Talk:Richard Nixon

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I was reading up on the 1973 oil shock, and the rationale for OAPEC to reduce oil production, which essentially was a political motivation to exact revenge on countries that supported Israel. In light of this motivation, it made perfect sense for Nixon to mitigate excess profits of the oil producing countries by instituting price controls, even if this was done at the expense of American economic interests. TheRationalOne 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

One point: there is a difference with something making sense and agreeing with that type of action. TheRationalOne 13:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

WT flying F[edit]

This article is several months old, and has had 12 edits. So far, nobody's bothered to mention a certain part of the Nixon era: WATERGATE, anyone? — Unsigned, by: Totnesmartin / talk / contribs

Sure it's in there - "resigning for breakin' laws". Anyway, I see it got linked up now. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:20, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate (oh, wait...it's my cursor) didn't have anything to click! --Kels 21:23, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps when I wrote some of an earlier draft of this I was being too subtle, in only mentioning watergate twice, but not by name? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:48, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Category[edit]

Perhaps we could discuss the appropriate categories for this article?--Bobbing up 03:00, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, let them have their battle. They'll only tire themselves out. New3.pngPink(Hopefully) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
You'd never expect RA to actually discuss in a clear location his ideas of how he thinks his site should be arranged, do you? Or, even less, respect the opinions of others (since they are just "the mob", the "nitpickers" who turn up when a question is asked...)? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I see you as equally complicit in the current "not discussing anything" state, actually. What's the problem with this "people" category? New3.pngPink(Talc page) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
It's just that recent changes is filling up. I know that doing it this way helps RA's edit count and all, but some sort of debate might be a nice idea.--Bobbing up 03:07, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
It was being discussed ages ago, RA just thinks it doesn't matter what other people think. Here's the deal - there are dozens, scores, of categories that are "people" - and they are all in the people cat. No need to directly cat all "people" as "people". RA thinks otherwise. I disagree, apparently so does GK. Bob would apparently like to see it discussed rather than edit-warred. Do you have a pink opinion? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:09, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I'd like to hear RA's justification for the cat change, really. Presently, I would lean towards your version of the "cat tree". However, reverting dozens of edits without giving any hint of an explanation is extravagantly counterproductive. New3.pngPink(Pink link) 03:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I think it was only four edits. OK, four edits, three times = twelve, that's a dozen. I would like to hear RA's opinion, and I'd like to hear the mob's perspective on the issue, because that matters more than his or my individual opinions. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Alright, not dozens. I just assumed you were reverting all of the additions of the people cat that RA made earlier, which did (unless my memory has fallen apart completely) number in the dozens. And yes, let's get the mob in. Intercom? New thread on talk:Main? Or should we wait until RA wakes up? New3.pngPink(I'd wait, really) 03:23, 6 October 2008 (EDT)


break 1[edit]

This has nothing to do with raising my edit count, Bob. This is part of a sincere and long-running effort at improving the categorization of our articles. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I believe that one should be able to click on Category:People at the bottom of an article and see exactly how many articles on "people" we have. We need some way of keeping track of and coordinating all of them, and shunting each article into several disparate categories (with no category in common) makes it rather difficult. Think of it as an endeavor comparable to Wikipedia's Category:Living people. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

