Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wehwalt (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
153,448 edits
Line 240: Line 240:
As it may or may not already have occured yet, in the ''[[30 Rock]]'' episode "[[Subway Hero]]", [[Tracy Jordan]] announces that he is going to remove some unmentioned information from the present article in accordance with the wishes of Richard Nixon (whom he encountered in a vision). __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As it may or may not already have occured yet, in the ''[[30 Rock]]'' episode "[[Subway Hero]]", [[Tracy Jordan]] announces that he is going to remove some unmentioned information from the present article in accordance with the wishes of Richard Nixon (whom he encountered in a vision). __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:Really? Fortunately we are semi protected for another 11 months or so.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:Really? Fortunately we are semi protected for another 11 months or so.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

== Nixon's impromptu early a.m. trip to Lincoln Memorial and meeting with peace protestors ==

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S14zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=M_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4206,2555827&dq=nixon+protesters&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FGwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TrMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1864,2379598&dq=nixon+protesters&hl=en

I think this is probably worth including. [[User:FriendlyRiverOtter|FriendlyRiverOtter]] ([[User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter|talk]]) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:23, 9 February 2012

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:VA

Template:Controversial (history)

Template:Maintained

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]
Sorry about the long delay. I've added the information. He did not in fact play, but he was on the team. By the way, the "calling a play" thing is quite possibly apocryphal and supposedly involved the Redskins.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2012 (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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No it won't. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
( /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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bangladesh

1971 Bangladesh War was one of Nixon's great foreign policy mistakes.The struggle for liberation of Bangladesh was opposed by President Nixon whose administration stood by its long-term ally Pakistan, overlooking the latter's gross Human Rights Violations and genocide. Please see this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War 76.169.183.174 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very opiniony to me. In addition, we cannot possibly cover Nixon's foreign policy for every country on Earth in the limited space we have. All we can do is give highlights. Thank you for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I've noticed that we have two redirects for the classic "Not a crook" line. I'm not a crook redirects to this article, while I am not a crook redirects to Watergate scandal. Not a crook is not a redirect. My question is this - these should clearly point to the same article, but which one? the "I'm" version was re-targeted to Nixon in 2010, and was previously pointed at the Scandal article. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate, I'd think. Less to wade through for the reader and they can easily come here if they want biographical information.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length template

I think the template that says the lead is too long should be removed. The lead is 4 paragraphs. The manual says the lead should be 3 or 4 paragraphs if the article is more than 30 K characters long. This article is 127 K bytes long. --Ettrig (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of "ignore all rules" is that we should use common sense, and not just say "the manual of style says no more than 4 paragraphs, and this only has 4 paragraphs, so it's fine." The manual of style also says that the lead should be "accessible", and I think that the amount of information in this lead is more than is necessary and makes it less accessible than it could be, so there is room for improvement. Three of the four are very long paragraphs, some of which probably should be divided up or at least shortened. Paragraph 2 covers his life from birth to 1968. Paragraphs 3 and 4 go into more depth with more specifics than is needed for a lead. I am not saying it needs to be drastically reduced in size, just cut down a little. It's 558 words long. Compare that with Lyndon Johnson's article lead, which is 327 words long, and which I think is a more managable size for a president's article lead. Johnson's doesn't go into too much detail in the lead that should be left for the body, Nixon's does. I am restoring the template. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. Have you considered this article is basically unaltered from when it passed FAC, recently?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote from Article Development:
Featured articles are well polished, but there are usually small improvements that can be made. Do not ever be afraid to correct mistakes or update information when you see an opportunity; few articles are perfect, even though perfection is always our goal. We have a formal procedure for encouraging Wikipedians to review and improve featured articles: Featured Article Review.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I think the current lede is adequate. If you have specific changes you'd like to suggest, we can discuss them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you, nothing drastic, just a little simplification and trimming of the fat to improve readability and leave some of the details for the meat of the article: Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California. He graduated from Whittier College and Duke University School of Law then practiced law in California before working for the federal government in Washington, D.C. in 1942. He subsequently joined the United States Navy, serving in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. His pursuit of the Hiss Case established his reputation as a leading anti-communist, and elevated him to national prominence. Nixon served for eight years as vice president under Dwight D. Eisenhower. He narrowly lost his first presidential campaign to John F. Kennedy in 1960, then lost a race for Governor of California in 1962. Following these defeats, he announced his withdrawal from political life until his successful presidential bid in 1968.

Nixon initially escalated the unpopular war in Vietnam before completely withdrawing American forces by 1973. Nixon's ground-breaking visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union the same year. In domestic policy, his administration generally sought to transfer power from Washington to the states[citation needed]. In an attempt to slow inflation, Nixon imposed wage and price controls. He enforced desegregation of Southern schools and established the Environmental Protection Agency. Though he presided over Apollo 11, the culmination of the project to land a person on the moon, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972.

