Richard Nixon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 30, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed December 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 26, 2009 Good article nominee Listed March 3, 2009 Peer review Reviewed August 1, 2011 Peer review Reviewed August 23, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 9, 2004, August 9, 2005, August 9, 2006, August 9, 2007, August 9, 2008, August 9, 2010, December 21, 2010, August 9, 2011, and August 9, 2014. Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). California High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. College football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / North America / United States / World War II FA‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Military history / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Presidents of the United States (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). Template:WP1.0

Marine aide is a lieutenant colonel, not a colonel in the RFK stadium picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.27 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC) He retired as a colonel, but appears to be a major in the photo -- the oak leaves look gold to me. CsikosLo (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His rank at that time was Major, confirmed via his Wikipedia entry. I have made the correction accordingly.--KMJKWhite (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. This is only a very minor grammatical suggestion. In the second to last sentence of the preface page (or summary), the line currently reads:

"In retirement, Nixon's work writing several books and undertaking of many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his image."

While the line itself is technically fine, I would suggest that adding an "of" before the word "writing" gives it an easier readability, as it initially feels like it is missing a preposition. And then, considering I am suggesting adding an "of", I would also then suggest adding a determiner like "the" before "undertaking". Thus, I suggest the sentence read as follows:

"In retirement, Nixon's work of writing several books and the undertaking of many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his image."

No pressure. Just a suggestion! :) JamesPrestonZA (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think adding the "of" after "work" would make it read oddly. I'm inclined to leave it as it is. "Work" is a bit abstract here, he was not of course employed. Your way would make it seem "work" was a definite occupation.--````

In 1953, Nixon received the highest distinction of the Scout Association of Japan, the Golden Pheasant Award.^[1] However, there is no place to nest this in the article. Suggestions?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either omit or start an article on Awards to Richard Nixon. Plainly at that stage in his career, that was given for diplomatic reasons, and so doesn't say anything about Nixon himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason certain pictures on this page are predominantly large? I was reluctant to reduce their size without finding out if there is a reason for them being singled out.--KMJKWhite (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as this is a long article, they are useful as prose breaks, in addition to setting a theme for the following section. These photos were approved by passage of FAC, and by consensus after discussion on this talk page (see archives).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it distracts more than attracts. Certainly unique to this page in my experience, so I am curious about the discussion. Can you post a link to the long archived FAC? My search for it was not successful. Thank you.--KMJKWhite (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the "article milestones" above here, and expand it, you will find a list, and the last is "featured article candidate". It is there, but to make life easy, here is a link. There have been other discussions and you can search the archives for those, but here is one to start you. FAC is a consensus process, and includes the appropriate use of images.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there is consensus, I was hoping for a discussion about the style. Thank you, though. The article is well researched and written. BZ! --KMJKWhite (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly significant. I don't see how there's anyway we don't go with this, and I mean probably in the first sentence or two of our lead. Although perhaps not immediately, perhaps we build up to that.

And on the question of whether opinion pieces in the New York Times are fact-checked and to what extent, opinion pieces should not be our primary references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show, New York Times, Politics Section, Peter Baker, Jan. 2, 2017.

' . . . “Any other way to monkey wrench it?” Mr. Haldeman wrote. “Anything RN can do.” . . . '

' . . . The notes Mr. Farrell found come from a phone call on Oct. 22, 1968, as Johnson prepared to order a pause in the bombing to encourage peace talks in Paris. Scribbling down what Nixon was telling him, Mr. Haldeman wrote, “Keep Anna Chennault working on SVN,” or South Vietnam. . . '

' . . . and it is unclear that the South Vietnamese needed to be told to resist joining peace talks that they considered disadvantageous already. . . '

See also . . .

H.R. Haldeman's Notes from Oct. 22, 1968, NY Times, Dec. 31, 2016, which reprints four pages of Haldeman's notes.

