| Revision as of 17:32, 8 July 2005 editNobs01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,011 edits rv vandalism of Anon 209.86.0.192 who signed comments as 165.247.221.180 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) % 129.24.95.227 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:14, 6 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 12) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
This article states: |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
''was feeling sick, having recently injured his knee while campaigning'' |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
while the article ] states: |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
''because he injured his knee on the way to the studio'' |
|
|
|
|action1date=04:17, 25 June 2006 |
|
Anyone want to clear up this inconsistancy? |
|
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 2#GA nomination pending on modifications |
|
--] 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1result=failed |
|
|
|action1oldid=60422835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
----- |
|
|
|
|action2date=22:46, 30 August 2008 |
|
''An event mentioned in this article is an ]'' |
|
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Richard Nixon/GA1 |
|
----- |
|
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|
|action2oldid=235254602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
ok, what about the china thing? that is huge! |
|
|
|
|action3date=20:48, 29 December 2008 |
|
and the gold standard. that is huge too. |
|
|
|
|action3link=Talk:Richard Nixon/GA2 |
|
and the EPA? |
|
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=260736724 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
yeah vietnam was horrible, but really, how come it gets 50% of the article text while these equally earth shattering (especially china) events get 1 line? |
|
|
|
|action4date=19:21, 26 January 2009 |
|
|
|action4link=Talk:Richard Nixon/GA3 |
|
|
|action4result=passed |
|
|
|action4oldid=266386009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=PR |
|
----- |
|
|
|
|action5date=02:12, 3 March 2009 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Richard Nixon/archive1 |
|
|
|action5result=reviewed |
|
|
|action5oldid=274530789 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR |
|
"The year 1977 saw the publishing of a book by Victor Lasky called It Didn't Start With Watergate. The book came to Nixon's defense pointing out that Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson used wiretaps and engaged in many of the activities Nixon was accused of, but were never pursued by the press or the subject of impeachment hearings." It seems to me that this is out of place as being in the timeline with Nixon's death; but moreover, goes out of bounds of NPOV with Lasky being a known conservative of the period. Maybe this should go under media portrayals or not even be included at all?? |
|
|
|
|action6date=1 August 2011 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Richard Nixon/archive2 |
|
|
|action6result=reviewed |
|
|
|action6oldid=442430133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
==Nixon's mother== |
|
|
|
|action7date=03:12, 23 August 2011 |
|
I'm not a cheerleader for Nixon, but can someone explain the relevance of this quote: "His mother was a devout Quaker and a wonderful parent. But his father, Frank Nixon, was a slightly paranoid, bitter man, and Richard took more after his father." Could we have a reference for this statement? Since when are the words "Quaker" and "paranoid" antonyms? |
|
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Richard Nixon/archive1 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action7result=passed |
|
I stand by my statement that Nixon's mother was a devout Quaker and wonderful parent; that Nixon's father was slightly paranoid and bitter, and that Nixon took more after his father. |
|
|
|
|action7oldid=445736083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=history |
|
True, "Quaker" and "paranoid" are not antonyms, but "devout Quakers" are very rarely paranoid, as the religion places a heavy emphasis on trust and love of all people, and paranoids are very rarely able to make that commitment. |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|maindate=January 9, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2004-08-09 |
|
You asked for sources. "In Search of Nixon," a respected work by Bruce Mazlish, makes clear that Hannah Nixon was devout and that Richard felt close to her as a boy; that Frank was somewhat bitter and that Richard felt more distant from him. |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=5290233 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-08-09 |
|
|
|otd2oldid=20589703 |
|
|
|otd3date=2006-08-09 |
|
|
|otd3oldid=68522154 |
|
|
|otd4date=2007-08-09 |
|
|
|otd4oldid=150101245 |
|
|
|otd5date=2008-08-09 |
|
|
|otd5oldid=230769755 |
|
|
|otd6date=2010-08-09 |
|
|
|otd6oldid=378045226 |
|
|
|otd7date=2010-12-21 |
|
|
|otd7oldid=403555255 |
|
|
|otd8date=2011-08-09 |
|
|
|otd8oldid=443895620 |
|
|
|otd9date=2014-08-09 |
|
|
|otd9oldid=620447767 |
|
|
|otd10date=2019-08-09 |
|
|
|otd10oldid=909950071|otd11date=2024-08-09|otd11oldid=1239404179 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Nixon, Richard|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=High|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=High|socal=yes|socal-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject College football|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA |
|
|
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> |
|
|
|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = yes |
|
|
|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|B3 <!-- Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = yes |
|
|
|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = yes|US=yes|Biography=yes|WWII=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Top|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USMIL=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 12 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== First sentence == |
|
Nixon's 1968 speech to the Republican Convention was also revealing. |
|
|
He spoke of himself. "I see another child....he is helped on his journey through life. A father who had to go to work before he finished the sixth grade, sacrificed everything so that his sons could go to college. A gentle Quaker mother, with a passionate concern for peace." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Lawrence 979|Wehwalt}} A recent discussion of how to compose first sentences in the U.S. Presidents articles can be found at ]. I have also brought the question up at ]. ] (]) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Fathers who sacrifice EVERYTHING are often bitter, and it's revealing that he spoke of his father in terms of total sacrifice, his mother in terms of gentility and peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024 == |
