president of the NRA) have more merit to mention it in their articles. Do you have the author of the NYT piece? I'd like to add to the NRA article that he was listed as a member and later resigned/disavowed it. Thanks again, wasn't trying to hose up your article and thanks for the link to Categories (I learn something new every day on here).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it was a UPI reprint, no author mentioned. Dig this search. It's not my article, actually, but it's a brand new FA and editorial control will help it maintain that new article shine for longer!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be an expanded version of what was in the Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan with Nixon, December 1970
Nixon meets with President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, June 1974

Wehwalt deleted a photo twice [three times in 29 minutes] (the Dayan photo to the right; already existing was the Sadat photo to the right); his initial deletion and edit summary was "At the FAC, I was required to delete images. There are quite a few images I would add before this one".

I gather that he has worked hard at the article, and appreciate that. At the same time, this is a collaborative enterprise. I note his use of the phrase "I" twice in his edit summary, pointing to his personal experience and as well to his personal (subjective) view.

Objectively, Nixon's Israel policy was a key component to his Presidency. I expect that is beyond dispute. It seems only logical to reflect an image relating to his discussions with Israel. The image that was added (and deleted) is of normal size -- nothing like the over-sized images that I notice in the article. If we have a sensitivity to images over-taking the article, we might focus on image size. But this image seems both of appropriate size and significantly relevant.

I think it appropriate to keep that image in. If anyone has a better one of Nixon negotiating with Israel, that would be great as well.