This is a straightup news item in the NY Times. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing well. This is not new material, it's been sitting in the Nixon library for years. I don't mind adding a sentence, likely inline cited to the 1968 section. The NYT is reporting on its own guest columnist, and I'd like to see historical interpretation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the sensationalism the notes do not prove what came after. We do not know if Haldeman was scribbling down what Nixon said, or making his own notes as to a course of action. We still do not know that Nixon actually did anything, or that anything done had any effect on the South Vietnamese. To give it more space in the lede than Watergate seems ill-advised. I have reverted your addition to the lede pending discussion. Your addition to the 1968 section seems fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hi, Wehwalt, I am well! I hope you are well, too. And this just might be one where we disagree. For starters, the fact that Nixon wasn't proactive. The fact that he didn't tell Mitchell, make damn sure Anna Chennault doesn't visit the embassy, or any other contact which might be misconstrued . . . . . Heck, if it was a dicey peace treaty that might doubly benefit Nixon. He could blame the bad parts on Johnson but then get the benefits of the good parts. And the possibility that Haldeman was jotting down his own ideas as he also wrote instructions from Nixon, to me that's a stretch. We got to go with what's probably the case.

I guess I do agree with the conventional view that this is worse than Watergate. Of course, I'm all in favor of getting a variety of references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you propose? We are limited to four paragraphs by WP:LEDE.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include one or two sentences, and early at that. We don't want to go off in the wild blue yonder. For example, South Vietnam President Thieu wasn't real crazy about a potential peace deal anyway, basically because it would mean giving up his job. I didn't include that because that's not what our current source said. But I did include South Vietnam didn't need much encouragement to opt out . . .

I will help out where I can. I have a full slate of projects, both wiki and other, as I'm sure we all do! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ditto. I would say that to add something early would be to say that Nixon's presidency is delegitimized. Please remember Johnson was far from a disinterested party, and was trying to rush together something amorphous, a deal to make a deal, to ensure his veep's election. There is a certain point of view in saying one side was noble and the other side was wicked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson was a real work of art, too! I've heard a historian on C-Span say that he was convinced that President Johnson was bipolar. Neither a disinterested party nor a guaranteed font of accurate information. At this point, I'm not ready to push for including this at first mention of presidency. Let's keeping looking a variety of good references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason', BBC News, Magazine, David Taylor, March 22, 2013.

"Declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls provide a fresh insight into his world. . . "

" . . . At a July meeting in Nixon's New York apartment, the South Vietnamese ambassador was told Chennault represented Nixon and spoke for the campaign. If any message needed to be passed to the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, it would come via Chennault.

"In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

"Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. . . "

" . . . The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. . . "

" . . . He orders the Nixon campaign to be placed under FBI surveillance and demands to know if Nixon is personally involved. When he became convinced it was being orchestrated by the Republican candidate, the president called Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate to get a message to Nixon. . . "

" . . . Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon. . . "

So yes, a fair amount of evidence from 2013. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've regrettably reverted you. I do not agree that the matter, on the thin reed of the NY times, deserves placement in the lede. I don't dispute that the Nixon campaign at some level tried to disrupt it, but whether they had any effect on events is less than certain. I think the matter is adequately covered in the article body, and again I point out, that it is unfortunate to present Nixon as in the wrong when both sides were using the Vietnam issue to try to win the election with. And I think we can agree that had Nixon done nothing, the South Vietnamese might still have held out to see what Nixon was offering.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the thin reed of the NY Times? Well, they do reprint four pages of Haldeman notes and each of us can make up our own minds. Now, I think one area where we agree is that more references, up to a point, is a good thing. We now have this BBC article saying that Nixon set up this secret intermediary, how's that going to turn out to be a good thing?

And, as it currently stands with a paragraph in our lead beginning "Nixon ended American involvement in the war in Vietnam in 1973 . . . ," it's a down-the-rabbit-hole type of situation. Yeah, maybe he brought peace in '73, pretty much doing what he could to wreck it in '68.

And I don't think it's our job to answer the big questions of history, except for kicking around ideas here on Talk :-) which I view as potentially coming up with ideas we might search for. Okay, I'm all in favor of moving slowing and deliberatively. Let's see what we might find. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is interpreting; as I pointed out, the claim that he was writing down what Nixon said. We have ... four pages of notes. What goes beyond that is interpreting. I'd be curious to see what historians who have written about the 1968 campaign and reviewed the files at the Nixon Library have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will mull it over and consider your points. Let's please talk later. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always here :) But the bottom line to me is that really, the notes leave us no further ahead than we were. There was a strong suspicion Nixon knew of the efforts, and this gives proponents of that position more material. But certainty is elusive, as is whether the efforts had any effect on the South Vietnamese.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have mulled things over. And yes, it's 4 pages of notes, which is a heck of a lot more than we have in many historical situations. And not just the New York Times, but I think others have concluded, an assistant writing down instructions from boss. And this is what I view as the straightforward conclusion. Now, I personally like conversations, do we really know for sure? It reminds me of my philosophy classes and readings. And perhaps it reminds you of your legal studies. But at the end of the day, I think we have to go with the most straightforward.