|
That Nixon took more after his father than mother is abundantly clear by his angry and paranoid behavior around the Watergate scandal that drove him from office. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Your statement is still too conclusory to be appropriate for an "encyclopedia," even though I AGREE with it. And of course YOU stand by YOUR statement. That's not the point. Please read about Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Thank you. --'''Anon.''' |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Besides, the author of this section cites a book (Mazlish) that says Nixon felt "distant" from his dad. Doesn't that contradict the author's own point here that he "took after" his dad? |
|
|
---- |
|
|
According to biographer John Doe, Nixon had a "wonderful parent" . . . (please change article like this). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Richard Nixon|answered=yes}} |
|
And what's the social security number doing here? Isn't that private, like his wife's bra size (unless she's a fashion model)? |
|
|
|
34th not 36th vice president ] (]) 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> ] was the 34th, Nixon was indeed the 36th. ] (]) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Category:War criminals == |
|
Richard Nixon grew up in the Quaker EVANGELICAL CHURCH, not the classic Religious Society of Friends which holds unprogrammed meetings and believes in pacifism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon's use of ] in Vietnam makes him a war criminal, alongside his predcessor ]. ] (]) 13:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
A Republican and a Democrat are discussing Nixon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:There is probably some relatively impartial standard on when that category should be applied, but it is not here. ] (]) 15:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
REPUBLICAN: Nixon was an unimpeachable character. |
|
|
|
::"''There may or may not be standards that this request does not meet for reasons I will not mention''" |
|
|
::<br> |
|
|
::This is not an argument. ] (]) 17:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Saying something like this in Wikivoice without some really strong sourcing violates ] and would be a ] violation subject to redaction here, if said about a subject who was still alive. – ] (]) 17:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I gave you the source. Richard Nixon used Agent Orange in Vietnam, which was a war crime, making him a war criminal. ] (]) 18:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think we would require a conviction or the equivalent, and as Mr. Nixon is dead these thirty years, I don't see that happening. ] (]) 18:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Several war criminals were not convicted or were convicted in absentia. ] (]) 18:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ec}} You are engaging in ] which is not acceptable. And again, I would have redacted this whole talk page section if it was about a living person. – ] (]) 18:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Alright? Good for you. It's not original research, Richard Nixon was ''objectively'' a war criminal, as was his predecessor. ] (]) 18:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nixon was a war criminal, and so is Dick Cheney, and I would like his page to be reflective of the fact. ] (]) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Editorials are not sufficient sources for statements of this magnitude. Please learn about ]. – ] (]) 18:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I know more about it than anyone else. They are opinion pieces which are considered reliable sources. Otherwise, only US courts determine who is and isn't a war criminal, since anyone they might not want to be convicted of war crimes would be unlikely to stay in a country signatory to the ]. Richard Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson were war criminals. Don't blame me for the fact that they killed and helped kill millions of people, nor for the fact that they were not tried for their crimes in an American or international court. ] (]) 19:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"the fact that they killed and helped kill millions of people" Was not that the reason they were elected in the first place? Decision making in how to contact wars is part of the president's role in the American political system. ] (]) 13:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think ] applies. ] (]) 16:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Agreed. The sources are not particularly impressive. The first one is RS, but it is a letter to the editor by a unidentified person. The second is ok, but it being a opinion piece, it would have to be attributed to the author. As per EXTRAORDINARY, I would want more than that for such a statement (as fact).] (]) 18:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The person who started this thread has been blocked for being a sockpuppet (among other things). So not sure if this thread should continue.] (]) 18:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Military officer? == |
|
DEMOCRAT: Pardon? |
|
|
---- |
|
|
''On January 5, 1972 Nixon ordered the development of a ] program that would eventually lead to ]'s historic step on the moon in ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is Nixon listed occupation of military officer not also the case for Eisenhower (a general) or Kennedy (a more celebrated "military officer")? ] (]) 11:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
What has it got to do with the ]? Nixon approved the shuttle program after ], how could it lead to Apollo 11? ] 10:36, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I've restored the consensus version, which does not include that. ] (]) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Nickname "Tricky Dick?" I don't think that belongs... == |
|
|
|
|
|
I yield to no man in my detestation for that loathesome, slimy, dishonest, crooked, Red-baiting, creepy, pompous, self-inflated, cold, calculating, lying, tape-erasing, unindicted-co-conspiring son-of-a-bitch, Richard M. Nixon. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, I think including "Tricky Dick" in the "nicknames" section is inappropriate and not NPOV. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some might even regard it as a cheap shot. |