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not launch claims of ownership unless you know what you're getting into, that is at best rude, and this article was not a solo work, which is why there was a conom at FAC. What else do you want besides my subjective opinion? We have an image of Nixon with Dayan ... and what? What does it show? An article is not a picture gallery We are not here to show Nixon with every possible world leader. Judging by your edit summary and your statement, you want to show Nixon with an Israeli. How does that help the reader? The present image in the Middle East section is of far greater significance, Nixon talking with Sadat, in Egypt mere months after the Yom Kippur War, reestablishing relations (also nice pyramids in background). I am sorry you do not like the large images. They were very popular at the FAC. Have you read it?
And it is a valid point that you have overstuffed the section, which will have an affect on how the article appears in people's browsers. We do not need two images to illustrate that section and the Sad-at image is far more important. Why do we need an image of Nixon and Dayan waving arms around?
And to answer your point, Nixon's Israel policy was not central to his presidency until late 1973, which you would know if you read the section you inserted the image into. This image is from 1970, though it lacks author information, which would have caused this article to fail FAC had it been in it. Who took it? What roll and image number? If you don't have that information, I don't even know this is a public domain image. And yes, there are plenty of photos in the Archives which are not PD>--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah ... a light dawns. Are you inserting the Dayan image to balance the Sadat one? That seems to be the case judging by your insistence on having Nixon with an Israeli, in your edit summaries and comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We have a President whose policy vis-a-vis Israel was a significant part of his Presidency. That is the only image relative to his discussions with the Israelis. It serves the same purpose as nearly every other image in the article -- what do they show? They either show how he looked at a particular point in his life, or him interacting with significant players in the dealings that were most important to his life.
In this photo, he is full of expression. That of course contrasts starkly with the other photo in the section. In the other photo, his face is darkened, small, and largely turned away from the camera. Your suggestion that the other photo (not that we only need one of them) is more significant because it shows pyramids (really?), or the proximity in time to a war, I find unconvincing. We see much more of Nixon the man in the photo that I added. And he is the subject of the image.
I think that there is room for both images, though.
As to the size of the over-large images, I would have thought that they would have raised questions if reviewed with MOS:IMAGES, and in particular Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images in mind.
I see that in your most recent deletion of the image you cite as your rationale "although it seems to come from a National Archives page, its copyright status needs to be established. Who took it? What is the roll number? What is the image number? This is KNOWN for every Nixon WHPO image.)" Can you please point me to where that is a requirement for an image? If it is not, can you please explain why -- with talkpage discussion ongoing -- you used that as your basis for deleting the image for the third time in 29 minutes? That strikes me, unless you have a solid basis that you can point me to, as inappropriately aggressive.
I would hope you would reconsider, as the flurry of deletions and the edit summaries suggest that perhaps this is getting more emotional that is best for our consideration of the issues. Also, perhaps others can weigh in here. If we can't sort it out ourselves or with commenters on this page, lets get the image experts to look at it -- they are perhaps less invested in the individual article that we are, and can look at it under wp MOS IMAGES guidelines with a more objective view towards equal application of the guidelines.
(Sorry about the mention of the ownership issue, which is secondary, and I see is a subject of a tag at the top of the page that says that you are not exercising ownership -- that is just how your deletions and edit summaries appeared to me; no insult intended. I imagine if I had done as much as you have clearly done to improve the article, I would be keenly sensitive to my own compass in terms of what was a good addition and what was not.)--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
To be completely fair, an FAC is by its nature collaborative, so anything out of that process can be considered the community consensus at the time it passed. That doesn't mean it's immutable, but it's more than just the one editor's opinion. —07:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. The primary issue is whether the image W deleted a number of times now should be deleted. That is the only issue that I indicated was one editor's opinion (as well as his view that it is the inferior of the above two photos ... if, indeed, it is not acceptable to have both of them). Of course, it was not an image that was considred at the collaborative FAC.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I would wish that you woudl not mix your advocacy for the image with darts at me. You withdraw the ownership only to complain about the pace of reversal, to which you are a part. I was prepared to leave it up for the discussion until I saw that I could not prove it to be PD. And at present, FAC articles are very much expected to have their ducks in a row on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Wehwalt -- I'm avoiding escalating this; I haven't made an edit warning complaint for 3 reverts in 29 minutes, or discussed wp:admin obligations, or escalated this to any noticeboard substantive or otherwise. I'm giving you a chance to reconsider, to STARE at the 2 images, and ask yourself -- "Do I really think that the Dayan image is inferior to the image that is in that section (clarity/expression/ability to see the person/every criterion of Featured Images), and if not, do I think it is in retrospect OK to leave in the photo"? If you can get there, great. If discussion here can get us there, great. If not, let's bring in the Featured Images and wikiproject images folks who are more sensitive to image issues, and less attached to the images in the article, to review the image issues. Frankly, I'm astonished that you 1) won't tolerate this one image; and 2) go so far as to suggest that the existing image is superior. I think both can remain, but find it hard to believe that the images people will think the dark/blurry/face-turned-away photo to be superior.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The image was removed the final time for lack of valid author information, you have failed to respond to my point or supply valid source information. As I've said, the National Archives contains copyright photos too, and without the info I've requested it is unclear whether this is a copyvio. That's a valid reason for removal. I find your repeated claims concerning my faults again badly mixed with matters concerning the article content. We can either engage in a content discussion, or we can talk about what you are very loudly refraining from doing. I won't mix the two, that way does not lie good outcomes. Would you like to discuss whether or not each of us has been edit warring, or would you like to discuss content? I express my willingness to discuss the latter. As a preliminary matter, please state the name of the photographer, the roll and image number, so that per WP:V, we can be sure this is a public domain image. There's a lot of crap on commons, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you sure you are understanding the difference between featured articles and featured images correctly? No one says the Sadat image is a perfect portrait of the two men. The situation is what is important there. It's like the Kitchen Debate image, the situation is being imaged, not the man. We know what Nixon's facial features look like. As the image is adequate in thumbnail, it's detailed enough. Although the Nixon Library people are helpful and enthusiastic towards my work, a higher res image would cost money. And did you notice that very few of the article's image are simple "Nixon with X"? I think the Mao one is excusable, the Elvis one is famous, and the one with Bill Clinton I've asked for cleanup on commons. Frankly, they are the weakest images in the article and I see no reason to add more to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And for everyone's reference here's the relevant discussion from the FAC. I would consider it deceitful to jump in after the FAC and add images, especially a dodgy one like the Dayan one:


