Talk:Richard Nixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Richard Nixon is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Richard Nixon is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Richard Nixon is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC). Please see the discussion on the case's request page. All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

WikiProject Featured articles in other languages has identified Richard Nixon as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 nxon vs weed 2 Nixon vs all in the family 3 ass 4 Supreme Court nominations 5 Hated Hitler? 6 Was Nixon really this stupid? 7 Poor article quality, vandalism 8 Removed all doubt - tapes 9 1972 election 10 Missing Congressional Service 11 Dismantling of biowarfare programs? 12 Congressional career 13 Kennedy-Nixon Comparison 14 Great-Grandfather 15 Formal power as VP 16 "M." 17 Move 18 Gandhi 19 GA nomination pending on modifications 20 Importing missing information 21 Reduction in Soviet and Chinese aid to DRV 22 Nomenclature of spouse 23 Middle name 24 Foreign policy POV not allowed 25 Nixon and Pakistan 26 Military Record 27 "Indian claims" 28 Gullibility 29 external link revision 30 Last Will and Testament of Richard Nixon 31 Trivia 32 Scientologist? 33 Quotes 34 Annotated bibliography 35 anti semetic? wtf! 36 Personality Description Disputed 37 About Watergate 38 Regarding Vandalism 39 Nixon terrorism 40 Format fix! 41 Nixon and the moon landing euphoria strategy 42 Bangladesh Liberation or Ind-Pak war 43 China in the UN 44 Heaven or hell? 45 Nixon goes to China in 1971

[edit] nxon vs weed

http://www.csdp.org/research/nixonpot.txt

I don't know how to add a suggestion, but here goes: it appears to me that a number of the uncited quotes in this biography are lifted from the Oliver Stone movie "Nixon." They could be from taped conversations that Stone used in his movie, but that should be verified. (specifically an uncited bit about a relationship between the bay of pigs and the kennedy assassination which is verbatim from "Nixon" the film)

[edit] Nixon vs all in the family

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/Nixon_on_Tape.html

[edit] ass

CNN) Former U.S. President Richard Nixon privately wondered whether a famous photograph of a Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack had been staged, newly released White House tape recordings show.

In a conversation with aide H.R. Haldeman on June 12, 1972, Haldeman brought up the "napalm thing."

A photograph of a little girl who's clothes had been burned of by a napalm bomb had been taken earlier that month, and was contributing to growing anti-war sentiment among the U.S. public.

"I wonder if that was a fix," Nixon responded to Haldeman.

"Could have been," Haldeman said, "because they got that picture of the little girl without any clothes. It made a hell of a bounce out of that one, but, it was North Viet ... (Haldeman stops to correct himself) South Vietnamese bombing South Vietnamese by accident. They thought they were hitting the enemy but they got their own refugees, apparently.

"Napalm bothers people. You get a picture of a little girl with her clothes burnt off," Haldeman said

"I wondered about that," came Nixon's reply.

Contacted by CNN Ut said Gen. William Westmoreland, the U.S. military commander in South Vietnam had questioned the photo, but AP and NBC had photographs showing planes dropping the napalm.

The girl, Kim Phuc, survived her injuries and later moved to Toronto, Canada.

[edit] Supreme Court nominations

Should the two judges that Nixon considered but did not actually nominate be listed? PedanticallySpeaking 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hated Hitler?

"He later stated he hated Hitler and was horrified by the attack on Pearl Harbor."

Why is this noteworthy? He probably liked apple pie too. I am going to remove it unless anyone objects.

[edit] Was Nixon really this stupid?

Did Nixon really say this? [1]

Did Nixon say what? That's just a weekend update skit.

[edit] Poor article quality, vandalism

I have noticed a bunch of small vandalism here and there, on the article today (02/22/06). I corrected the most recent ones but someone with more background on Nixon should take a good look. I almost put up the cleanup tag but decided to comment here. J. Straub 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed all doubt - tapes

I find this section ambigious:

"Further tape releases, however, removed all doubt as to Nixon's involvement both in the Watergate cover-up and also the illegal campaign finances and intrusive government surveillance that were at the heart of the scandal."

Removed all doubts... but positive or negative? Was he cleared or was he not? I'm sure others who are not familiar with the Watergate scandal would find this section ambigious too.

--Coolspot 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1972 election

One sentence on the 1972 election is hardly sufficient. And the reduction of much of his presidency to a list of initiatives reflects poor quality in the article. There needs to be more on Bretton Woods? 1973 oil shock? Shuttle diplomacy with Israel and Egypt? 18.251.5.83 10:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Congressional Service

Richard Nixon served in the House of Representatives 1947-1951 as a member of an important freshman class of returning World War II veterans. He developed a national reputation through his service on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). He defeated incumbent Senator Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950 and served in the United States Senate 1951-53.

[edit] Dismantling of biowarfare programs?