Nixon's second term was marked by crisis: first, the Arab oil embargo, then the Watergate scandal, which led to him resigning on August 9, 1974 to avoid impeachment and removal from office. After his resignation, he was controversially issued a pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford. In retirement, he authored several books and reinvented himself as an elder statesman. Nixon suffered a stroke and died four days later four days later on April 18, 1994, and at the age of 81.

Here is another set of possible cuts: --Ettrig (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California. After completing his undergraduate work at Whittier College, he graduated from Duke University School of Law in 1937 and returned to California to practice law. He and his wife, Pat Nixon, moved to Washington to work for the federal government in 1942. He subsequently served in the United States Navy, serving in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. His pursuit of the Hiss Case established his reputation as a leading anti-communist, and elevated him to national prominence. He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party presidential nominee in the 1952 election, the first of five national nominations he received from his party, a record he shares with Franklin Roosevelt. Nixon served for eight years as vice president, traveling extensively and undertaking major assignments from Eisenhower. He waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy, and lost a race for Governor of California in 1962. Following these defeats, he announced his withdrawal from political life. However, In 1968 he ran again for the presidency and was elected.

American involvement in Vietnam was widely unpopular; Although Nixon initially escalated the war in Vietnam, he subsequently moved to ended the US involvement, completely withdrawing American forces by in 1973. Nixon's ground-breaking visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union the same year. In domestic policy, His administration generally sought to transferred power from Washington to the states. In an attempt to slow inflation, Nixon He imposed wage and price controls, enforced desegregation of Southern schools and established the Environmental Protection Agency. Though he presided over Apollo 11, the culmination of the Apollo program that land a person on the moon, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972.

Nixon's second term was marked by crisis: 1973 saw an Arab oil embargo as a result of U.S. support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War and a continuing series of revelations about the Watergate scandal, which began as a break-in at a Washington office. The scandal escalated despite efforts by the Nixon administration to cover it up, costing Nixon much of his political support, and on August 9, 1974, he resigned in the face of almost certain impeachment and removal from office. After his resignation, he was controversially issued a pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford. In retirement, Nixon's work authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his image. He suffered a debilitating stroke on April 18, 1994, and died four days later at the age of 81. Nixon remains a source of considerable interest among historians, as they struggle to resolve the enigma of a president of great ability who left office in disgrace yet subsequently reinvented himself as an elder statesman.

I like the last one best, though they are all decent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like Ettrig's even better than mine, I think we should go with that. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Homosexual Relationship?

The Daily Mail and other news outlets are mentioning a biography by Don Fulsom where a question is raised regarding a homosexual relationship with Bebe Rebozo.

Since this is sourced, should this be mentioned?

I am not going to touch this article unless I get agreement; I don't want to be reverted or get into hot water. I figure here in the talk page is a safe place to start a discussion. Allyn (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't bite, or at least not often. However, even though it is sourced, "raising a question" is not enough. I would say it would have to be accepted by at least a significant minority of the scholarly community before I would concur with adding it. And especially since Nixon had a very strong reputation for fidelity to Pat.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read a couple of the articles. One of them says he was estranged from Pat for most of their marriage!!! I think it is unlikely we will want to add this, but I will continue to watch the coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose adding this in; it would have to be generally regarded as a fact to include it, or at the very least, as Wehwalt said, it would have to be accepted by a significant number of the community of scholars or historians. This same author, Don Fulsom, alleges that Nixon beat Pat regularly as well... For what it is worth, the state (or states) of the Nixons' marriage has been long debated, and generally the following is accepted: he was smitten with her when they met, she not so much; his persistence and desire to "go places" wooed her and they were married, very much in love; they had two daughters; they were very close during the vice presidential years; their marriage was strong but personal "closeness" during the presidency years waned because of the strain of his job and life in the White House; after the White House they spent more time together and were closer than ever before.
We would need significant concurrence from many, many other sources to even consider including something like this. My guess is that this is going to pass quickly. Happyme22 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up about vandalism attempt

As it may or may not already have occured yet, in the 30 Rock episode "Subway Hero", Tracy Jordan announces that he is going to remove some unmentioned information from the present article in accordance with the wishes of Richard Nixon (whom he encountered in a vision). __meco (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Fortunately we are semi protected for another 11 months or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon's impromptu early a.m. trip to Lincoln Memorial and meeting with peace protestors

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S14zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=M_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4206,2555827&dq=nixon+protesters&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FGwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TrMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1864,2379598&dq=nixon+protesters&hl=en

I think this is probably worth including. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F475877126
No tags for this post.