MOS photo and comments

  • A photo gallery posing as an article. Text sandwiching, crowding and stacking. Photos spilling over into sections below. Don't tell me the picture window size photos are the wave of future FA's. Brad (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you don't like the use of images. I thought I had done it well, and some of the reviewers seemed to like them. I'm open, as always to suggestions but am reluctant to cut too many unless a number of reviewers agree with your views. And given the article length is the second longest I've brought here, I think there is text enough to constitute an article. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside the full-width images, which I like, the side images are a little heavy (although many recent politicians have a similar amount). There are 28 left/right-aligned images, not counting the infobox. I'm sure you could cut out 4-5 of them and maybe reduce the overall impression of crowding. The last section particularly is chewed up on my monitor. —Designate (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I did that. Is that good for you, Brad101?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing. It is obvous Epeefleche does not understand these photos. Oval Office shots were posed. Nixon's face is not "full of expression", he's posing for the camera. You can go check the Presidential Daily Diary for December 1970, there will be an entry for the Dayan meeting "Press in/out". Which means that the press was allowed to come in, take photos, then go away and let the meeting happen. The duty WH photographer would come in with the press.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Wehwalt -- I "understand" the photo. Anyone looking at them can see what I have pointed out for themselves. They are set forth at the top of this string. Your assertion that the full-face photo of him is "posed" is, of course, POV or OR or both. I'm slightly surprised that you still think that face-half-turned-away, blurry, no-expression photo of him is the superior one of the two. I'm willing to accept both, but if you can't get there perhaps other editors can comment. If we all can't get there, let's bring in the images experts to take a look at the photos. At the featured images promotion page, we routinely look at images to determine which ones are best, and why. Those editors could no doubt do a great job comparing these two images dispassionately (and looking at any other images, such as that raised by Brad and that related to our MOS, while they are at it).

As to your deletion of the image, the first 2x was for reasons that seem unavailing in the light of the above discussion. Your third deletion that half hour was for reasons I questioned above. You never responded to my query with a link to the applicable "requirement" you posit. Furthermore, I see that information has been added to the photo page -- I'm not aware that any more than the existing information is required. And, of course, under the circumstances it appears that you are scrounging for support for your initial two deletions, given the lack of support for them, by coming up with wiki-lawyering based on guidelines that you have failed to point to, if they do in fact exits.

Hopefully we can all come to agreement here. I'm as I said fine with both images remaining. If one has to go, I think the Sadat one is objectively clearly inferior. If Whewalt can agree, great. If not, perhaps we can reach consensus w/other editors here. If that does not work, lets bring in the image experts to take a look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V might be a good start on policy, as there is insufficient info to conclude that it is PD because we don't know who took it ... If it will help, on Monday I could have my photo contact at the Nixon library email me the contact sheet for the Sadat photo, there may be a better one. Look, we are blessed with having an incredible number of images of Nixon out there and very little available room in the article. We are not trying to get incredibly great technical photos, the reason the Sadat one is there is because it reflects the article text very nicely. I don't like to use space on a standard photo of talking heads (and no, it is not OR, I've read up on the WHPO's procedures in the Nixon years in connection with my viewing of the Atkins collection at GMU). I could also request a copy of a contact sheet from Nixon's 1974 visit to Israel. There may be some way to compromise this. Sound fair? It would be kinda cool if there was an image of Nixon at the Kotel or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nixon health plan

I reverted a long edit about Nixon's failed health plan. First of all, I think there is a recentism problem, it is more prominent than it would otherwise be in light of ObamaCare. Second, some of the sources were not high quality. Third, it is just too long when we are already a very long article, we just can't have kilobyte additions, because there's no end to it and I don't want the FAC delegates annoyed at an expanding article. This is the likely TFA for January 9, 2013, and if it is so huge that people's browsers won't load, we're not helping the editor in the way we should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the edit. In short, it was a pretty important part of Nixon's social agenda (discussed in his State of the Union addresses), failing partly through Watergate. Comparable, say, to Bush's planned Social security privatization reform. On the second point, yes, there aren't very many news articles about Richard Nixon right now, for obvious reasons, and I didn't spend too long searching for sources. I did find a much better sourced/detailed draft page here, but it hasn't been touched in 2 years :( Seleucus (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you draft say, two sentences about it? Then I'll start looking through my bios of Nixon to see if I can source it. I think we can stand a brief addition, but I would prefer to avoid comparisons with ObamaCare. This article stays in contemporary mode almost all of the time, and I'd hate to keep taking the reader out of the past to the present, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not by any means an expert (only added it because I thought the article was lacking), and it would help if someone more knowledgeable could rewrite the policy description, but my two sentence attempt:
During Nixon's presidency, healthcare costs rapidly increased, resulting in deficits to Medicare and Medicaid. In 1974, in order to combat the perceived healthcare crisis, Nixon proposed a major health care reform plan in his State of the Union address, which included an employer mandate and programs to assist the poor; the plan was ultimately unsuccessful, due to Democratic Congressional opposition including that of Ted Kennedy, who thought the plan was too beneficial to insurance companies. Seleucus (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, subject to technical quirks possibly in the sources. Give me a day or two to dig out my sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Haven't had time yet due to RL, hope to do it this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries; what's a difference of a few days to an article about a president a few decades ago? :) Seleucus (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on this, perhaps:
In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts proposed a plan for universal health insurance. In response, Nixon proposed plans for universal coverage of employees, and of poor people. As this still would have left some forty million people uncovered, Kennedy and the Democrats declined to support it, and the measure failed, though a Nixon proposal for increased use of health maintenance organizations passed Congress in 1973.
Or something similar based on that cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