From the anthrax article: "Weaponized stocks of anthrax in the US were reportedly destroyed in 1969 after President Nixon ordered the dismantling of US biowarfare programs." Shouldn't Nixon's order to dismantle biowarfare programs be mentioned in the aricle? 24.199.116.198 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional career

Did the man have one? The article skips directly from his first campaign for Congress to his election to the vice presidency. Surely there must have been something going on in the intervening six years. Like, for example, his Senate campaign. --12.217.121.245 08:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the phrase "This was widely believed to be the end of his career" used in describing his 1962 gubernatorial loss in CA, was a running joke in Dave Barry's satirical book "Dave Barry Slept Here," where everything Nixon did was described that way. I guess someone slipped that in there as a sly reference. 64.240.125.42 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy-Nixon Comparison

I suggest one of Wiki's editors familiar with mid Century US politics and not wedded to either man nourish an article stub comparing Kennedy and Nixon. Each man dominated his party for a generation (Kennedy in death even moreso than Nixon) and each left a lasting imprint on both domestic and international politics quite separate from his party's earlier policy. They served together in the House for 4 years (47-51. Nixon won his Senate seat in 50, serving only 2 years before Tom Dewey and persuaded Ike to put him on the ticket as No. 2 in 52. They then were in the Senate for 8 years (52-60) although Nixon was rarely there as VP. Nixon appointed more blacks to govt positions than any previous president; Kennedy cut taxes. Nixon extricated the country from the Vietnam War that Kennedy started, then went to China--totally at todds with the GOP anti-Communist hard line on that country. Nixon successfully "kitchen debated" Khrushev in Moscow; Kennedy then faced him down in Cuba. Lots of interesting conncections as both these fellows followed, each in his own way, the 45-year Truman-Acheson containment policy that eventually led to US victory in the Cold War in 89-91.

[edit] Great-Grandfather

. I think it should be moved to somewhere else in that section or to "Trivia". John R Murray 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal power as VP

Although he had no formal power

Correct me if I am wrong, but as VP, Nixon would (formally) have the power to break ties in the senate. While limited, I wouldn't describe this as 'no'. Discuss.

Nixon was one of the more active Vice-Presidents this century.

All the more so since he was invested with the authority of the presidency-much of it-when President Eisenhower was incapacitated towards the conclusion of his first term, which is what precipitated, at least, in part, the ratification of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

yes Nixon like all VP's could break ties. I'm not sure if he ever actually did so (it's a rare power, but it does exist). The point is that Nixon was the first activist VP--not just in 20c but first ever. closest was probably Henry Wallace (1940-44but he was was fired from his non-VP jobs by FDR for poor performance Rjensen 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction, last century.

I must have been thinking of that Steve Goodman song when I wrote that.

Ha.

In any case, I don't know if I'd say that he was the "first," but in terms of Vice-Presidents who held office during the 20th century I can't think of any-off the top of my head-who were entrusted with more responsibility-albeit, due to exigent circumstances-than Nixon.

Perhaps TR, in that brief interim between the start of McKinley's second term and his assassination.

Even Calvin Coolidge and Harry S. Truman had to wait for the deaths of their predecessors in order to attain any real power.

For more information on how pivotal Nixon was as VP-at least, with respect to national security and foreign policy matters-I recommend this book-

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895264897/104-4664920-8634362?v=glance&n=283155

It wasn't until the Vice-presidency of George H.W. Bush that a VP acquired a comparable amount of authority, although by that point the position had grown in stature, and had become more entrenched in terms of policymaking duties.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "M."

wow, that's the dumbest freaking move i've seen in a while.

[edit] Move

I've reverted the move of this article from "Richard Nixon" to "Richard M. Nixon". The Manual of Style and naming conventions all recommend that middle names or initials not be included; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Unless the person is heavily referred to as one title and not another, the inclusion of a middle initial is discouraged; I don't think that Nixon is heavily known as "Richard M. Nixon" more than "Richard Nixon". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi

How is this line relevant to Richard Nixon's policies?

"He was also vocal in abusing Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi as an "old witch" in private conversations with Henry Kissinger, who is also recorded as making derogatory comments against Indians."

If anything it should appear in the quotes section. Also, it doesn't appear to be cited. Does anyone else think it should be removed? Thanks

Sandbreak 12:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination pending on modifications

Things that should be changed before continuing the GA assessment :

• Remove the lists or make them a nice prose.
• Remove the quotation and trivia section.
• Trim down the External links.
• Table in the Vice Presidency section should be removed as it is a duplicate of the information mentioned (gives a look of almanac to the article. Lincher 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importing missing information

There seems to be a big gap in the information about Nixon between the time he came back from the Navy and became VP. Having one line about his involvement in the Hiss trial is shocking, seeing as this is one of the defining moments of his political career. There should also be some more info concerning his Senate race against Helen Douglas - it is infamous for the tactics he used to win. There is also little about the fact that he pretty much made a name for himself early on with his Red-baiting. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I tried to touch on that a bit by re-wording the China section, I don't want to make a whole editorial, but it is quite interesting that someone such as Nixon who was so hostile to the Chinese on so many levels was the first to reach out the proverbial olive branch. Also it could be pointed out better that this was a very wise strategic move considering the circumstances. --Ccosta 06:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction in Soviet and Chinese aid to DRV

