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 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

I personally think that the release of the tapes should be somewhere in this article. I believe that those conversations, and the relooking (I guess that is what I want to say) over his private conversations and the policies he created would be of great interest to so many people. Just a thought.76.0.179.67 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)K. Smith-White[reply]

They have their own article, Watergate tapes. We mention them twice. We have a long article about a man with a very long public career, and we don't mince words about him. I think that is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading media content lately, I think that under Legacy there should be a subheading with content describing and referencing the alleged treason that the Nixon election campaign conducted in 1968, including the roles played by Henry Kissinger and Clark Clifford.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/george-will-confirms-nixon-s-vietnam-treason/18810-george-will-confirms-nixon-s-vietnam-treason#.U-qQpX0BCTM.facebook

http://www.opednews.com/articles/George-Will-confirms-Nixon-by-Bob-Fitrakis-George-Will_Richard-Nixon_Treason-US_Vietnam-War-140808-130.html

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/03/lbjs-x-file-on-nixons-treason/

BCameron54 11:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We had a discussion above and came to a consensus about what to put in the discussion about the matter, in the section about the 1968 campaign. If you want to change it, you need to build a consensus. The sources you posit do not seem to me to be high-quality reliable sources such as are normally used in a FA. I do not think we should do as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about needing a consensus, that's why we use the talk pages. George Will is the mainstream, conservative voice which has appeared after several years of alternative media eruptions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-nixons-long-shadow/2014/08/06/fad8c00c-1ccb-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

and here is a scholarly reference:

Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair, and the Origins of Watergate. Ken Hughes. 2014. Univ Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0813936635

BCameron54 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, we cover it factually and in detail in the 1968 section. We are doing it as a consensus said we should.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there might be a consensus reached that this alleged treason is part of Richard Nixon's legacy, and might be referenced on his biographical wikipage under 'Legacy'. Here is another mainstream reference:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623.html

BCameron54 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Questions remain, says Huston: Did Nixon direct the strategy? Did the FBI actually bug the Nixon campaign? Wouldn’t the South Vietnamese have dragged their feet anyway, guessing that the more conservative Nixon would give them a better deal than Humphrey?Did the machinations spoil an opportunity for peace, dooming the United States to four more years of war? The last question, of course, is the most painful. Johnson’s aides, over the years, had claimed there was a genuine opportunity for peace in the fall of 1968, which Nixon foiled for political gain. Huston disagrees. “The bigger question was, did it make any difference, and I think the answer to that was no,” he says. The South Vietnamese didn’t need Nixon’s people to tell them they would do better by waiting, he says, or that the terms of the deal were unfavorable. “But there is no doubt that in typical Nixonian fashion, he wasn’t going to leave anything to chance.” "

I guess the question is, if it had no effect, then what difference did it make, so how is it part of his legacy? It certainly is fertile ground for speculation about Nixon's actions, but if it didn't do anything, I don't see how it is part of his legacy. We have a very long article here, and people are always interested in adding stuff about what Nixon did wrong. But in this case, we have it covered at length in the '68 campaign section, and why add it again?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion.

1st question: Was it illegal and treasonous? "Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation."

2nd question: Did he do it? "Did Richard Nixon’s campaign conspire to scuttle the Vietnam War peace talks on the eve of the 1968 election to capture him the presidency? Absolutely, says Tom Charles Huston, the author of a comprehensive, still-secret report he prepared as a White House aide to Nixon. In one of 10 oral histories conducted by the National Archives and opened last week, Huston says “there is no question” that Nixon campaign aides sent a message to the South Vietnamese government, promising better terms if it obstructed the talks, and helped Nixon get elected. Nixon’s campaign manager, John Mitchell, “was directly involved,” Huston tells interviewer Timothy Naftali. And while “there is no evidence that I found” that Nixon participated, it is “inconceivable to me,” says Huston, that Mitchell “acted on his own initiative.”