Looks fine; I would just suggest that you make a mention of the rise in healthcare costs as part of the motivation, and perhaps some more detail in the plans Ex: (my changes highlighted)
In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts proposed a plan for universal federally run health insurance, partly motivated by dramatic rises in public and private health care expenditures. In response, Nixon proposed a health care plan which would provide insurance for low-income families, and require that all employees be provided with health care. As this still would have left some forty million people uncovered, Kennedy and the other Democrats declined to support it, and the measure failed, though a Nixon proposal for increased use of health maintenance organizations passed Congress in 1973.
Though that might be a bit long; I do think it's important to make it clearer what the differences between the two plans were (in short, Kennedy's plan was a government-run health care; Nixon was planning a free market employer-based approach.) But up to you in the end. Seleucus (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it tonight, though I may play with the language slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

*poke* :) Seleucus (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been lazy recently. It's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of Frost interviews

The article currently implies that the Frost-Nixon interviews took place in 1975. They did in fact take place in 1977. (See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Nixon_Interviews, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4588233.stm)

I'll look at the bios and clear up any confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The source says the first meeting regarding the interviews took place on August 9, 1975. I have clarified that they did not actually take place until 1977.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks very much --Amgreen (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. The bios (Aitken especially) discuss them in terms of 1975 events, oddly. Perhaps he got his down payment then. I know they had all sorts of discussion on format, although the movie's a bit misleading.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request =

" According to Aitken, after his resignation" should say " According to biographer Aitken, after his resignation". I just wasted 2 minutes trying to figure out who Aitken is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.202.173 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Future Culture

Nixon's head became a regular spoof on tv series Futurama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.4.78 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Denied. There is a separate article for depictions of Nixon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing information

Why has an complete section of this article been removed i am talking about Richard Nixon's second term a long with the photo of him being sworn in for a second time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack11111 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was remodeled somewhat, rather than first term versus second term we made it foreign versus domestic policy. We felt that as there was limited space for images, we didn't need 2 images of Nixon beign sworn in.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request =

Richard Nixon worked Against, not for desegregation of schools. He tried to stop busing of students which were used to ensure the desegregation of schools. These are widely known and documented facts. Please take care to correct this. (posted by an IP).

Denied. We take the word of published sources over the unsupported word of anonymous editors we don't know.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

I would like to add an external link to the Richard Nixon article. I covered Billy Graham Day in Charlotte, NC, in 1971. Nixon spoke at the rally and the event became a footnote in the Watergate hearings.

This is my first pass at the talk pages, so be kind. Thanks Ksteinhoff (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ksteinhoff (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thought. I don't want to be harsh, but my reading of WP:EL is that we shouldn't use this as an EL because it is relatively minor in Nixon's career.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Info box name

There was a past consensus/compromise on this a while back ago. Many of us wanted the full name "Richard Milhous Nixon", while some preferred simply "Richard Nixon". The "M" was suppose to be a compromise. I admit, I don't follow this page as much as you use to, but I am not sure why it was taken out. This should be reverted back to the compromise version. Most of that discussion can be seen at Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 5#Richard Milhous Nixon--JOJ Hutton 22:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong view on the subject. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm like that too sometimes. I look at people who are arguing venomously over some issue that looks really dumb in my view, but they feel very passionately about. Go figure. In the end, this really will not make or break the article, but I sure would like that previous consensus/compromise honored, if you get my drift.--JOJ Hutton 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
For most articles, the infobox name is equal to the article title. If it needs to change for this one article, fine, but I don't see any reason for it. The article can be moved to "Richard M. Nixon" or "Richard Milhous Nixon" if that's a better name. But I don't know why the infobox should be different; it's grating and looks inconsistent. That discussion didn't really give any reasons, either, it was just bickering. (This isn't important to me, either, but consistency is nice). —Designate (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Large and manually sized images are a technical accessibility issue