Gaddis is 20 years out of date. As part of the 'new Cold War History', of which he is a leading proponent, see instead Ilya Gaiduk, 'The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War' or Qiang Zhai, 'China and the Vietnam Wars'. Nixon did not receive promises of reduction in aid to North Vietnam. Aid did gradually decrease after the American withdrawal however. Cripipper 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I used as well: Ending the Vietnam War: The Vietnamese Communists' Perspective by Ang Cheng Guan; 2003. Page Number: 61, 69, 77-79. Rjensen 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy at hand - could you tell me what sources Cheng Guan quotes? I suspect they are probably the Vietnamese White Book and Gaddis. Cripipper 04:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"In early May, Nixon told his National Security Council that he 'didn't get a damn thing on Vietnam" after coming back from Communist China'" The Vietnam War Files by Jeffrey Kimball; 2004; p.229 Cripipper 05:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Guan cites: 42 Memorandum of Conversation between Zhou Enlai and Henry Kissinger, Beijing, 21 October 1971, William Burr (ed.), National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book Number 70: Negotiating US-Chinese Rapprochement. National Security Archive Website. 43 Zhou Enlai and Le Duan, Hanoi, 13 July 1971, in Westad, et al., op. cit., p. 180. 44 Luu and Nguyen, op. cit., pp. 191-193. 45 Zhou Enlai and Le Duan, Beijing 1971 (day and month not provided) in Westad et al., op. cit. 46 Stephen J. Morris, The Soviet-Chinese-Vietnamese Triangle in the 1970's: The View from Moscow, CWIHP, Working Paper Number 25, April 1999, pp. 12-14. Morris's account is based on Soviet sources. See note 11, p. 12. 47 Ilya Gaiduk, The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), pp. 231-232. 48 Le Duc Tho and leng Sary, 7 September 1971 in Westad, et al., op. cit., CWIHP, Working Paper Number 22, pp. 180-181. Rjensen 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature of spouse

The generally accepted manner of referring to a woman's maiden name is to put that in parenthesis. This has the added advantage of making it crystal-clear, at a glance, that that was her maiden name, instead of some extra name.

Familiar names like "Pat" for Patricia go in quotes. This wasn't her name per se, it's an abbreviated form of her name, even if it's what she normally went by. Wjhonson 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle name

According to Google and whitehouse.gov, Nixon's middle name was "Milhous". "Milhouse" is probably a misspelling on phonotactical grounds, helped along by the Simpsons character of the same name (who was named after Nixon). JRM · Talk 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has always spelled it Milhous, until this edit two days ago by an anon changed the spelling to Milhouse. Good catch. --tomf688 (talk - email) 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign policy POV not allowed

Some editors want to use this article to attack American foreign policy or to criticize American allies (like Pakistan). That is POV and is not allowed in Wiki. Furthermore it is not germane to an article on Nixon. Finally, it seems to be based more on original research rather than on a consensus of scholars. Only consensus history based on solid scholarship can be allowed here. Rjensen 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

After accusing me of POV - when you failed to even glance at the sources let alone read them - you go and falsify facts about "outcast" etc. which the source doesn't mention just to sort of "get even" in a puerile manner. I can now clearly see that you are a pro-Nixon editor and/or a highly biased American and wishes to keep a sanitised version of your presidents etc. Rest assured that your attempts to deny history in this case the genocide of the bengalis is no less devious than the Holocaust Denial. You have also exposed your lack of depth on this subject matter by claiming that is nothing more than original research! Shocking. --Idleguy 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon and Pakistan

The citation from the NSA is superfluous. The US support for Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan war is well known and uncontroversial. The piece of text that Idleguy keeps adding seems a bit superflous and is stylistically jarring. Saying Nixon's support for Pakistan was 'vocal' is, for starters, silly. The important fact is the military support that Pakistan received from the USA, not Nixon's vocal support. How terrible a dictator Khan was, and the widespread human rights abuses have their place in the article on that particular historical incident, not here. Cripipper 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What we now have on this section is badly written, logically incoherent and factually inaccurate:

-Nixon supported Pakistan not because Yahya Khan had facilitated the opening to China, but Pakistan was an important strategic ally of China and he wanted to demonstrate the reliability of the U.S. as an ally and to prevent the entire Indian subcontinent coming under Soviet domination.

-The bit about subsequent declassified documents is silly and superflous; the history of foreign policy is written from declassified documents.

-Can you provide a source for 'Nixon insisted that American interests had to be considered and that meant the horrors of war be avoided.' This seems to me a very POV statement.

-In the first line it says Nixon was vocal for supporting Khan, then it later says he was reluctant to give vocal support for him. So he was vocal but reluctant? Kissinger reveals in White House Years that Nixon was anything but reluctant to back Pakistan; he was ready to go to war with the Soviet Union if China intevened to save Pakistan and the Soviets retaliated against China.

-The USA incrased arms supplies to Pakistan during this conflict. This was rather more important than 'vocal support'.

-The sentence 'Nixon was reluctant to give any vocal support to the dictator notwithstanding the widespread human rights violations' is syntactically and logically self-contradictory.