3rd question: Is it legacy if did not it make a difference? Who can say it did or not, even if the one million Vietnamese and 20,000 US lives lost in the next 4 years of war was a consequence of a failed attempt at truce, but even that hardly matters. A criminal and treasonous act to attempt manipulation of an election through sabotage of US diplomacy is enough to make a legacy, even if it did not foil the diplomacy, or win the election for that matter. Further legacy, if the covering-up of this secret was behind the burglaries and their cover-ups that lead to his resignation to avoid the dreaded discovery process in impeachment.

So the only real question is 'Did he do it?' I suppose the still-secret documentation is necessary to have, before the scholarly judgements can be proven as factual. Maybe another ten years. However, there is a citable body of scholarly work that would support the allegation, which could be presented concisely and in a balanced manner, using the "alleged treason" header, in either or both the 1968 election wikipage, and if a consensus appears, on the biography wikipage.

Hmmm... BCameron54 20:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's compromise the matter. How about we add a couple of sentences to the 1968 election section, setting forth the view, sourced to something academic? And fairly neutral in tone, not using the word treason, as that's defined by the Constitution and this isn't it. I might have a look through the biographies and look for something to add but it might take me a while, my Nixon bios are up in the attic. Write and source something and post it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I think we are making progress.

The US constitution's legal definition of treason may or may not be met, as it would have to have been decided by a court after trial, which did not happen. The hypothetical verdict is not for us to speculate. Whether a court would find that Nixon and his helpers met the constitutional definition of helping an enemy in war might also be clouded by the absence of a legally declared war, as US Congress had not declared war during the commonly named Vietnam War. However the reasonable man calls the Vietnam War as such, and calls betrayal of one's country or its diplomacy in war as treason. President Johnson himself spoke the allegation ^[1], but perhaps Johnson could not have made the accusation without revealing a fair bit of extralegal wiretapping on his own part.

My suggestion is that as Wikipedia is not a court of law or even a legal record, that we use common language with dictionary defined vocabulary, rather than hold Wikipedia content to the standards of constitutional law. It is reasonable to describe the subject of this scholarly discourse on a still emerging historical narrative in a qualified manner as an 'alleged treason', or 'President Johnson's allegation of treason', as I tried in introducing the suggestion to this talk page.

This re-eruption in historical discussions of alleged treason does belong on the biography page under 'Legacy' not because muckrakers think so, but because the authoritatively reported mere allegation has already tarred a part of his legacy; It is egregious among the innumerable allegations of Nixon's petty wrongdoings, most of which were commonplace in the blood sport of politics and kings before and since. Furthermore and most importantly in my mind, it may be explanatory, elucidating and satisfying to explain Nixon's "paranoia" about hidden records and files in the hands of others - why he chose to redouble his wrongdoing with latter crimes, rather than accept the risk of the light of day on the former. All of which led to Watergate, avoidance of impeachment by resignation (after eschewing Agnew), historical disgrace and outrageous pardon by the successor of both Agnew and Nixon. Maybe.

As Kissinger is quoted, "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." ^[2] Even so, posterity is no more likely to get it right than anybody else, and a good fiction well told may overshadow the truth, so we still do need the consensus as well as the beefy references. As you suggest, I will draft a concise factual text and references under a subheading, and look forward to discussing its content and its place. Thanks again in advance. No hurry.

BCameron54 04:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say under a subheading. I suggested integrating it into the 1968 section. And short, please. One to two reasonable sentences.

Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, and rightly so. We often cite individual opinions of prominent people, whose beliefs may shed light upon the subject. On matters such as this, we await the consensus of historians, and this may be slow in coming, as not all the facts are out. We cannot say with certainty exactly what Nixon's role was in this, and with the major players dead or silent, we may never know. It is therefore improper to state, or even imply, that Nixon committed treason. That would not be fair or appropriate. Neither is it appropriate to draw undue attention to it with the bright light of its own subheading, when we do not do this for anything else that Nixon did in his long career. As has been pointed out, the South Vietnamese did not need Nixon to tell them they might get a better deal from a new administration.

Nixon clearly spoke too soon when he said in 1962 that they would not have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore. Fifty two years later and the game is still on, and likely will not end in the lifetimes of Woodward and Bernstein, to name two. Additions to this article need to be relevant to the issues at hand. They should be neutral in tone, and they should carry consensus with them, and that consensus should thereafter be respected. Not revisited all the time, absent considerable new information.

