Richard Nixon

[edit]
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA in due course. I'd like all feedback that can be given. Not just the prose and referencing quirks, which I am still working on as I nominate. Things you think should be in there. Things you think should not be in there. EVERYONE has an opinion on Nixon. The tape's running ...

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley comments

You suggested that one's "international perspective" might be helpful, but at first read-through I didn't see anything that an Englishman would view differently from an American. I'll keep my eyes open. Meanwhile, the first batch of the usual tiny quibbles:

On the two disambiguations, I am making sure I am not attacked by feminists, after all "Nixon" alone could be Pat Nixon. It would be sexist to assume she was not the one getting the job.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. This is a most enjoyable PR. Tim riley (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch:

I'll get on these shortly. The length of the article, of course, was unavoidable. I cut it back from 147K to 111K and feel pretty good about that. It would have had a very hard time passing FAC at 147K. Of course, even at 111K, it could be tricky--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last lot of comments
Never heard their political opinions differed that much, and at least two sources mention this, so it's not just me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkably small number of points from such a substantial article, but all I could find. I enjoyed it very much, and thought it commendably well balanced: it must have been a tricky task. – Tim riley (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did my best. Thank you for such a thorough review, I'm a bit behind but will be addressing these next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers comments: Just a couple of comments on the Lead that I hope will be helpful:

I have pushed it in that direction. I have to give the question of Nixon's statements on the tapes a little thought. He said these things, yet he supported Israel and affirmative action. It will have to be very carefully introduced.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes. I made a few more changes to the Lead to shift the tone a bit more. Feel free to edit as you believe necessary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments I am away from home at the moment and have struggled to find online time, so I haven't read much yet. A couple of points from the lead

I will read in more detail when I get back. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will look at this in more detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the fact he is the only prez to resign and played with the fourth paragraph. I think the third paragraph is an appropriate recounting of his administration's polices and does not need to be balanced in paragraph with a "He did dirty tricks too!" The prominent marks of his disgrace in the lede are something probably not found in any other presidential article and I am thinking serve to sufficiently balance the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ comments

Well, it's not often someone nominates an article like this for review! Did you pick Nixon because of personal interest, or were you just looking for the most controversial politician you could find? ;) Anyway, to business. Some of these are thoughts for consideration, rather than things that would need to be fixed before FAC, some are minutiae that I happen to notice, but you'd most likely fix before FAC anyway, and others are areas I think can be improved. Make of them what you will!

Lead:

Thank you. I suppose Nixon was President when I came to political awareness, and he also lived in North Jersey not that far from where I grew up, in fact my younger brothers met him in a Chinese restaurant in Montvale in his final years. I will be addressing your comments within a few days. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

I love LA, personally, so I know that. Will non-Americans remember that was on a freeway sign just somewhere around Disneyland?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early career; marriage and war service:

Rising politician

No state legislature is called "Congress". The term is not ambiguous.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon was considered a moderate conservative then, with much of the "conservative" coming from the anti-communist. Republicans were quite pro civil rights, it wasn't Democratic votes that passed the '64 act, you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke filled room. No kidding. Herbert Brownell, the General's aide and later Attorney General, gathered the wise old men of the Republican party into a room and they discussed a number of candidates: Taft, Dirksen, but Nixon was really the overwhelming choice. Gellman gives considerable detail about the deliberations, I can easily add more.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a brief mention of the selection "process" would be worthwhile. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can tell. Nixon gives pretty much a play by play in his memoirs (that is, RN), but doesn't mention any change in his views. I really don't think he thought that much of Khrushchev, although he did try to visit him when traveling in the USSR as a private citizen in the mid sixties.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1968 presidential election

Up to date, I think. Many thanks for the comments. It's a long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem; it's a fascinating article to read and review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency (1969–74)

I thought we were not supposed to link in section titles, fouled up the machinery or something?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean in the header (which has been known to muck up section links, I think), but somewhere in the text if it fits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. Beijing wanted the US to recognize it as the legitimate government. They settled for broad outlines and the key thing was the commitment to peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conscription died with a whimper rather than a bang. They prepared for a draft of those eligible in 1973, but there was no need for additional troops. They managed the number they were taking in. So I believe they had to serve their time. I think I read about a year that the last person to have entered the military as a draftee had retired.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All those things are done (I sliced most of the text in the detente area once I realized it was just repeating itself). Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but he wanted an official invitation. He wasn't interested in seeing Bondi Beach, he wanted to meet with people.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He felt you don't let down your allies. He actually flew coach from Paris to Cairo to get there in time, something with staggers me slightly.
Yes, there are. At the Clinton library, and not online. I'm working on that one. It all depends if I have to go through an outside vendor to photograph contact sheets and so forth, in which case I wouldn't bother without going to Little Rock, which I have no plans to do. I do not believe professional photographers used digital cameras in 1994.

Other comments

I think the answer is "yes" in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait for the FAC comments on this one, as the images are a major part of the article. There will be some.
I'll read through it and aim to delete some.
It's one of those things that you can write as much as you want about.
Mentioned briefly under Personality, though it was an exaggeration.
This article is going to provoke complaints about length and size as it is. That is a nonessential and there is no room. There was one at one time, and there is discussion on talk about it, I warned I would remove it during renovation, I did, and no one has complained.

I think that's about it. An excellent article, and one I'm sure will do well at FAC. I'm impressed. I came to the article with a largely negative perspective of the man, but I think the article does a superb job of placing him, and his achievements and shortcomings, in context. It's left me with a much more balanced view of him, and certainly leaves the impression that his foreign policy achievements are overlooked. Having such a fine article on a subject as important as this is brilliant for Wikipedia's reputation and in getting it to this stage, you (and others, of course) have done a real service both to this encyclopaedia and to knowledge.