-The statement that "Indians were held in low regard in the United States" is a sweeping generalization.

Combining two contradictory POV statements in one paragraph does not make it neutral. I thought my edit addressed both issues: it stated that Nixon supported Pakistan, and mentioned that human rights abuses in East Pakistan were widespread. Both these are widely-know facts and are in no way controversial. In my opinion that was a lot better than the garbled mess that we have now. I will leave it for others to decide. Cripipper 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy - you said that "India was never in the Cold War loop". What on earth is that meant to mean? Cripipper 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It means that unlike Pakistan which was an ally of USA, India was never regarded as a USSR ally in the Cold War. India was a founder-member of the NAM and while it may have leaned heavily on USSR for political and military support it does not equate itself with a Cold War ally. That was the meaning. Idleguy 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't square with the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty of August 1971, when the crisis in East Pakistan was accelerating. It included security clauses, such as a pledge not to support any third country that the other party was at war with and an agreement to take measures if the other party was attacked. This made India a de facto ally of the Soviet Union. Cripipper 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the meaning inferred by some analysts, mainly in the US. Take a look at Image:Cold War Map 1959.png and Image:Cold War Map 1959.png from the Cold War article and let me know on which side India is portrayed. Even if for the sake of an argument that we do label India a "de facto ally" for all practical purposes it was hardly one of the frontline states that actually involved itself in any "fronts" of the war unlike its neighbour Pakistan (in Afghanistan). btw, I don't have any issues with your edits only the other guy who keeps inserting biased info without sources. Idleguy 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Record

Could we include a list of military awards, comendations, medals etc? 149.55.30.100 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Indian claims"

I just want to note that the phrase "Indian claims that there were widespread human rights violations against the Bengalis by the Pakistan Army." diff, is not accurate. Rather, a host of references/citations are provided in Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 regarding the genocide (1-1.5 million civilian deaths, estimates range from several hundred thousand to 3 million max). The atrocities committed by Pakistan Army in Dhaka was reported back to the State Department by Archer Blood, the US Consul general in East Pakistan. So, calling this "Indian claims" is similar to calling the holocaust as "claims" - denying such vast number of deaths is deplorable. --Ragib 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

using an article on Nixon to vent Indian hatred of Pakistan is a deplorable violation of Wiki standards, especially when it involves deleting actual information on Nixon. Just cut out the pro-Indian POV please. Rjensen 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about other details about this article. The only thing I was trying to point out here that, the sentece in the version I pointed out is incorrect as there are independent sources including even the US consul general in Dhaka. I don't have any opinion about the rest of the article or any disagreement therein. Thank you. --Ragib 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. adding material to an article on an American politician in order to attack Pakistan is POV. (even worse was the effort to delete info on Nixon) Rjensen 21:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what POV do you see here in *my* comment above? Or were you talking about some other issue unrelated to my comment? --Ragib 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an Indian POV to interpret American foreign policy from India's perspective and not to understand Nixon's goals. That should be in the India article not the one on an American president, whose goals were to help the refugees, avoid war, stabilize and ally, and keep open the channel to China that would help end the Cold War. Those goals have to be listed. Rjensen 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said above, I don't really care about whatever edit disputes are going on in the article, or whatever POV problems this article has. My only point, as mentioned in the start paragraph, is that the number of deaths in Bangladesh Liberation War is an established issue, backed by independent references, and not an "allegation" on any side. Whether that relates to, or not, with this article is something the regular editors of this article can fight over and decide. But if the issue is mentioned, calling it as an "Indian claim" would be totally wrong. You can solve the POV issues with the regular editors, I have only commented out about this single point. How you interpret these numbers of deaths in this article, is not something I care about. Thank you. --Ragib 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rjensen, the NSA archives show clearly that instead of trying to stop the war Nixon was actively courting another cold war front and even tried to rope in China to fight against India. Not something you could say as trying to "avoid war" and that's from the horse's mouth. I see you are unable to digest the fact that Nixon could have been complicit in such atrocities, though indirectly, by trying to protect vested interests. The only POV in here seems to be your wordings. We can't have different versions of history over here and in another article where the focus is on someone else. Pl try to understand that. --Idleguy 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy risks blinded by pro-Indian POV and ignorance of vast American literature on topic (none of which is cited). The sources he lists has Nixon repeatedly insisting his goals were to help refugees, to avoid war, to stabilize Pakistan, and to keep open channels to China. The atrocities perspective is an Indian perspective designed to attack Pakistan, and not designed to explain Nixon's actions (which is what the article is actually about). Wiki can not take the POV perspective that Nixon should have been primarily interested in boosting India, rather than the US. The second front of Cold War is nonsense--Nixon was using Pakistan to end the cold war. Rjensen 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You should read the sources yourself before confusing yourself. The NSA archives indicate that Nixon was seeking China to attack India. If you still didn't read it it's not too late to open up your mind and realise this isn't a pro Nixon personal blog where you can end up writing pretty much anything from an American perspective. maybe in your blind admiration for Nixon, you are willing to overlook these aspects, but it doesn't work like that in an encyclopedia. Merely stating POV doesn't mean your edits are neutral, far from that. Since this has been submitted to the RFM let's see. btw, I still see that you haven't grasped the south asian history by believing that 71 massacres were an "indian claim". this despite other edits not really subscribing to your narrow minded take on history, just like your ex-President. Idleguy 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Idleguy should step back and read what respected diplomatic historians have to say. Start with War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose (1990). It is very dangerous for amateurs to read a handful of documents and invent their theories of what happened--especially if they are locked into a pro-India position no matter what the evidence says. Scholars look at thousands of documents from all sides, as well as hundreds of news stories and scholarly critiques. The bibliography to the article gives a number of valuable books he neds to read before making changes to history.Rjensen 08:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