I brought this article to FA over two years ago now. In writing it, I minced no words about Watergate, but also tried to convey a very long public career that was in many ways highly distinguished, before, during, and after his presidency. I am old enough to remember former president Nixon as a regular interviewee on Meet the Press and other programs, where he was always treated with great respect, and his opinions were sound and listened to. He was no cartoon head from Futurama

You can see on the talk page, every now and then, someone wants to include something in what is already a very long article. Now and then it is a policy matter that the person feels strongly about including, for example the sickle cell anemia. But nine times out of ten, the idea is to paint Nixon in an unfavorable light. This article does that where it is necessary, but adopts a neutral tone throughout. We now live in a time where the neutral ground no longer exists, you are either with us or against us. This article, a FA that got very favorable comments at the time of promotion and main page appearance, will remain neutral in tone so long as I have anything to say about it.

I have no objection to including, briefly, and in context, the opinions of distinguished historians about the 1968 matter, in the section devoted to that campaign. It will be presented neutrally and non-judgmentally, if it is to be presented at all. It may be balanced by the views of others who do not hold the position you have been advocating. If the word "treason" is used, it will be as a quote from Johnson. It will not be included in a way to draw undue attention to it, such as giving it its own sub heading. There are articles where, perhaps, you may care to add more, articles about this incident itself or the '68 campaign. You may wish to consider having a fuller treatment of this issue there, or starting your own article on some relevant topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Wehwalt on this from another perspective; there's absolutely no support for the view that North Vietnam would have abided by any commitments it made at peace talks under Johnson than it did when it kept invading South Vietnam under the Nixon administration. Nothing in the historical record shows any such willingness on the part of Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap to accept a status quo that included a non-communist South Vietnam, or even a communist government in the South not under their direct control.

Using the term "treason" for any alleged counsel from the Nixon national security team before the 1968 Presidential election for Thieu to demur long enough from taking part in the peace talks for Nixon to take office is a bit rich. You could, without too much of a stretch, say the same thing about Kennedy advisor McGeorge Bundy's taking Fidel Castro on a college tour in the US before Kennedy took office indicating a "treasonous" tendency toward the Kennedy team to place a man in power in Cuba who would eventually take Cuba into the Soviet orbit. I don't believe either thesis, they're equally absurd, and involve some very non-mainstream analysis that elsewhere in wikipedia would be disallowed. loupgarous (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like Truth Out are useless. There is no evidence Kissinger was directly involved in any attempt to persuade Thieu to seek a better deal. Bryce Harlow, former Eisenhower White House staff member, claimed to have "a double agent working in the White House....I kept Nixon informed." Harlow and Kissinger (who was friendly with both campaigns and guaranteed a job in either a Humphrey or Nixon administration) separately predicted Johnson's "bombing halt": "The word is out that we are making an effort to throw the election to Humphrey. Nixon has been told of it," Democratic senator George Smathers informed Johnson. According to Robert Dallek, Kissinger's advice "rested not on special knowledge of decision making at the White House but on an astute analyst's insight into what was happening." William Bundy stated that Kissinger obtained "no useful inside information" from his trip to Paris, and "almost any experienced Hanoi watcher might have come to the same conclusion". While Kissinger may have "hinted that his advice was based on contacts with the Paris delegation," this sort of "self-promotion....is at worst a minor and not uncommon practice, quite different from getting and reporting real secrets." (Dallek, Partners in Power, 73-75) Conrad Black concurs that there is "no evidence" connecting Kissinger in particular, who was "playing a fairly innocuous double game of self-promotion," with attempts to undermine the peace talks. (Black, Nixon, pg. 553)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity as to whether Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove were going by anything in Richard Nixon's background when they made him a used car dealer in their alternate history novel "The Two Georges," I checked out our article on President Nixon, and read this:

"Though he presided over the lunar landings beginning with Apollo 11, he replaced manned space exploration with shuttle missions."

