Talk:Richard Nixon

Active discussions
Richard Nixon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2013.
On this day... Article milestones
June 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 9, 2004, August 9, 2005, August 9, 2006, August 9, 2007, August 9, 2008, August 9, 2010, December 21, 2010, August 9, 2011, August 9, 2014, and August 9, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Section pertaining to racist views of Nixon for indians removedEdit

Declassified documents from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library show that Nixon held deeply racist views for the Indian people and sexual hatred for Indian Women as revealed by author Gary J. Bass. [1]Describing Indian women as "undoubtedly" the most unattractive women in the world. Also describing Indian people as the most "sexless" and "nothing" people in the world . At one point comparing indian people with "African blacks " , stating that atleast they have an "animallike charm" but the Indians were "ack, pathetic" . [1]

If anybody could suggest what was wrong with this . Meethamonkey (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Bass, Gary J. (2020-09-03). "Opinion | The Terrible Cost of Presidential Racism". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
I removed the material because it is not a major element of Nixon's career. How many observers cite Nixon's India/Pakistan views when they talk about his presidency? Close to zero. The relevant guideline is WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Gary j. Bass is a prominent author when it comes to south Asia and the 1971 Bangladesh war . Also these are very recent revelations and are all over the Indian media ( also in the NYT). The source for this are audio recordings declassified by the Nixon Presidential library . One might think that Nixon possibly turned a blind eye to the Bangladeshi genocide because of his racist views for indians ( as suggested in the NYT article ) , which was one of the biggest genocide in history . So I would say tht this has a lot of relevance . Wouldn't you say ? Meethamonkey (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. We do not use them. I agree with Binksternet and have removed the material. Where is the significant mainstream coverage of this, for example in his biographies?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned it is only a recent revelation , so it will not be found in his biographies. Also it has been covered by NYT And Indian news networks . Meethamonkey (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Then we wait for them to sift and decide if it is worth including. We are a tertiary source, not the network news. There was no slightest suggestion by leaders of either major party in 1971 that the US should intervene in South Asia, beyond possibly diplomatically at the UN. As I said on my talk, there should be a showing that this was a major part of Nixon's career, and that Nixon played a major part in the 1971 crisis. It might be better to put some shorter material in the Presidency of Richard Nixon article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well as these were his personal views, I think , it will not be relevant to his presidency . However if you think that this info is not relevant to this page then we can just leave it out for the time being . Meethamonkey (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt Under what reasoning have you decided what's a major part or not of Nixon's career? I added pertinent foreign policy actions. Bangladesh War at that time certainly wasn't something unimportant nor his policies regarding the subcontinent was something unimportant. Especially when it comes to it being about blocking Soviet influence and supporting Pakistan. He personally tried to end the war. I added all this, but you have removed it under claims of it not being "major part" of his career. Individually, many actions in the article can be described as not a major part. But when you see that it warranted his personal involvement that too for more than just a short time, it is important. And my edits are not related to his comments about Indians. So why are you removing it? There are many books and news articles on his policy concerning the Indian subcontinent, so you and Binskternet's rationale for removal makes no sense. Reliable sources and notability decide what's important. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree with you, which is why I suggested the Presidency article. But is it, from the Nixon perspective, any more than dozens of foreign policy issues that came up during Nixon's presidency? Did he personally involve himself on an ongoing basis in subcontinent relations outside of the crisis of 1971-1972? This is a general biography article, so we should look to general biographies to guide us, I would think. Do his biographers devote major attention to the issue, especially outside of 1971-1972? That is the sort of standard I look to. We are a tertiary source.
As for notability, I do not question that. That is not the question. We are trying to cover the major aspects of Nixon's career in a summary style within reasonable length constraints, and this is already one of the longest FAs and has grown considerably since it became a FA in 2011. Other articles, such as the Presidency article mentioned above, or Checkers speech or 1950 United States Senate election in California cover aspects of Nixon's career in more detail. Everything can't be in this article. I think I've been consistent in this over the years.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I just said in the first time I pinged that yes it concerns Nixon's own personal actions. Also concerns his words as well. There is some stuff which doesn't concern his administration explicitly, I can remove that. But how do you decide what is major or not? Did I put everything in this article? You are not the one to decide. Hold a consensus for that. Your definition of major when he was personally involved and it's a notable topic seems arbitrary. This article may be long, but that's what content table and sections exist for. To tell the readers what might interest them. I don't have a problem with placing my edits on his presidency article, but you shouldn't decide what is fit to go here or not. No one should. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
We all decide what to put here. We all should be looking at the breadth of the literature about Nixon, summarizing it and balancing it for the reader. There is not room for everything; we must cut certain details for brevity. Wehwalt's point and mine is that Nixon's racism against everyone on the Indian subcontinent is not widely discussed in the literature. Whole books about Nixon have no mention of it, not even a tiny mention. Which calls into question whether this is a major theme of Nixon's life (it isn't) or a minor theme worth mentioning, or a too-small detail which should be moved to places where it is more important, for instance in an article about US–India relations, or the article about Nixon's presidency. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you tell me who exactly is this "we all"? You unilaterally reverted me and unilaterally decided what's something major to keep or not. After that only one person supported you, but the evidence is lacking. Two also oppose you. I didn't ask you to put everything in here, a concise statement would be fine somewhere. And my edits weren't even about racism. But still his racism and both his policies in South Asia (not related) should be added. A person's character is definitely not something minor. I suggest instead of deciding what's minor, you try to hold a consensus first. Then it will qualify as "we all decide what to put here". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this "we all" is all of us, you and me and everyone (anyone) who is interested. Certainly one of the next steps could be a WP:Request for comment to invite wider participation. Whatever works.
Nixon's character has been discussed by every biographer who ever touched the subject. Can you point to one of them who mentioned his racism against the Indian/Pakistani people? Mostly his racism was seen against Black Americans and Jews. Recently in the news was a report about his racist comments toward African delegates to the U.N., caught on tape. This new tape of racist comments is similar to the one about African delegates in that it is not a major theme. If we see a major biographer bringing up the issue of Indian/Pakistani racism then the issue gains weight.
Right now, this biography does not discuss Nixon's racism at all, which is a giant hole, a glaring omission. I suggest a WP:Request for comment based on various depictions of Nixon's racism, with participants asked which aspects of Nixon's racism should be discussed. But I think some aspect must be discussed. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought it mentioned the comments regarding Blacks and Jews. Did it slip out of the article at some stage? Let me see what I can find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I've restored the comments about the Jews in the 2011 version. I thought at some stage we said something about Blacks too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet Again I don't understand who is this "we all". You never took a RfC or have tried to take a consensus yourself about what can be on this page or not. The burden is on you too, you are deciding what stays without any RfC or consensus what stays. No one except one user supported you. And are you saying because it hasn't been said so in past, it can't be here now? Every person will not know every thing he ever said or he believed. That's not possible. These tapes were only revealed now, so it's impossible for any biographers to know. But what does his racism have to do with my edits regarding his South Asia policy, which is not about racism at all. Why did you remove my edits which weren't even about any racism? You are only talking about MeethaMonkey's edits, not mine. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
All valid points. Can you tell me why Nixon's South Asia policy is important to his biography page? I would think it more appropriate to his presidency page: Presidency of Richard Nixon. I apologize for conflating your edits with those of MeethaMonkey. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is Nixon's Israel policy important? Because it's how he viewed and conducted things. And got personally involved in stopping the Bangladesh war especially. Much of what I added contained to his personal actions. Especially to help his ally Pakistan, dent USSR's influence in South Asia especially as he viewed India as its ally. Also he personally didn't favor India or Indira Gandhi. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nixon's Israel policy is important enough to mention because his action, and his personal involvement in them, was enough to get massive coverage in the papers at the time, favorable even in the midst of Watergate, which is covered in detail in his biographies.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And I'm sure Kim Kardashian gets massive coverage as well. What I mostly see here is related to Yom Kippur war. Rest might get coverage for one or two days. But I highly doubt you quantified how many newspapers covered it. Something that was covered doesn't mean notable. What leaves a long impact is notable. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also support MeethaMonkey's edits. Someone being racist towards a group is certainly not minor. Racial views have been listed on other BLPs too. 14:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LéKashmiriSocialiste (talkcontribs)

