Talk:Richard Nixon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 6.
Line 167: Line 167:
::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.--[[User:Jojhutton|<font color="#A81933">JOJ</font>]] [[User talk:Jojhutton|<font color="#CC9900"><sup>Hutton</sup>]]</font> 00:35, 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.--[[User:Jojhutton|<font color="#A81933">JOJ</font>]] [[User talk:Jojhutton|<font color="#CC9900"><sup>Hutton</sup>]]</font> 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). —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 00:43, 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). —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 00:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

== Large and manually sized images are a technical issue ==

Please see the [[WP:IUP|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 made the article completely unreadable for people with low bandwidth or reading on a portable device such as iPod, etc. The FA team should know better, but many of the reviewers are not educated about these accessibility issues. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:30, 1 December 2011

Featured articleRichard 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Controversial (history)

Template:Maintained

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Haven't had time yet due to RL, hope to do it this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Excellent, thanks very much --Amgreen (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

College football?

Why is this article in the scope of WikiProject College football? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Nixon played college football at Whittier College, and was a very big college football fan, even calling in a play while in office Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no mention of that anywhere in this article. Shouldn't there at least be a mention somewhere? Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I"m currently away. I can add when I get home that he played football. Well, was on the football team, more accurately.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have no strong view on the subject. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Large and manually sized images are a technical 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 made the article completely unreadable for people with low bandwidth or reading on a portable device such as iPod, etc. The FA team should know better, but many of the reviewers are not educated about these accessibility issues. Yworo (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]