the same applies to you. It would be equally dangerous if with a limited knowledge on South Asian affairs attempt to edit articles where the scope extends to beyond Nixon's portrayal in the American media. Drop the pro-Nixon edits and wait for the RFM. btw, you didn't add these materials until I came back to reinclude them (they were deleted somewhere in the editing line sometime back, most likely by a Nixon afficianado like you). Your simple explanation on this event stating "this is POV based on original research" was laughable. Since then I realise you have tried to feverishly catch up on this aspect of Nixon's failure and still are not yet up to the mark. I have an array of books to quote if you want me to do so and I am no amateur in the 71 war. Unlike you. Idleguy 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gullibility

The problem with editing an article about American history from India is lack of readily available sources, plus heavy local pressure to follow the official Indian government line, especially in attacking a hated enemy like Pakistan. Historians and encyclopedias have to overcome these liabilities. On the horror stories, here is what the scholars have to say: “Much Indian attention during the war was directed to influencing the public and key political leaders and groups in the West, particularly the United States, to pressure their governments to adopt pro-Indian–or at least refrain from anti-Indian–policies. With the cooperation of most of the western media, India was spectacularly successful in this endeavor. India had, of course, a good case to make in terms of Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan, and it found the foreign press incredibly gullible in accepting, without effort at verifying, the substantial exaggerations that were appended to the list of horror stories from Dhaka." from Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose, War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh University of California Press (1990) p. 217. So let's not rely on BBC newsreports and let's use some of the large quantity of solid scholarship available rather than concoct theories based on a superficial reading of primary sources selected by an Indian scholar. Rjensen 09:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about American history, it's about world history, more specifically South Asian history in which American played its part headed by its President. Histories tend to overlap, in case you didn't know that. That is the underlying faulty assumption that you have based your belief on. This isn't solely American history as you want to believe. I also have hardly used any Indian sources but your own American declassified documents. And while you can quote from just one book, I can unleash a plethora of foreign authors - not official Indian government textbooks as you erroneously believe. Your attempts to somehow belittle the 71 atrocities can only be equated with those who produce "works" that deny that the holocaust ever took place.

Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan, - Raymond L Garthodd, p 298 says "The U.S. Policy of blind support to the leaders of Pakistan and failure to urge them to make timely concessions, did not prevent the independence of Bangladesh" The same page adds, "Nixon and Kissinger themselves seem to have been influenced by sentimental considerations towards Paksitan (as well as a long standing pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian bias..) During the summer and fall, Pakistan was unable to prevent popular resistence, despite harsh repression.

I don't think Raymond L Garthodd is an Indian.

Another book (Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America's War on Terror, pg 65) by Hassan Abbas, a Pakistani ex-official notes: American public opinion had forced him [Nixon] into shutting assistance to Pakistan, but unknown to the State Dept. he had encouraged other allies to assist Pakistan. This refers to the illegal transfer of fighter jets via "friendly" nations and is clearly documented even in PAF (Pakistan Air Force) annals. Quite contrary to the war avoiding person you wish to portray.

Also read The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy, Jacques EC Hymans says "flood of Bengali refugees, terrorized by Pakistan Army, began crossing the Indian border and affirms the one fact every reputable author has said, the "tilt" towards Pakistan in the conflict.

Actually, the number of books, journals, magazine, news items and scholarly works on this topic that one can produce is quite frankly huge. Just because you have your own POV on American and in turn South Asian history, doesn't mean you go about accusing others who provide sources of the same. Remember that you might have been taught a limited version of history, but don't accuse others who know better - in certain areas atleast - as POV-warriors. Idleguy 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Btw, your book actually doesn't deny the horrors, requoting, "India had, of course, a good case to make in terms of Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan" It merely claims that there was some exaggeration of the stats and not a outright debunking as you said "Indian claims" trying to sound like the whole thing was being made up by India and somehow magically East Pakistan wanted to secceede for no rhyme or reason. lol. btw, I've given two NSA selective readings and only one is from an Indian, the other being a non-Indian. Still they will point to the same "tilt" etc. Idleguy 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of scholarly books and articles on the topic is huge. I'd like to see them actually used instead of merely using echoes of the famous Indian propaganda campaign. Rjensen 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Right, the NSA belongs to India, Hasan Abbas is an Indian, Jaques Hymans was born in India and Gartodd is an Indian citizen. What a joke. I have given and will continue to flood this with more authors of non-Indian origin but since you have already made up your mind in cast iron that Indians are a bunch of no-gooders and Nixon had a halo it would do little to change your views. But, refrain from rewriting history here. Idleguy 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external link revision

http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/StudentWebSites/Nixon%20Obits/Homepage

I noticed the link to the Hunter Thompson "Eulogy". Considering the partisan nature of this article, I think the home page of the website in which his piece is included is the better choice as a link. Then the "Eulogy" can be read in the context of other perspectives, as the writer of the website intended. Objections?