It's not a BLP but I agree it should say something.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a BLP because it lists the details of Nixon's life. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Not a BLP, because the L means Living. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes of course. I am sorry. But, not entering controversial info without reliable sources still applies. However, we do have reliable sources. There is no restriction to what that info is since you never conducted a consensus. Your revert was wrong. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Media in 2016 mistaking "ghost Nixon" twitter for the real NixonEdit

During the 2016 Clinton/Trump campaign. The Sydney Morning Herald picked up on a tweet from a President Nixon role playing account and reported the tweet as if it had been made by the real RMN (who died in 1994).[1] PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It may be too obscure to put in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Military service continuity problemEdit

At the end of the section on Nixon's military service it states :

"On March 10, 1946, he was relieved of active duty.[41] He resigned his commission on New Year's Day 1946.[48] On June 1, 1953, he was promoted to commander.[41] He retired in the U.S. Naval Reserve on June 6, 1966."

This doesn't make sense to me. When you resign your commission you no longer have any military status. So, if he resigned his commission on January 1, 1946, what was he doing on active duty through March 10, 1946? Then he was promoted to commander in 1953.

I served as an officer in the USMC and left active duty on June 30, 1973. But I still retained my commission in the Inactive Reserve. Later, I returned to the Active Reserve for four years then became inactive once again. After four more years I finally resigned my commission and no longer had any military connection or title.

So it would make more sense to state Nixon 'left' active duty on March 10, 1946, but stayed in the Inactive Reserve. Still how could he leave active duty in March if he 'resigned' his commission over two months earlier?

Military personnel have a six year obligation. But if you serve two, three or four years, depending on your enlistment obligation, you still stay a member of the Inactive Reserve until six years is up, even if you never attend any military function. Then one day you get a letter saying your six years is up, and the military doesn't 'bother' you again.

The text sounds to me as if Nixon left active duty in March 1946, but stayed in the Reserves, probably Active Reserves for awhile, as he was promoted to commander in 1953. To retire in 1966 he had to be doing some periods of active reserve duty over those years. But quite frankly, the military services let politicians skip periods of duty as politicians obviously have political influence in military matters.

Someone should check this out and correct the text. It's just not going to be me. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to him resigning the commission on 1/1/46. Possibly Conrad Black erred in his biography. The rest of it is in a footnote to the article. Thank you for your service.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020Edit

Remove the second instance of the word "in" in the following sentence, located in paragraph number 2:

FROM: He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in the 1952 election, subsequently serving for eight years in as the vice president.

TO: He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in the 1952 election, subsequently serving for eight years as the vice president. Gnelson2 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Richard Nixon" page.