|
|
|
|
|
There could be something about this in the article itself (if there isn't already), to the effect that his ''detractors'' used this as a nickname for him. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to remove this myself without discussion, but I don't think it belongs. (Do the other Presidential bios include the names by which Presidential enemies referred to them?) |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before you call Nixon names, take look at the facts. In these past 30 years, no one has produced any direct evidence linking Richard Nixon to the actual burglary on 6/17/72. People have tried and they all failed. Congress in 1973 didn't have anything so they charged Nixon with one thing and that was him trying to coverup the stupid mistakes of people like G. Gordan Liddy. Also the coverup tapes were from the White House Taping System which Nixon installed himself! Richard Nixon brought justice upon Richard Nixon when nobody else could. In my opinion he remained an honorable man by doing that. |
|
|
--] 06:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nixon was being called "Tricky Dick" well before Watergate. At any rate, the point is not whether you agree with the implications of the slam, but whether it's notable enough to be reported. I deleted "Shrub" from the ] article, because even though it's been published it's not all that common, but "Tricky Dick" was much more widespread. ] 06:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The nickname seems universal enough that it should be mentioned. Even I knoew he was called that, and I was ten years old and on a different continent during Watergate. But I don't think it should be in the table - otherwise someone will add a few dozen Bush nicknames and claim equal treatment. ] 21:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I see that currently Bill Clinton's table does list "Slick Willie." However, Franklin D. Roosevelt is just "FDR" (not "That... ''man'' in the White House"). |
|
|
|
|
|
:If we're really going to have this stuff in the table, I think there should be separate entries for "Nicknames (used by supporters)" and "Nicknames (used by detractors)". |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:44, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I've moved "Tricky Dick" out of the main table. I didn't have any very good ideas where to put it;, I created a section on "Nixon in Popular Culture," please rearrange if you have better ideas. I'd love to do a section on how comedians parodied his ill-at-ease manner, etc. but I have a vague feeling that might not be really NPOV. ] 13:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not the worlds greatest expert here, but I thought Nixon was called 'Tricky Dicky'. ] 14:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd always heard "Tricky Dick," never "Tricky Dicky," and "Tricky Dick" was what someone had entered in the main table as nickname, so "Tricky Dick" was what I moved. |
|
|
|
|
|
Google search on 'Nixon "Tricky Dick"' Results 1 - 100 of about 6,590 |
|
|
Google search on 'Nixon "Tricky Dicky"' Results 1 - 100 of about 1,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
No doubt both have been used. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since I never heard it myself, I'm not going to add it. I'm confident that the statement that he was called "Tricky Dick" is NPOV and solid enough to put in an "encyclopedia." |
|
|
|
|
|
If you're ''certain'' you've heard "Tricky Dicky" yourself and that it was in ''general'' use--or if you have any sort of external authority for its use--by all means, add it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Really wild guess: could it be that "Tricky Dick" was prevalent during his lifetime and that "Tricky Dicky" has evolved subsequently? |
|
|
|
|
|
He was also sometimes referred to disparagingly by his unusual middle name, "Milhous", most noticeably as the a documentary by what's-his-name? in which it was deliberately misspelled as "Millhouse." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Dick" or "Dick Nixon" was his legitimate nickname. |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I need to be really careful personally about doing any editing here as my loathing for Nixon makes it really, really, really hard for me to achieve anything resembling an NPOV. I don't think I'm going to do anything more to this page. I'd certainly love to make some subtle defacements--such as replacing his dignified portrait with a picture of him in his characteristically geeky "victory" stance with both arms raised in a "V" and a "V" formed with two fingers of each hand... |
|
|
|
|
|
] 15:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
I removed the following from the article: ''However, this is doubtful, as the evangelical sect of Quakerism known as Friends Churches, having been largely organized by itinerant Methodists, bore little resemblance to the traditional 'unprogrammed' Quaker religion, with its silent worship, avoidance of paid clergy, and strict adherence to pacifism.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
This followed this sentence which remains: ''His upbringing is said to have been marked by such conservative Quaker observances as refraining from drinking, dancing, and swearing.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, this is a misunderstanding of a couple of things. ''Evangelical Friends'' (who are the majority of Quakers in the Western U.S.) are still fairly conservative by modern standards, and the description of them eschewing drinking, etc. is very accurate for a century ago. The unprogrammed meeting more common in the East are not "conservative" in those senses, and I think whoever originally added that was conflating older Quaker practices such as plain speech and dress with things like not drinking and swearing. ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 05:16, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