With all due respect to the editor who wrote that, the Space Transportation System, AKA "the Space Shuttle," was a manned space transportation system. The statement is only true in that Shuttle missions were mostly what military pilots call "trash hauling," or transport, not exploration.

However, EVERY operational space shuttle mission has been manned (there was one unmanned, instrumented test flight that I recall, which was a release of an unpowered shuttle from a Boeing 747 carrier aircraft to test its ability to glide to Earth), and they ALL entailed the same amount of exploration that every trans-Pacific sailing cruise involved during the Age of Sail.

Low earth orbit may be well-known to us now, but the human race's exploration of that area didn't end with Project Apollo (and Skylab) and Salyut. A lot of science was done in Space Shuttle missions, and some of that was space exploration in its strictest sense, despite the fact (which we now know) that the "real" reason for all that expense was that it was the cheapest way to orbit the really big spy satellites on which American dominance of the "battle space" depended.

There's no doubt that Project Apollo was cut back during the Nixon administration, so the temporary hiatus in manned space exploration can be laid at his feet, but the funding that would have otherwise gone to the original extended Apollo and MOL programs went instead to enhancing our ability to gather intelligence from space by orbiting larger and more effective surveillance satellites, as well as expanding the range of scientific and other space missions NASA was able to perform by building the Space Shuttle. There's one collection of White House staff memos (including one from Caspar Weinberger to George Shultz when both were in the Nixon administration Office of Management and Budget which suggests that Mr. Weinberger's portrayal in the movie Buckaroo Banzai may have been very well-deserved) that documents the thinking behind the cancellation of the three last Apollo missions far past Wikipedia standards (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/logsdn_lec_notes.pdf).

So I'm going to change the sentence to read:

"Though Nixon presided over the lunar landings beginning with Apollo 11, as well as the Skylab space station missions, his administration cut the originally-planned number of missions back by three, partly to orbit the Skylab space station in one flight (using one Saturn V rocket originally planned for Apollo 20 instead of building Skylab in orbit using several Saturn Ib launches) and partly to pay for the development of the Space Shuttle."

That's all stuff that's very well documented and can be supported by NASA and White House documents. It also shows WHY the Nixon administration did this (even writing off the two unused Saturn V rockets was fiscally responsible considering the support costs of every Apollo mission - and support for Apollo missions ran several times the construction costs of the actual spacecraft and booster rockets). loupgarous (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the wikipedia collaborative editing process worked. Someone came behind me and cleaned up some wordiness in my expansion of the "Space policy" section of the "Legacy" part of the article. That got me thinking of what at least one MIT professor (the guy who put the lecture notes I cite for support together) called the "Nixon Space Doctrine," Nixon's decision to start paring back expenditures in space.

That has become a lasting legacy of Nixon's and one I think is helpful to wikipedia's readers in understanding Nixon's impact on American society - he declared victory in the space race, then began winding it down, even enlisting Soviet cooperation in space, instead of competition. The space race never went away entirely, but our own efforts, at least, became more rational in the context of a nation which had decided to shift its capacity for massive efforts toward improving conditions at home. So I think it ought to be part of what people'Italic text' take away from our article on Richard Nixon. loupgarous (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to consider the already extremely long article length in deciding what to add. I agree with what you wrote, though how far shuttle missions are exploration one can debate. You can probably find the evolution of the wording on space somewhere in the archives as we've had a few discussions on the subject. What are you proposing to say? My understanding of why Nixon did as he did was the money wasn't there to be spent anymore, it was now being spent on the Great Society programs. How much of that is Nixon's legacy and how much of it was forced upon him by policy decisions by Johnson is an interesting question.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the edits. They look OK, but I think they are all we need to say on the subject. I'm a voice in the wilderness on this one but we're now over 151K.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It's just (from my viewpoint, at least) the End of the Space Race deserved at least a short paragraph, as it happened on RMN's watch, as a direct results of decisions he made despite some very loud objections within the White House itself (the memo in the "MIT_notes" which I added with Weinberger griping to Shultz that the need for all that "Great Society" crap was trivial compared to two more Apollo missions and a Mars shot).