Please see the image use policy. Changing the image size manually causes problems for people with visual disabilities as well as for people with low bandwidth. Multiple large images can make the article completely unreadable for people with low bandwidth or reading on a portable device such as iPod, etc. Wikipedia allows the registered users to specify in their preferences a default image size, but this only works if images are not manually sized. The FA team should know better, but many of the reviewers are not educated about these accessibility issues. Yworo (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the image use policy. The images in this article were discussed at FAC, and approved. Please build consensus before making changes. You do not presently have it, but there are other people who watch this page and no doubt there will be other views.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You actually haven't read it, and have no sensitivity for the visually-disabled who need to either enlarge or reduce images using their preferences. Read the reasons:
"In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference."
Yworo (talk)
I have of course read it. The words "in general" imply a general guideline. Not a one-size fits-all policy. Your edit summaries made it clear that you did not like it. You referred to it as "coffee table". That has nothing to do with policy. That is your personal preference, which you are seeking to impose in advance of your gaining consensus. And please withdraw your comment about insensitivity.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it's a clear accessibility issue, and if you we so disabled, you would be singing a different tune. Please provide a "good reason to do so" for each image you'd like to enlarge as required by the image use policy. Yworo (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Reading on from where you were "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default; see the Manual of Style for guidance.
Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on the smallest displays in common use." I do not see a major problem here. Certainly not one that should be gone at with this degree of vitriol and accusation.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And the usual acceptable reasons are that a a graph, map, or text in an image are unreadable at the default size. Those are valid reasons for enlargement. Readers can click on any photographic image to see it larger at higher resolution if they want or need to. Yworo (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Acceptable to whom? I think it was found "acceptable" to multiple layers of review. If you want these to be the reasons, you need to have it accepted and included in the MOS. I'm still just seeing personal preference here, nothing policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And most of the images (certainly all but the Watergate image) are detailed shots with much going on that lose quite a lot by being reduced to thumbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Acceptable to the visually disabled, who require the ability to choose the image size in their preferences to even be able to read the article. Readers are expected to click the image to see more detail. Yworo (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If it is as drastic as you say, no doubt you will have no trouble getting it adopted in the MOS. But you didn't say that in your edit summary, you said "Wikipedia is not a coffee-table book". It's personal preference on your part.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's already in the MoS. I suggest you try to read the article with enlarged images on a standard VGA monitor (640 x 480) using a dial-up line before discussing futher. These conditions are common in third-world counties. Wikipedia is not just for the techno-elite with current high-priced computers, big monitors, and high-speed internet, you know. Yworo (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't agree. And your preference comes at a cost to the reader as if your desire stood we would have to delete images because of crowding. There were more images at one time, but we removed a few for crowding. This will hurt the great majority of readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No it won't. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Please accept that FAC considers the appropriate use of images. One editor has already weighed in on my talk page to say you've misinterpreted BRD.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the image size issue is addressed in three places: WP:IMGSIZE: "do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so", "Where size forcing is appropriate". The latter is clearly defined at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#How_to_place_an_image: "Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable", "Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image, may need to be larger than normal" and "Large, panoramic images, which may require larger sizes to make them viewable or readable." These are the only reasons specified as appropriate in the Manual of Style. And finally MOS:IMAGE states "For most images outside the introduction, prefer the default image size, which is 220 pixels for most users, but should not be specified." You are the one expressing a personal preference, not me. "Because it looks better to me" is not one of the exceptions. Neither is "but it passed FA this way". Yworo (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the large sized images. The trend has been going away from micro images for a while now. Almost no readers have accounts here and only a few people have preferences selected to resize. For others small size is an inconvenience. FA has determined how the page should look best. I advise Yworo to do some constructive editing on the many pages that need it. This is a Featured Article and fighting to degrade it is counterproductive. Please add content rather than struggling for control.TCO (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fighting to improve the article, not degrade it. This is a policy issue, not a guideline issue. Consensus cannot override policy. If you think the default image size is too small, then address that issue in whatever is the appropriate venue and get it changed. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The policy you cite makes it clear that there is room for editor discretion, so consensus is relevant here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it specifies that a "good reason" must be provided and the MoS specifies precisely what reasons are considered good. There are good reasons for the policy. If you believe there are not, then again, go to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and argue for its change. Yworo (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I am about exhausted, so please forgive me if I vanish from the discussion shortly. Yworo, "for example" are hardly words of limitation.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but ""do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so" is quite clear. What reasons are good enough to limit the accessibility? That's the whole point of the sizing policy and the current default size. Yworo (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There were a number of reasons, in my judgment as an editor. I felt the use and placement of the images where they were helped set themes for the relevant sections, had synergistic effects with adjacent text below, and rather incidentally provided breaks in the text in what is a very long article about a man who had a very long public service career. These factors were based on my best judgment as an editor on Wikipedia who has had extensive experience with Featured Articles, and whose views have been informed by considerable reader feedback (especially on TfA's, when feedback often comes at you quickly). I think I know what readers like to see, and what they don't like to see. It also allowed us a certain flexibility in image use without crowding problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the most recent discussion to increase the default size was in September 2009 and can be found here. Please don't misunderstand me, I am sympathetic to the idea that the default is too small. But it should not be overridden on an article by article basis. It's been over two years and perhaps it's time to re-address the default size. Increasing the default size would quite possibly resolve the issue with respect to many, many images that editors would like to display larger, while still addressing the accessibility issue of allowing those with need to set their own image size. Really, start a new default image size review at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. It will do the most good for the most articles to do it that way. You will also be sure to hear explicit arguments from multiple people with explicit needs and gain a broader perspective on the issue. Yworo (talk)
I don't think you quite understand. Not only don't you have consensus, but consensus is, at least so far, against you. To make this change stick, you need consensus; you are unlikely to achieve it. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed it several times at MOS and Image use, with Tony1, long threads, etc. You are misintrepeting the policy as some sort of bright line rule. Reasoned careful framing of images to enhance a page is allowed. This is an FA. It has gone through image and layout critique by a large group. Do not deface consensus. You are mechanically pushing something that you think is a "rule" that is not a hard "rule". The rule is to serve up carefully done content and an FA has achieved that.TCO (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't, because local consensus cannot override policy consensus. Many more editors were involved in setting the policy consensus than are involved here. If you think that I am wrong, let's take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and let them have a look at precisely how many images were enlarged and to what extent. Yworo (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have over-interpreted the ruliness of Wiki. We are not so hard and fast on some details and even that policy says generally and it differs in different places. thought has gone into the current arrangement. YOU need to come up with STRONG consensus for a change to this GEM of a Featured Article. You are being disruptive of high value content.TCO (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I' haven't, because local consensus cannot override policy consensus. Many more editors were involved in setting the policy consensus than are involved here. If you think that I am wrong, let's take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and let them have a look at precisely how many images were enlarged and to what extent. FA reviewers leave a certain amount of latitude for image size for a featured article's "day". However, after that "day" of being featured, they are expected to follow normal image-sizing policy. This is not the first article I've improved in this way, and not the first FA article either: despite heavy resistance, so far every article I've brought the issue up on has complied with the spirit of the policy. A few enlarged images are not the problem. Dozens are a problem. Choose your battles carefully and tell me which images can truly be justified as needing to be enlarged. Yworo (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what the accessibility issues are exactly? Specifically with the "visually impaired"? Part of consensus is being able to actually make the case for the policy, rather than just pointing to it. —Designate (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clearly explained at the image use policy at WP:IMGSIZE.
  1. Visually impaired users generally have to radically increase their font size and use their preferences to reduce the image size so that the text flows around them. Manually-sized images do not respond to the user's preferences.
  2. Users in the third-world may have low-speed access and even be charged by bandwidth used. They also rely on being able to manually reduce the image size using their preferences.
  3. Users in the third-world may also have older, lower resolution monitors, again requiring use of their preferences to display a reasonable amount of text on the screen with images.