The article link to Nixon's wife is entitled "Pat Nixon", not "Patricia Nixon"; just wanted to clean that up. And I don't see any reason to delete the Presidents table. If there's any questions, ask here. --] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Hold your horses, User:Kingturtle. Apparently, George W. Bush ''was'' planning on manned missions to Mars and so was Russia. Why undo my edit? --] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because nobody has actually walked on Mars yet. ] 17:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Why is the ] there? --] 05:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No good reason. It's gone now. ] 18:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== When did Nixon really resign? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to link at washingtonpost.com (and many others around the Internet), Nixon resigned on August 8th not the 9th. Sucks that it was the featured event on aug 9... |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nixon Resignation == |
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Nixon delivered an address to the nation on the evening of Thursday, August 8th, 1974, declaring he would resign the next day. For the text of his remarks, from the official Public Papers of the Presidents series see http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research_Center/1974_pdf_files/1974_0244.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
The next morning after making farewell remarks to the White House staff at 9:36 A.M., he took a helicopter that took him to Andrews A.F.B., and there boarded Air Force One to return to his home in California. While Nixon was airborne over southern Illinois, White House Chief of Staff General Alexander Meigs Haig Junior presented, in accordance with Title Three of the U.S. Code, the resignation letter to the Secretary of State, Henry A. Kissinger, in his White House office. That was at 11:35 A.M. At noon on the ninth, the resignation took effect and Chief Justice Burger swore in Ford in the East Room of the White House. At that moment, Nixon was 39,000 feet over Jefferson City, Missouri. The pilot of Air Force One then radioed in to change the plane's call sign from "Air Force One" to "SAM 26000" as the plane no longer carried the president. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the resignation letter (all eleven words of it) see http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research_Center/1974_pdf_files/1974_0246.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
] 13:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 207's entry == |
|
|
|
|
|
207.whatever's Aug 20 entry needs work, and I don't know where to begin. Nuke it? Wiki it? Is it redundant? We need that nice ''administration'' table here. --] 14:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Working on a "nice administration table".] 17:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Submitted. ] 17:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Origin of Tricky Dick == |
|
|
|
|
|
Tricky Dick was not coined by Helen Gaghan Douglas. It was coined in the spring of 1950 by a small newspaper Independent Review. It did not catch on until late September when the paper used it again in an editorial and it was subsequently adopted by Douglas supporters. |
|
|
|
|
|
Source : The Arrogance of Power by Anthony Summers - Chapter 9 Note 2 P494 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Supreme Court Appointments== |
|
|
|
|
|
This section needs work. There should be some mention of the fact, for example, that Blackmun was Nixon's third choice for that seat, the name to which he resorted only after the defeat of both Haynsworth and Carswell in the Senate. I don't have time right now, but leave this as a marker in case someone else has a chance. |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] on ], ] == |
|
|
The ] article mentions he was in ] the day ] was killed, speaking to the Coca-Cola Bottlers covention. I thought it was the Pepsi bottlers--can anyone confirm? ] 16:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Wasn't he on the grassy knol-- um, nevermind. ;-) ]] 05:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, yes, yes. I've just looked throughly into this, it was Pepsi, not Coke. I'll change it in the article. ]] 15:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can you write up a proper reference and ] that point please? Thanks - ] 20:43, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There are hundreds of sites connecting Nixon to a Pepsi-related meeting in Dallas. Now admittedly, many of these sites have a credibility problem, in that they are conspiracy-related, (the whole JFK thing). However, many of these sites have the same supposed direct quote from Nixon: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''I attended the Pepsi Cola convention and left on Friday morning. November 22, from Love Field. Dallas, on a flight back to New York , . . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the city the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway . . . a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas," |
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon is said to have made the above quote in a November 1973 issue of Esquire magazine. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon appearently had a very good relationship with Pepsi because of the "] (at , it seems that Nixon and Khrushchev shared a Pepsi together, or something), and it seems that Nixon was a representive for Pepsi's law firm, given as "Mudge, Rose, Nixon et al". |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some sources with better credibility: |
|
|
|
|
|
]: |
|
|
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031120-121736-4309r.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
] essay: |
|
|
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/kennedy.html |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as ''proper citing'' goes, I'm afraid I have been out of school too long to remember the appropriate ] or ] bibliographic formats. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
]] 21:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What the...? Why don't we have an article on Paul Kangas??? ]] 21:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