To me, the fact that Nixon set up the secret channel in July '68 is highly significant. Although reading the BBC source very carefully, even though the meeting was at Nixon's apartment, it doesn't directly and specifically say that Nixon was at the meeting. So, we get back to the Watergate question, how much was Nixon personally involved vs. an administration out of control? In either case, I think we should cover it.

The sequence:

July '68: Nixon (or campaign) sets up secret channel

Oct. '68: Johnson energetically pursues peace talks, some concessions from the North Vietnamese, but also in large part to help Humphrey

Oct '68: Anna Chennault (perhaps others) communicate to South Vietnam, hold off, you'll get a better deal under Nixon.

To your concern that Nixon will be presented as wicked, while LBJ presented as pure as the driven snow, I also share that concern. So, before we add to the lead, let's have the source(s) that Johnson's motives were very mixed and definitely included a big chunk of helping Humphrey. And then, we'll let the chips fall where they may. We'll go with the sources we have right now, and if historians in the future add to our understanding, we or someone else will include that at that time. Seems like that's all we can do. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that I'm not convinced that this should be addressed in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced either. I'm going to look at a couple sources and a couple of ways of presentation. No guarantee as to time frame. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Vietnam: The War 1954-1975, A. J. Langguth, Simon & Schuster, 2000, pages 524-27.

' . . . But [Bui] Diem was the missing factor in Clifford's equation. In frequent contact with Anna Chennault, he was cabling Thieu often and on October 23 passed along what he had just heard. "Many Republican friends have contacted me and encouraged us to stand firm. They were alarmed by press reports to the effect that you had already softened your position." . . . '

this is the source we're already using. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon: Campaigns and Elections, Miller Center, "a nonpartisan institute that seeks to expand understanding of the presidency, policy, and political history," University of Virginia, Consulting Editor Ken Hughes.

"Humphrey was buoyed when the North Vietnamese accepted President Johnson's proposal for peace talks in Paris in return for a bombing halt. Publicly, Nixon supported the bombing halt and the negotiations; privately, however, his campaign urged South Vietnam's government to refuse to take part in the talks. South Vietnam complied just days before Americans went to the polls and made Nixon their President. But before Nixon took office, he closed ranks with Johnson and insisted that South Vietnam take part in the peace talks."

okay, so this is an academic source. Don't want to say it's either better or less good than journalistic sources. It's kind of good to have both. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article currently includes:

'Biographer Irwin Gellman, who chronicled Nixon's congressional years, said of his vice presidency:

'Eisenhower radically altered the role of his running mate by presenting him with critical assignments in both foreign and domestic affairs once he assumed his office. The vice president welcomed the president's initiatives and worked energetically to accomplish White House objectives. Because of the collaboration between these two leaders, Nixon deserves the title, "the first modern vice president".[81]'

And yet, I think Eisenhower quasi-publicly said it was a mistake to send Nixon to South American. Even though a man in the crowd said, "El gringo tiene cajones." Talk about a great compliment! Just wonder how widely this was publicized. I think Evan Thomas includes this as the title of one his chapters in his Nixon bio.

And then during the Nixon-Kennedy election of 1960, when asked by reporters if he could name how Nixon had contributed to the administration, Ike said, give me a week. Wow, talk about damning someone with faint praise. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do have Irwin Gellman's new book on the VP years, but I haven't read all the way through it due to one thing and another, and I think there is another book out fairly recently. I didn't see anything that had to be changed when I read, but I'll do some more reading. I admit to being more interested in how he characterized the Checkers Speech. From what I recall, Eisenhower treated Nixon as an officer being tested for leadership, but Nixon of course had a political base independent of Eisenhower, which complicated things. I agree it is not a simple subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to take some time and look up stuff, too. I think there might be an issue in Eisenhower being luke-warm in his endorsement of Nixon, or maybe Ike didn't want to overplay the poker hand. There's that whole aspect, too. And then, we're looking at a time when newspapers may have been bigger than radio and TV put together? And plus, party loyalty may have been considerably more important than it is today. And thus Nixon, as a non-war hero and non-general may have done surprisingly good for being the minority party candidate. Maybe. It's really hard to look across 57 years of history and have a good feel for what was going on. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]