These are the reasons for the current default image size and the discouragement of manually-sizing images, to give the user the ability to enlarge or reduce images to their need. You want larger images? You can set them larger by default in your preferences, but only if the article leaves the images at default size. Yworo (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So is your real objection to the centered images or to the specific image sizes set on the other images?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Both really. 470px is really extremely large and creates a serious problem. And the 240px images prevent resizing and are only 20px larger than the default. I understand the idea of wanting to "section" the article using images, it's simply misguided. Perhaps a smaller image together with a pull quote would provide that as well as a 470px image? Yworo (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I would not find that acceptable. The large centered images should stay. People find them attractive and appropriate. I am open to removing the specific sizes from the other article images, excluding obviously the infobox images.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Lead and infobox images may be up to 300px. I suggest that the large "sectioning" image be held to the same standard, 300px max. Based on their usage as starting sections, this would be appropriate. Larger sizes are for text, maps, and diagrams that would be unreadable otherwise. Yworo (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No. I am proposing a compromise. You get what you want on the side images, I get what I want on the centered images. The centered ones stay as is, we remove the size fields from the side images. Agreed?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I'll think about it, but it doesn't address the reasons the images are a problem for some readers. I am happy to wait for more input, both from regular editors of the article who have not yet chimed in, as well as experts on the image use policy who are thoroughly familiar with precisely what issues are generated by what types of image use. Yworo (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand the first point. Why does a visually impaired person need to reduce the size of images? —Designate (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
To make room for the radically enlarged text. Like any other user, if they want to see the full-scale image, they can click on the image. Large images can push the text right off the screen, requiring much scrolling and interruption while reading. Default image size also takes into consideration mobile devices. It is quite a complex issue, actually, and not easily explained. Have you ever seen the sorts of font size "legally-blind" people use? Yworo (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is they view with images off, then. Like some device readers or viewers in low bandwidth countries. they would want it off all the way.TCO (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's generally fully-blind people. The legally-blind can still see but their vision cannot be corrected enough to drive safely. They use the standard accessibility features available in their OS, like very-large font sizes, zooming, etc. Yworo (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
But the large images (the centered ones) are on their own line, and the text is not wrapping around them. The font size has nothing to do with those. —Designate (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely true. The issue with those has to do with points 2 and 3, limited bandwidth and small monitor users. Many of us are quite spoiled with our large monitors and multi-megabit bandwidths. Remember what it was like to wait for a page with too many large images on dialup line? Or what it's like to have to scroll back and forth horizontally to read? Yworo (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
( /me will now take advantage of my massive bandwidth to watch some movies. Will continue this discussion tomorrow. ) Yworo (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Enjoy. I've been to internet cafes in third world countries (Swaziland, UAE, Nicaragua) for example and have found them to have quite good service. I suspect for dubious benefit to a very few users, we are being called upon to diminish the experience for almost all of the eight or ten thousand who view this article every day. And I also suspect that if there was a problem along the lines Yworo suggests, the text would load but not the images. Surely we've all had that happen?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just set my window size to 800x600 and there is no problem with the article from that point of view. The large pictures display without forcing any left-right scrolling or any other side effects (widest is 570 px). In each case all the picture and the caption can be seen together without scrolling, even with several toolbars active in the browser. --Mirokado (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I often disagree with Yworo because he tends to create his own policies and has been less than welcoming to new users, I must agree in principle with him on this issue. Quality screen reading software is very expensive (e.g., JAWS), and many people with usable vision do not invest that much in software when they have alternatives. I think this issue comes down to how much Wikipedia is willing to accommodate a minority possibly at the expense of a format that is more desirable by the majority. Although there certainly is room for discussion and compromise, I think we should strive for making "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" also the encyclopedia that anyone can read. I appreciate the value of images in articles, but the text is almost always what's most important. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but my proposed compromise would eliminate all except the page size issue, which is just one of those things. It was found acceptable at FAC, and the article has probably not expanded by more than 1K since. I recall expanding a quote in the final paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, as you yourself quoted "Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide". The px setting is a width setting. I would agree to removing manual sizing on the small images and reduction to 400px width for the intersection pic, as specified as the maximum image width by the image use policy. I erred in insisting on 300px, which is not a maximum, but rather the suggested maximum for the lead image. 400px appears to be a harder limit. Something funky is going on with those images anyway, they are marked upright but they are not. This does reduce the size, but in a non-standard manner. Not sure how it compares with 400px without the upright parameter. Yworo (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Copy the article into a sandbox and play with it and see if we are really arguing about anything. Come back with diffs so we can all look.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Nixon/Archive_6&oldid=1141552627"