Is that Nixon's legacy or Watergate's? There is a difference.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and your time spent with the article. Nixon was the first president I had real knowledge of growing up, and after doing seven Nixon-related articles through the process, it is more than time he got his due at FAC. I am more hopeful than I was a month ago that it will pass, but even with a well-publicised PR, literally anything could happen at FAC. This sort of article is totally unpredictable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it. An excellent article, and one I'm sure will do well at FAC. I'm impressed. I came to the article with a largely negative perspective of the man, but I think the article does a superb job of placing him, and his achievements and shortcomings, in context. It's left me with a much more balanced view of him, and certainly leaves the impression that his foreign policy achievements are overlooked. Having such a fine article on a subject as important as this is brilliant for Wikipedia's reputation and in getting it to this stage, you (and others, of course) have done a real service both to this encyclopaedia and to knowledge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton further comments: It's a pleasure to back with Tricky Dick, who was probably the first US president I took an interest in. Here are detailed comments on the first few sections. I am reading on and will post more.

Lead
Early life
Early career etc
Congressional career
The Navy was willing to have Nixon stay on longer, and offered him a promotion if he would. He did not want to. Your version is better because the formal discharge did not seem to go through until March 1, I gather he had leave coming. He stayed in the naval reserve for twenty years, and was promoted to Commander, but I find surprisingly few references to what he did. Probably nothing, once he was in Congress.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1952 campaign; vice president

Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. I'm behind on comments but will probably do them in one fell swoop.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm caught up now. I like the darker way this article is turning out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not too much darker, I hope. I thought your original balance was pretty good. Tim riley (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this is fine. I never really said what Watergate was.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

1960 and 1962 elections
I'm working on it. I can easily get rid of it, but I am not sure if we are supposed to keep the information in the caption with the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke too soon. Connormah trimmed it at my request, but for some reason the change is not showing up. Does anyone know why?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1968 presidential election
It's piped in the mention of Nixon's victory speech, which is really why that sentence is there! Commercial.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an amazing image, isn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency (1969–1974)
It is, but on consideration it is best moved to a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's to the end of "Middle East policy". I'll try and do the rest tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work. I think I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More....
Economy
Governmental initiatives and organization
Civil rights

"In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program in 1970". Reposition "in 1970", to avoid ambiguity.

1972 presidential campaign

As worded it appears that in 1972, Nixon still expected Ted Kennedy to be his Democratic opponent. This is surely not the case, given the fall in Kennedy's stock since 1969 and the fact that he specifically ruled himself out of the 1972 race.

Watergate
I think this is a situation where this may well be the most famous quote of Nixon's career, and it should not be buried in a paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resignation

I listened to the soundfile of the resignation speech and it was fascinating. I remember hearing this in 1974, while on a camping holiday in Ireland, in a damp field, listening to someone's portable radio. What struck me then about the speech - and still does now - is its singular lack of penitence or admission of culpability. He is resigning not as an admission of wrongdoing but because the congressional arithmetic no longer adds up. He is sacrificing himself to spare the country the agony and inconvenience of a prolonged inquiry. If (note "if") some of his decisions were wrong, they were made in the best interests of the nation. The speech, I thought, reflected exactly Nixon's dual personality: bold and imaginative oratory on the one hand, devious and self-serving whining on the other. I think that these broader aspects of the speech, in particular the reluctance to admit guilt, should be mentioned in the article, rather than merely quoting the peroration (which really needs to be heard rather than read). Of course, his later mea culpa statement, after the pardon, again refers only to "mistakes", not wrongdoings

I'll have to leave this for a bit, as other duties call, but I will try to finish it later. It really is a very absorbing article with some fabulous images (and the speech). Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also remember the speech, in my case watching it with my parents one Saturday summer night. I've added a bit about what Nixon did in the speech, I could probably find more, but am hesitant to dwell too long on the point. All else is up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments

  • Pardon and illness
Aitken thinks it is spite. Undoubtedly there were facially neutral reasons. Shared sacrifice, yada yada.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to public life
He's in the resignation section. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author and elder statesman
  • Death and funeral
  • Legacy
  • Personality and public image
  • Books by Richard Nixon

- and that about sees me through. Phew! A formidable and highly important article, which in general strikes a fair balance in depicting this ever-controversial figure. On to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I think you'll find your comments addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus comment

Ah so. Thank you, I'll get right on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum comments:

Lead
Proven by whom? The Smoking Gun Tape pretty well set it all out there, but I can't say anyone did proving, except possibly Nixon. It's why I'm trying to soften it in this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could equally ask "proved by whom"? Why not something like "when it became clear that ..." as an alternative? Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
That sentence has been tossed around by reviewers. Let me take another stab at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early career, marriage and war service
It's correct in American English. I speak as a practitioner!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I bow to your superior knowledge. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looked odd to me, too, but I looked it up yesterday and what Wehwalt says is correct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem a little quiet here. If the well's run dry, I'll look into nomming perhaps Sunday or Monday. Otherwise please feel free to continue making comments, or let me know there is more to come.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Haven't read everything above, so apologies if I repeat something.

In Nixon's perspective, failed. Should have and did not. In Nixon's opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deng's interpreter. He's considered furniture.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the language. Going to leave it where it is for now, these final sections may tend to get a little fluid.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your review. I think these are up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank everyone for their responses. I think I have covered everything. I intend to nom this article for FA in about twelve and a half hours (I said I would wait until August and I am a person of my word). I will close this shortly before I do. Please feel free to weigh in with comments here until then, and I hope you will all participate in the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category