What I intended to say was pretty clear - the wasteful, profligate spending on putting American boots on the Moon ended with Nixon's administration. That was significant and needed to be said. Now, it's becoming clear that the private sector is a much sounder judge of what needs to be done in space (except, of course, for what the military needs to do that can't be announced in Requests for Proposals in The Federal Register because "it's a surprise for our enemies").

If Nixon had felt strongly enough about it, he could have derailed much of the spending on the Great Society initiatives as he pared the Clean Water Act spending back - by means of "executive discretion," just as Obama does that to Congress now (the parallels between the two administrations are eerie). He deserves credit for pushing most of Congress' (and his predecessors') social funding - and taking hits from his constituency in the military-industrial complex, and the Right in general, even enforcing integration and knowing what that would cost him politically - and I think he did it because it was the will of the American people, expressed through Congress, and that left him no alternative. Kennedy and Johnson did the heavy lifting on the legislative front for the Great Society, but Richard M. Nixon and those who followed him in the Presidency made it possible, for good or ill (and I'm agnostic on the question of how much good the Great Society laws wrought apart from the necessity of making sure democracy worked for everyone. I mean, I'm ON Medicare owing to cancer that trashed my ability to work, and I can see how that program is a cash cow for unscrupulous physicians and medical equipment sellers, with no corresponding positive impact on patients' lives. It needs reform. That goes for almost every other Great Society initiative, as well. HUD housing programs are a rat's nest of lousy, substandard housing).

The Space Race ended in 1970, effectively, when Richard Nixon acted for the American people to bring military and civil space expenditures in line with the rest of Federal funding. Like him or hate him, the End of the Space Race is Nixon's - Johnson and MacNamara were busily shovelling money into Vietnam and the space program, and they started the horrible precedent of dipping into the Social Security General Fund to pay for all of that, helping undo what Johnson took so many bows for doing - and creating the myth that Johnson did more to make the Great Society possible than he actually did. Nixon, in my opinion, was the most effective liberal in twentieth-century American history, and did things no Democrat could ever have accomplished to make the liberal vision possible, by making hard decisions and taking responsibility for them. A more gregarious man probably could never have done what Nixon did, because most of us like to be liked more than Nixon did. Johnson nearly went mad because no popular decisions would ever have gotten him and the country out of Vietnam or the general pattern of Federal overspending on national goals. loupgarous (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RICHARD_NIXON1986.jpg 63.92.245.169 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - You have not requested a specific change
That is, indeed, a photo of Nixon, but we have well over 100 of them, and don't want them all in the article - there are already over 30.
Where do you think it should go in the article? with what caption? and why should it be added rather than any of the others?? - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support adding it, either as a replacement or an addition. It's not that great a shot, we have several images showing Nixon aging through his post-presidency already (and what more does it add than that?), and for the reasons as stated by Arjayay. It's fine on Commons, where someone may have a need for it. It shouldn't be added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Richard Nixon article claims that Nixon did not want a pardon. Gerald Ford's posthumous memoir admits that the promise of a pardon was a condition for Ford's appointment as VP. Please find a better source than the Nixon Library; you would not accept a history of WWII from Josef Goebles, would you? Or focus the Hitler article on his "revolutionary vision" of art.

Galba Gaius (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The article currently states that Nixon "was initially reluctant to accept the pardon, but then agreed to do so". Sam ^Sing! 13:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon was famously referred to as "Tricky Dick". Why? I don't know, Wikipedia doesn't tell me. The words "tricky dick" link to the article. That should be reason enough to include the words (plus an explanation) in the article itself.

I can't even find this nickname discussed in this Talk section. But it's, by far, the most (in)famous nickname that he has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.4.36 (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a series of Nixon articles. As it happens, the Tricky Dick nickname is discussed in United States Senate election in California, 1950.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this is the second time this has been brought up, I'm minded to consider doing something about it. Do people have any opinions on putting a mention of it in the 1950 Senate campaign section? Perhaps "During that campaign, Nixon's opponents first called him "Tricky Dick"."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. The comment at the head of this thread sums up perfectly the "why". Thanks all. — ¾-10 01:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The nickname deserves a mention. Plazak (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]