*Nixon was Vice President at the time of the "Kitchen Debate" in ]. ] writes in ''Nixon: A Life'' (Washington: Regnery, 1993) at p. 262 that "] became a lifelong Nixon friend and financial backer. He was on the verge of being fired from his job of President of Pepsi Cola International . . . for having wasted too much money and time on Pepsi's investment in the Moscow exhibitionion. However, after Nixon and Krushchev had been photographed drinking Pepsi together on the stand, the corporation's directors were so delighted with the impact on their sales (their advertising slogan 'Be Sociable, Have a Pepsi' was given the twist 'Krushchev Learns to Be Sociable') that Kendall survived and was eventually promoted to the chairmanship of Pepsico. He liked to say, 'I owe my career to Nixon and the Kitchen Debate.' " I read somewhere years ago that Coke was shut out of the Soviet Union for decades, but Pepsi was available because Kruschev had liked it.<br>After losing the ] election, Nixon moved to ] and joined the Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd law firm, which was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, and Alexander. Don Kendall then steered Pepsi's legal business to Nixon, Mudge. <br>Had I bothered to check Nixon's own memoirs ''RN'' (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, ]) I would have found it was a Pepsi board of directors meeting he was attending in Dallas on ], ]. Nixon writes (p. 252) "Early on the morning of ] on the way to the Dallas airport I aw the flags displayed along the motorcade route for the presidential visit. Arriving in New York, I hailed a cab home. We drove through ] toward the ], and as we stopped at a traffic light, a man rushed over from the curb and started talking to the driver. I heard him say, 'Do you have a radio in your cab? I jhust heard that Kennedy was shot.' We had no radio, and as we continued into Manhattan a hundred thoughts rushed through my mind. The man could have been crazy or a macabre prankster. He could have been mistaken about what he heard; or perhaps a gunman might have shot at Kenneddy but missed or only wounded him. I refused to believe that he could have been killed.<br>"As the cab drew up in front of my building, the doorman ran out. Tears were streaming down his cheeks. 'Oh, Mr. Nixon, have you heard, sir?' he asked. 'It's just terrible. They've killed President Kennedy.' " Nixon lived at 810 Fifth Avenue and when he called ] that afternoon, Hoover say "it was a Communist" who had done it. <br>Thanks, Func, for your help. ] 16:08, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dr Hutschnecker == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there no mention of Nixon's relationship with Dr Arnold Hutschnecker who he saw from fall 1951 to his death and who in a rare public appearance accompanied him to Pat's funeral. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Noticed some problems == |
|
|
I want to start off by saying that I am not a Nixon scholar by any means but I noticed some things I would like to bring up. Didn't Nixon bomb ] |
|
|
in addition to Cambodia. And my understanding was that these bombing were kept secret from congress as well as the American people. Plus, the article |
|
|
puts quotes around the word "secret" when describing this deception, as if to say "some people consider this lie to the American people a 'secret'". It |
|
|
seems like an unambigues secret to me. At least the article should expain why it is a "secret" and not a secret. |
|
|
I would have corrected these things but like I said, I don't know enough about Nixon to be so bold. ] 04:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong picture in article == |
|
|
|
|
|
The main picture in the article is wrong. It is currently one of Dick Cheney, not Richard Nixon. And I cant find why the page is doing this in the page edit section. If anyone can correct, please do. ] 20:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disturbing Quotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
I eliminated the quotes contributed by ]. I'm assuming they may have come from the White House Tapes but no sources were cited, that alone is cause enough for removal. |
|
|
|
|
|
Even if some of these quotes are on the tape I hardly consider them quotations. It is well known the tapes contain a lot of inflammatory and nasty comments and are about the furthest thing from politically correct. That has been established. I think picking out some zingers to include as quotations adds nothing to the accuracy of the article in any way though I'm certainly willing to listen to other opinions on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
This user has a history of adding items that get reverted due to their nature and most of his/her contributions have been on characters from the Smurfs as opposed to some meaningful work on Nixon or other presidents. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 08:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with you said regarding the need for citations and the validity of considering them notable quotations. However, |
|
|
I would not like to see (cited) quotations from the tape disappear from the article. They offer a candid glimps into the well |
|
|
known irrational, paranoid, and anti-Semitic side of Nixon. Instead of putting these into the Quotation section, perhaps |
|
|
there should be a section |
|
|
detailing the tapes themselves, giving a general understanding of what was said on the tapes, and what people have surmized from the |
|
|
contents of the tapes in regard to Nixons character and so forth.] 18:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Regardless of what quotes are or are not included, I do think we need a separate article on the ], which I do not believe we have. They are certainly important and encyclopedic. -] 18:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that a tapes entry is likely the way to go. I just thought it was important to make a distinction from a real quotation (inferring "public") and something that was taped and thought to be private. It doesn't excuse it, just needs to be put in the proper context. --] 04:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cambodia Bombing == |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted some edits that a new Misplaced Pages author made, they were far afield from NPOV. I think whether the bombings were illegal or not is a matter of debate. Be that as it may, the article makes it more than clear that the runs on Cambodia were kept from the Congress and the public. |
|
|
|
|
|
I also think the editor deliberately tried to hide his edits by marking them as "minor". Sorry, substituting "murdered" for "killed" and calling the bombings illegal is not a minor edit! --] 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Full names== |
|
|
I made a mistake in my comment about my edit, however is there any policy about full names ? See ] |
|
|
] 05:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::General style guidelines indicate once you use a person's full name in an article you don't have to use it again for readability. Of course, there are exceptions (for instance, if you were discussing George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush in the same article it would only make sense to be more specific). --] 05:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