[edit] Last Will and Testament of Richard Nixon

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Richard Nixon's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Richard Nixon. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Richard Nixon's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Richard Nixon. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your link for now, because anonymous IPs have been adding your links to many articles since you posted this request. That's not an acceptable way to get around the requirement that you get support here. Wmahan. 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Trivia section contains the following item:

"In 1952, Nixon became the first native of California to appear on a major-party presidential ticket when he was chosen as Dwight Eisenhower's running mate. (The same year, the Democratic Presidential nominee was Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who was born in Los Angeles, California. The 1952 Democratic National Convention which nominated Stevenson took place after the Republican convention which chose Nixon). This is not true, Earl Warren also of California was the vice presidental running mate of Thomas Dewey in 1948."

The argument belongs here on the discussion page, not in the main article. Or perhaps the whole item should just be removed.

[edit] Scientologist?

Nixon's religion is down as scientologist. I don't believe this to be accurate.

That was yet another vandal. I've reverted it. Thanks for noticing that. --Ragib 05:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

A lot of the quotes seem to be lifted directly from Stone´s "Nixon" film. More citations would be good. andreasegde 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annotated bibliography

This is not an annotated bibliographical essay of the sort that one finds in Britannia. Encyclopedia entries in Britannia are generally sole-authored; I think you are just setting Wikipedia for further POV allegations and edit wars by annotating the bibliography. Furthermore, it interrupts the integrity of the list on the computer screen, making it much more difficult for the reader to scan/read. Also the lumping of all the Ambrose books into one line makes it difficult to read as the names and dates all run into one another. Since this is meant to be a list of references, not a bibliography and certainly not an annotated bibliographical essay, I propose books in the reference section be restricted to author and publishing information without any opinion given on them; it smacks of a rather professorial approach as if one were setting a class reading list. Other editors - yes/no? Cripipper 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked: Both Encarta and Ency Brit annotate their reading lists. Our goal is to tell readers more about the books--Many will have to order them inter-library loan and need this help. The abstracts of articles likewise summarize main points. The editors have this information and we should share it with users, not keep it from them. It's all at the bottom so it will not disrucpt any reader. "professorial" = an insult?? goal is to look more like an encyclopedia britannica or Encarta. As for Ambrose that is a good point. by the way the JFK and LBJ articles also have annotations and no one has complained there. Rjensen 21:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

'Professorial' is a value-neutral term, I just don't think it is the right tone for wikipedia; scholarly, yes; professorial, no. IMHO. Indicating significant works is ok, but labelling books 'favourable', 'hostile' etc. strikes me as being unnecessarily prescriptive, particularly on a subject like Nixon where even the most lay of readers will still hold some sort of an opinion and if guided may well only tend to read works which support their preconceptions. And that is aside from the readability issue; if every book and article has an abstract attached it is going to be a huge mass of text which no-one is going to want to read! Cripipper 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti semetic? wtf!

I removed him from the list of anti semetic people, who the fuck put that there? Ikfaldu Dod 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The quotes, notably, ""The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards" would seem to indicate that he was. Yes/no? Cripipper 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[2]'New Tapes Reveal Depth of Nixon's Anti-Semitism', Washington Post, October 6 1999

do we have a definition here? anti-Jewish remarks in private and pro-Jewish actions in public make one a what?? Rjensen 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely what 'pro-Jewish' actions did you have in mind? Cripipper 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