the madness never ends. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Quotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Quotes mentioned should be in <nowiki>{{wikiquotes}}</nowiki> not here. <font color="#0082B8">={{user|Nichalp}}=</font> 14:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===I am not a crook === |
|
|
|
|
|
*Text of press conference , extracted version . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*From ''Facts on File 1973'', Volume 33, No. 1719 Oct. 7-13, 1973, pg. 854, |
|
|
:''"The White House refused to confirm or deny an Oct. 3 report in the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin that President and Mrs. Nixon paid only $792.81 in federal income taxes for 1970 and $878.03 in 1971"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*From ''Facts on File 1973'', Volume 33, No. 1725 Nov. 18-24, 1973, pg. 964, |
|
|
:''"The President made the declaration in discussing his personal finances. The President was asked about a press report he paid $792 in federal income tax in 1970 and $878 in 1971 and whether public officials should disclose their personal finances."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*"New York Times article by R. W. Apple, November 17, 1973 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Providence Journal-Bulletin came into possession of detailed information regarding the Presidents tax returns for 1970 and 1971, then published the information. This information came from the ], which is required by law to keep all filings confidential. Jack White is the reporter for the ''Providence Journal-Bulletin'' who wrote the story. At the time of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association press conference, disclosure laws of public officials were not what they are today. Also, Nixon was not the subject of a Congressional investigation regarding his personal finances. An outside group had requested the IRS to audit Nixon's return in July of 1973, regarding a deduction Nixon took for the donation of his Vice Presidential Papers, which the Supreme Court later ruled on. There was no allegation anywhere in the Watergate proceedings that Nixon somehow ever personally profitted or benefitted from the Watergate breakin. The "I am not a crook" quote has absolutley no baring on the ] breakin, or any Watergate investigations. ] 6 July 2005 18:28 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Investigations into his finances were indeed related to the ongoing investigations regarding Watergate. You still fail to provide the exact text of the question to which Nixon was responding, as well as the reason for his "obstructing justice" response. ] 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Extended extract from ''Facts on File 1973'', Volume 33, No. 1725 Nov. 18-24, 1973, pg. 964: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''"The President made the declaration in discussing his personal finances. When he had left office as vice president in 1961, he said, his net worth was $47,000, but he "made a lot of money" in the next eight years: $250,000 from his book, Six Crisis; between $100,000 and $250,000 a year practicing law; selling all his stock in 1968 for about $300,000; his New York apartment for $300,000; and another $100,000 due him from his law firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The President was asked about a press report he paid $792 in federal income tax in 1970 and $878 in 1971 and whether public officials should disclose their personal finances. Nixon said he had disclosed his personal finances and would make another report available "because, obviously, you're all so busy that when these things come across your desk maybe you don't see them." |
|
|
|
|
|
:''In reply to the query, he said he paid $79,000 in income tax in 1969 and "nominal amounts" in the next two years. Why the nominal amounts? he asked. "It wasn't because of the deductions for shall we say a cattle ranch or interest or you know all the gimmicks that you've got where you can deduct from." But because his predecessor Lyndon Johnson "came in to see me shortly after I became President" and suggested he take a legal deduction from his income tax for his vice presidential papers, as Johnson had with most of his Presidential papers. He did this, Nixon said, his papers being appraised at $500,000, "many believe conservatively, at the moment," he added. He would be glad to have the papers back, he said, and pay the tax, "because I think they're worth more than that." |
|
|
|
|
|
*From ''Facts on File 1973'', Volume 33, No. 1719 Oct. 7-13, 1973, pg. 853: |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''''The Administration''''' |
|
|
:'''''Nixon tax audit asked.''' An audit of President Nixon's tax returns for the past three years was requested July 29 by Tax Analysts and Advocates, a public interest law organization. The group challenged a possible deduction during those years for a donation by Nixon of his vice presidential papers to the National Archives. The papers were valued at $570,000 and, under a law in effect until July 25, 1969, an income tax deduction could have been obtained as a charitable contribution of the gift to the government. |
|
|
|
|
|
:'' The tax group was not challenging the legality of such a deduction but wether in fact the gift was made before the cutoff date of July 25. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The donation was said to have occurred in March 1969, when the law would have permitted Nixon to count its value against 30% of his income in 1969 and 50% in subsequent years. Such tax write-offs were barred after July 25, 1969. The tax group contended that there was neither a signed deed nor a signed receipt for the gift and that certain restrictions, such as access to the papers, were attached to the turnover, signifying some retention of ownership rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''In a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, the tax group called for appointment of an independent auditor to review the Nixon tax returns. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''A White House statement later July 29 said: "The matter has been previously raised and considered. The allegations are unfounded. The suggested procedure would be inappropriate." |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The White House also declined comment Sept. 11 on New York Times and Baltimore Sun reports that Nixon might have been among 111 persons in 1970 and 72 in 1971 who earned more than $200,000 but paid no federal income taxes. The reports were premised on the possibility that the President claimed deductions for the vice-presidential papers and for loan-interest payments and real estate taxes paid on his California and Florida properties, which, taken together, could have offset his tax liabilities for 1970 and perhaps 1971. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Although White House Deputy Press Secretary Gerald L. Warren refused to comment Sept. 12 on "a personal matter," without attribution, that it would be incorrect to assume that Nixon paid no taxes for those years. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The White House refused to confirm or deny an Oct. 3 report in the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin that President and Mrs. Nixon paid only $792.81 in federal income taxes for 1970 and $878.03 in 1971 despite the annual income in excess of $200,000. The totals were equivalent to the amount of tax paid by a family of three with a maximum income of $7,550 in 1970 or $8,500 in 1971.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
] 6 July 2005 21:16 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I gave your recent additions a cursory glance, and still don't see the text of the question asked of Nixon. If it is buried somewhere in there, can you please point it out? ] 7 July 2005 03:31 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
One more example from Program Transcript, quote extracted below, |
|
|
|
|
|
:''NARRATOR: Questions now arose about every aspect of the President's life: campaign contributions, taxes, friendships, vacation homes. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Everything seemed fair game. The President struggled to defend himself against assaults that came from all sides. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Pres. NIXON: I want to say this to the television audience. I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got. |
|
|
|
|
|
Comment: "Questions now arose about every aspect of the President's life: campaign contributions, taxes, friendships, vacation homes" clearly places the quote outside of ] investigations, especially given the record that neither the ] nor the ] had cause to investigate any of these matters; the "questions that arose", were from journalists. This treatment of has excellent timeline and sourced analysis of the subject. An ] audit was concluded ], ] (two and a half months prior to "I am not a crook" quote); Nixon requested the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT) chaired by ] on ], ] (3 weeks ''after'' "I am not a crook" quote) for a ruling on the charitable deduction, |
|
|
|
|
|
:''as a way of reducing the press speculation, the criticism, and the public pressure for impeachment (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 10, 1973).'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Given the evidence above, it is obvious (1) the ] had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973; (2) the ] had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973; (3) the ] had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973; (4) the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT) had no ongoing investigation of Nixons' personal finances on November 17, 1973. The only "questions", or "investigations", were from newsreporters. ] 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have no doubt that Nixen was asked those questions about his tax reports and about his finances. However, nothing in the "Facts on File" extracts above state that he was responding to such questions during his November press conference at Disney World. ] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Given the evidence above, it is obvious (1) you still can't come up with an explanation to what Nixon was referring to when he claimed to have "never obstructed justice." It certainly wasn't in reference to paying taxes. Until you can come up with the transcript of Q&A that proves otherwise, we'll just have to assume the reporters were correct when they said he was responding to questions about Watergate. ] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The above 8 paragraphs, while interesting, are 100% irrelevant to the question at hand. ] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Putting these two links in provides the reader with the best NPOV available as of now using internet search engine resources; the ] itself does not have a transcript available; ] produces nothing. There maybe a full-length video available for purchase through a site, and I'll be happy to providee that link if necessary. the House Judiciary Committee's transcript http://watergate.info/judiciary/APPI.PDF is ''the most complete'' unadulterated transcript available (and there is a reason the Impeachment Committee did not consider anything Nixon said regarding his personal financial affairs). And the site on Nixon's tax problemms is very well researched, and contains information not available on most ]'s and other Watergate memory lane type sites. Let the reader decide themselves. I think we're close to resolving this, but without those two inclusions, I will declare that secteion POV. ] 7 July 2005 21:13 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I can't agree with you that since your links have omitted sections of the Q&A press conference that it proves they weren't related to Watergate. I can't see any reasonable objections to adding those links to the External Links section, but to link text to a quote when that text doesn't reference that quote... that's a POV stretch. And again, you fail to offer a reason behind Nixon's "obstructing justice" comment. Hey, how about just your opinion? Maybe even a nod to indicate that you even know it exists? ] 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Did you read the title to http://watergate.info/judiciary/APPI.PDF? |
|
|
:Statement of Information, Appendix I, Committee of the Judiciary, '''Presidential Statements on the Watergate Breakin and Its Investigation.''' "I am not a crook" appears nowhere in its findings. Hence, under the law, the United States Congress Committee on the Judiaciary rendered the legal opinion, under H. Res. 803, Ninety-third Congress, that "I am not a crook" was not a '''Presidential Statement on the Watergate Breakin and its investigation'''. ] 7 July 2005 21:51 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
===] === |
|
|