appointing the Frist Jewish secretary of state for example. Further examples: Tugend, Tom. "Richard Nixon (1913-1994): the President, the Library & the Jewish Connection" in Western States Jewish History 1994 27(1): 87-94. ISSN: 0749-5471 Abstract: "Considers Richard M. Nixon's attitudes toward Israel in general and Golda Meir in particular as evinced by materials in the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace in Yorba Linda, California. The 37th president considered Meir one of the century's ten greatest world leaders and was proud of his role in the 1973 airlift of arms to Israel." Rjensen 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That smacks a little of 'some of my best friends are Jewish', don't you think?. After all, even in Nixon's own words, "not all Jews are bad". The argument that just because he didn't discriminate against Kissinger made Nixon 'pro-Jewish' is a little flimsy, imho. As for Israel, well, you are getting into dangerous territory by conflating attitudes towards Israel and attitudes towards Jews, and an article written in 1994, before the release of most of the White House Tapes, is not really going to stand up with regard to Nixon's attitudes towards Jews. His attitudes towards the state of Israel, perhaps, but not towards American Jews. Once again, in Nixon's own words - "The best Jews are actually the Israeli Jews." Cripipper 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kissinger appointment was one of the most historic btreakthroughs in favor of Jews in American history. The issue here is whether "antisemitic" means private remarks or does itr mean public actions? Rjensen 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you overstate the case somewhat; "in favor of Jews"? In what way was not discriminating against a Jew an act "in favor of Jews". Once again, Nixon didn't think that all Jews were bad. Just that most were left-wing, pro-dope, immoral, irreligious bastards whose control of the media had to be broken before the country went down the drain. He frequently asked about new appointees (Tony Lake, William Rehnquist...) "Is he Jewish?" In the light of the mass of racial stereotyping, slurs and belief in a Jewish conspiracy controlling the American media that Nixon came out with, the appointment of Kissinger is a very weak response. This site's definition is "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group". I think Nixon's pronouncements satisfy this. Cripipper 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semites disciminate against Jews. They do not make the most dramatic Jewish appointment in history, as Nixon did. Rjensen 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, "Some of my best friends are Jewish, etc. etc." As for it being 'the most dramatic Jewish appointment in history', erm, I am not sure about that either. It was certainly historic - all firsts are historic - but it was not dramatic. Nixon had no option but to appoint Kissinger as Secretary of State, nor did he actually want to (but which has little to do with HAK's Judaism). But that is by the by. You asked for a definition of anti-Semitism, received it and Nixon fits the bill. One Kissingerian swallow does not make a summer. Once again, I leave you with Nixon's own words, "As long as I'm sitting in the chair, there's not going to be any Jew appointed to that court." Your attempts to eulogize Nixon are truly admirable for their tenacity, but I am afraid you are flogging a dead horse on this issue. But I shall leave it up to others to decide. Cripipper 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, my respect for 1970's america has risen because the majority of them voted for him. I'm not being sarcastic either, i dont like the jewish species Ikfaldu Dod 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Kissinger, he of course was the dominant figure in foreign policy before becoming SecState. That was entirely because of Nixon making him that (previously Kissinger had been a professor). So it was the most dramatic appointment of a Jew in world history. Nixon also appointed a Jew to head the Federal Reserve, a job not as visible but just as important. Was Nixon antisemtic in terms of Israel--just the reverse, he was a major champion. Rjensen 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"The best Jews are the Israeli Jews."

"The most dramatic appointment of a Jew in world history"? Jeez Louise... Not only is it in no way indicative of whether Nixon was anti-Semitic or not, but it also demonstrates an Amero-centrism that quite beggars belief. What about Disraeli as Prime Minister of the UK, or Herbert Samuel as British Home Secretary, or Leon Blum as Prime Minister of France to name a few examples. All of these were more historic appointments, and certainly more 'dramatic' (to use your favourite word), than the appointment of a Jew as American National Security Adviser in 1969. Kissinger's appointment can only be seen as 'dramatic' if your benchmark is a strong tendancy towards anti-Semitism in the USA; even if you accept that, just because Nixon was less anti-Semitic than some of his predecessors because he appointed a Jew as National Security Adviser, that does not trump the fact that he specifically excluded appointing people to office (Arlen Specter for example) because they were Jewish. He didn't not appoint certain people to office on basis of their Judaism, but he did refuse to appoint others. That, my friend, is anti-Semitic. Cripipper 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If anybody has the time, they should look into the amount of German, French, or European (ancestry) appointments he made. Basing this whole argument on a American/Israel point of view is a waste of space. Be neutral. --andreasegde 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? Cripipper 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personality Description Disputed

In this article on former President Nixon, it states that some thought Nixon to have a Narcissistic or Paranoid personality. From my understanding of personality disorders, I would hardly think he was Narcissistic; by definition, Narcissists care nothing about others around them and are so full of self-aggrandisement that they crave being around people, holding centre stage, and receiving accolades and praises (so much so that they cannot survive without the company of others). Nixon, however, was known to dislike the company of others, even his cabinet colleagues. Richard Neeves, in his book "President Nixon: Alone in the Whitehouse" (p. 12), states, "[Nixon] was always a man alone. A strange man of uncomfortable shyness, who functioned best alone with his thoughts and the yellow legal pads he favoured [etc] ..." Perhaps Nixon had paranoid and narcissistic traits, but calling him either of those would be a far fetch. I believe it's also misleading and an unfair assessment of his character, as it's not qualified in the article but merely stated without support. Geelin 14:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Watergate

Without Watergate Scandal, Cold War was ended a lot before. Blessed the memory of Richard M. Nixon--87.17.30.170 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"When they look at you, they see themselves as they want to be - when they look at me, they see themselves as they really are." Although neutral about Nixon, he did stop the Vietnam war. --andreasegde 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Vandalism

I just wanted to point out to whomever the main contributors to this article are that someone has engaged in vandalism. Specifically, Nixon was not born in Hell, California, but Yorba Linda, and his father's name was not "Asmodeus Lucifuge" but Frank. I have made the correction.

here is the source: http://www.richardnixon.org/

Regards,

Devanampriya

I corrected the parent's names to link to their respective wikipedia entries. Can anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of Nixon check the following statement "Richard Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California to Francis A. Nixon and Hannah Milhous Nixon in a house his father built from a kit purchased from Sears, Roebuck." The last bit (my bold) that Richard Nixon was born in a mail-order kit house sounds very suspicious to me. I followed the link and Sear's kit houses were sold from 1908 onwards (and Nixon was born in 1913), so it is somewhat plausible. It looks like vandalism but I'm not sure enough of the facts to correct it. Eqdoktor 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to delete the reference to the Sear's Roebuck kit house.

• I cannot find any other reference that his birthplace was a kit house.
• I cannot find any reference on kit homes on the web that refers to Nixon's birthplace as a kit house (which would be a significant fact for such kit houses if a former president was born in such a type house).
• The Yorba Linda birthplace is a significant landmark and tourist attraction in California. It's website makes no mention of the house being a kit house. [3]
• Its a highly improbable "fact", and even if true - is markedly out of place in the details of his early life.
• It reads suspiciously like a bad parody of Wikipedia vandalism disguised as unverified "fact".
• My change is easily reversible if it turns out that the fact is true. I believe the true place of such info (the source and type of his birthplace) should be in the trivia section.

Making the change now -- Eqdoktor 07:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon terrorism

Whether or not this should be included in the article, perhaps as part of the Foreign Polciy section, even according to the USA's own definition, Nixon did engage in both direct and indirect terrorism, particulary in Latin America. Many US government documents have been declassified regarding this; such as in the case of Chile.

[edit] Format fix!

This page needs serious help. Everything is squashed to the side, like its all trapped in a picture text. It needs to be fixed. 68.39.127.114 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon and the moon landing euphoria strategy

It's important to see that the "moon landings" are an important euphoria strategy for the Johnson and above all for the Nixon years. Nixon could cover-up all his failure in Vietnam by decorating himself with astronaut heroes, so he himself was seen as a hero at the end an won the reelection. This manipulation is important to see, with a culmination point from 1969 to 1972, and all media went along with it. A chronology can be seen here:

Nixon and the euphoria strategy with the faked "moon landings"

(The moon landings were performed at the simulation centers and in foto studios at Langley and Houston. CIA headquaters with it's foto studios are - by chance - also at Langley. And NASA stands under military order, so the astronauts never speak). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.219.87.53 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

You didn't sign in. (The italics in your comments are mine, BTW.) --andreasegde 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation or Ind-Pak war

I would like to know why User:Cripipper calls Bangladesh Liberation War as POV. An article exists about the which is actually bigger than the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 as it includes the Bengali side of the conflict as well. Moreover, even before formal war between india and pak, the rebels were fighting Pak army, which too was involved in killings etc... So I suggest that the heading be renamed back to Bangladesh Liberation war. Idleguy 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What was important to Nixon and other international actors was not the civil war in Bangladesh, but the Indian intervention, i.e. the Indo-Pakistan conflict. The 'liberation'/cessession/independence of Bangladesh was a minor issue. The actors at the time viewed it as the Indo-Pak War and talked about it as the Indo-Pak War, not the Bangladesh Liberation War, (see e.g. Nixon's autobiography). No revisionism here please.

• FWIW, Bangladesh Liberation War is in itself a POV name - who is to say what is a 'liberation war' and what is an 'illegal secessionist movement'. It entirely depends on your point of view... Cripipper 08:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China in the UN

What do you mean China in the UN　was a 'critical part of the deal'? There was no deal, and the U.S. was still working to prevent Taiwan getting thrown out, a scenario that was unacceptable to the PRC. Cripipper 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, the Chinese had not expected to win the vote in 1971 and found themselves quite unprepared for entry in the autumn of that year. Cripipper 09:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• The chronology is out for starters - China entered the UN six months before Nixon went to China, so it is a bit stupid putting it after the visit to China. Beyond that, I am not quite clear what your citations purport to demonstrate. As Nancy Tucker puts it, Nixon viewed the UN vote as a defeat. Perhaps we should include something on that then. Cripipper 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heaven or hell?

I read thi s artiacle seven times but I can't find a mention of his final resting place. I mean, did Nixon ascend into Heaven or is he burning in hell? As a devote Quaker he has acepted Jesus Christ as his LORD and Savior, but did the Good LORD deam his sins too great? I mean he went to China too! Well, anyways, thanks for writing this book and I am getting the use out of it :)4.224.222.21 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your question, is really best placed in a wiki-blog. 'Talk Pages' are usually for recommendations to add OR subtract items from the article, to make the article better. Nixon's (body) final resting spot is Yorba Linda - Calif. His sole? No living human being can & will ever know, if it's in Heaven or Hell. Therefore, it can never be added to the article. GoodDay 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

His sole is at the base of his foot. His soul, on the other hand, could be in heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, or elsewhere depending on your theological beliefs. *Dan T.* 22:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon goes to China in 1971

In 1971 Nixon announced in a 90-second television show that he was going to China to reverse the policy so the Chinese gov't would be recognized.