Anon ] comments have been removed from above textual references and placed here (though Anon ] has raised valid points about the coloring contemporaneous journalists placed upon the event, posting within the text of the materials maybe considered vandalism) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Neither of the above partial and incomplete transcripts contain Nixon's quote, or the question to which he responded. |
|
|
::::you can't find it in the official text of http://watergate.info/judiciary/APPI.PDF, or the extrated version, cause it's not there. The ] which was holding the ] hearings, it appears, did feel question's on Nixon's personal finances and taxes returns were not ] to thier proceedings. |
|
|
:::::Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm sure there is a transcript out there that contains both the question asked of Nixon, as well as his response, that the 'plumbers' haven't gotten to yet. ] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Still no transcript of the question above. Accuracy and POV of the above quotes questionable as well. "persoanl?" "Presidnet?" "inbcome?" |
|
|
::::So I am a half blind clutz who can barely type 30 words per minute, nonetheless they are accurate citations that can be found in virtually any public library. |
|
|
::::: I didn't mean to demean your typing skills. I make my fair share of mistakes as well. My intent was to point out that the above 2 extracts from "Facts on File" do not specifically relay the content of the question to which Nixon was responding when he mentioned never having obstructed justice. ] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The above cited NYTimes article does not present the question to which Nixon responded. |
|
|
::::You will find this in virtually all press accounts of the event, because the question '''had nothing to do with ]. The best they can do is call it ''Watergate related'', or ''allied''. |
|
|
::::: Actually, you are incorrect. The Post article specifically states that he was responding to Watergate related questions. Of course he is talking about his personal finances and taxes when he says he has never profited from his position -- but that is not the whole quote. You seem to keep evading discussion on the part where he also denies obstructing justice. I believe that if we had a transcript of exactly what he is responding to, it would go a long way to clearing things up. ] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It does, however, support the fact that the cursory investigations were indeed related to the Watergate investigations: ''"After months of torment over the Watergate and allied scandals, the President gave detailed answers to more than a dozen questions."'' Further support that Nixon's quote and the Watergate scandal are at least somewhat related can be found in the Washington Post article here: |
|
|
:::*"Declaring that "I am not a crook," President Nixon vigorously defended his record in the Watergate case tonight and said he had never profited from his public service ... In an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press managing editors, Mr. Nixon was tense and sometimes misspoke. But he maintained his innocence in the Watergate case and promised to supply more details on his personal finances and more evidence from tapes and presidential documents." ] 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''"at least somewhat related"'', |
|
|
the only relationship is that Nixon was asked questions on both, Watergate '''and''' his personal finances. He was not under investigation by the any ] or ] regarding the filing of his tax return. IRS was performing an audit at the time, and it was the result of an illegal leak of the confidential information of a taxfiler, in this case, Richard Nixon, to Jack White of the ''Providence Journal-Bulletin''. When Nixon answered the question regarding his personal tax matters, journalists bent over backwards to insert "Watergate" into the same sentence as "I am not a crook". However, none of the transcripts, or for that matter press reports, can support the charge that Nixon was discussing Watergate. And video clips '''of the entire conference''' will support that. And please be respectful of my request not to vandalize my hard work that is not cut and pasted. Thank you. ] 7 July 2005 04:06 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please continue the discussion here; we all are familiar with the source material.] 7 July 2005 04:28 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You'll do better to argue ] on her knees had more to do with the failed land investment known as the ] than this one; the ] in that case had the ] to ]. This needs some disambiguation, cause the ] scandals (plural) are all grouped collectively, as it appears the ] are being grouped collectively. The second mention of "Watergate" in the posting is a redundancy cause it's already listed in the subheader (besides it's historical innaccuracy, which I am confident, will be documented). Misplaced Pages should not be used to further innacurate distortions, if it is to be a credible resource. I will make one more reversion which I hope achieves the NPOV we all strive for. Thank you. ] 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. Congratulations on your election. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Looks like someone pulled a sniggle == |
|
|
|
|
|
You'll want to restore this from history, someone's editted it and inserted fallacious information and some really silly quotes. |
|
|
|
|
|
== 1960 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there no mention of voter fraud on the part of JFK in the 1960 election? Even if you don't believe it (and you are probably alone in the world if you do not) there have certainly been enough allegations to promt an entry about them. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Eary Career == |
|
|
|
|
|
Questions on this wording: "he held up members of a Politcal Action Committee (PAC) that Vooris received substantial campaign donations from"; (1) shouldn't this read "he held up a list of members" (2) what evidence is there for the use of the term "PAC" in 1946. Thank you. ] 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scottish-American == |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the reason that Nixon is in the Scottish-American category? I cannot find anything in the article that suggests that he belongs in this category. --] 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
Why is Nixon listed occupation of military officer not also the case for Eisenhower (a general) or Kennedy (a more celebrated "military officer")? IHGSA52859 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done: Harry Truman was the 34th, Nixon was indeed the 36th. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)