It's time I stated my feelings on a certain subject: the Mob is not God. They are not a higher power, an Arbitrator of All That Is Right and Proper. They are not our Arbitration Committee, our Special Discussion Group, or our Student Panel. So why do you defer to it as if it was? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I certainly agree that the link to category:People should appear at the bottom of the page, but is there a way of doing that without having to add the cat manually to every page in question? New3.pngPink(You're awake. Why are you awake?) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Nope. There's no bot that can be made to differentiate between articles about people and articles about everything else. I would be more than willing to split the job with other people. Say, one or two of us assigned to each alpha range in Special:Allpages. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:44, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
No, I mean it should appear when the subcat "people" is implied by a higher cat, like "politicians". New3.pngPink(Sponge cake) 03:48, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
You got your subcats and higher cats switched, methinks, but I think there is a way to do that; I'm not sure. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:51, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I think that's the right way round, as far as I can see. We concentrate on the "smaller" ones, like Politicians/Greengrocers/Socks of TK, and the subcat People gets added to all of them, which is much more efficient, right? Isn't that how Wikipedia does most things? New3.pngPink(Pink link) 03:56, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I disagree with lumping everything in one big category. That's the way of CP madness. People is a top level category and should only be used when someone cannot be assigned to a sub-category (which is pretty unlikely). So someone like Al Gore could go into Politicians, Authors and Filmstars but he doesn't need to explicitly be put into People as the first three are all sub-cats of it. Proper use of categories is important to site organisation. On CP they had the homeskollars compiling tables such as "Medieval History Terms - A" when adding a category would sort them alphabetically anyway, a complete waste of effort. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 04:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)


"It's time I stated my feelings on a certain subject: the Mob is not God" Well, RA, you need to understand how this site works. You may think that you are god, or that anyone who edits enough is, but this is a genuine "mobocracy", and the mob needs to be asked their opinion on site-wide issues such as this. You may disagree - but you are wrong, in this case. Sorry. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Human is correct on this. Point one of our RationalWiki:Community Standards says so.--Bobbing up 04:08, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Bob, might I ask when exactly the policy of being a "mobocracy" was founded? New3.pngPink(I am quite serious) 04:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Approx. May 20, 2007. When the "rules" were changed to "guidelines". Please see the history of the site. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:16, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Gimme a proper link, would you? I can't just delve into the past and dredge up stuff like that.
Besides, I've never seen a reason given for that policy on RW. Not in any timeline article. Since you two were actually there, could you outline it? New3.pngPink(Thinklink) 04:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I honestly can't remember if we debated the issue, and I can't seem to find any history. My impression is that although Trent is the site owner he didn't want to dominate the site, and so he gave it to the users. Given that it was his to give I don't think there was any debate on it. But this is just my impression - I can't find diffs to back it up.--Bobbing up 05:07, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I think the basic idea of the mobocracy goes all the way back to the earliest days of RW 1.0, or even before that. It was mostly a counter-reaction to the power abuse of the CP sysops. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
(EC) Thanks anyway ^_^ New3.pngPink(I thought it might be something like that) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
If the Mob is our "government", why do you try to involve it in every goddamned conflict? "Is there an editing conflict? Put it before the Mob! That'll *magically* resolve any problems. Why should two editors ever be left to resolve things between themselves?" Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:27, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
We need some sort of standard determining what does and does not require the input from the mob. But we don't; your first reaction to any editing conflict is "Put it before the mob!" Does it ever occur to you that dragging a bunch bystanders into someone else's fights can create resentment, and exacerbate the conflict? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

The Site owner controls what is allowed on a site. Successful site owners run things so their type of users likes things on their site. The Assfly can get away with more than any owner of a secular site could because fundy Christians are conditioned to accept authority. Proxima Centauri 05:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

break 2[edit]

I have never thought of myself as the Lord of the Site, Human. And I might add that you are, by sheer weight of edits, about eight times as bad as I am. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:23, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
You probably don't realize it, but most of your objections come off as someone who has dominated the site for so long that they consider themselves the "norm" and thus automatically exempt from the "first propose on the talk page" rule. The current status quo for articles is largely a product of you own hands, and you assume that makes it right. Which is, I think what Pink meant above when she called you equally complicit in things. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:23, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I guess you ignored all the times when I deferred to other editors, like on the "References and notes" versus "Footnotes" thing, for a recent example. Dumbass. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
The "footnotes" thing was my idea, and it was a change from the status quo which was set by (guess who!) you, and you objected to my change. Putting something up to the mob only counts when you seek to change things from the way they are, not defend the status quo. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
It's hard, since some of it happened in the transition from RW1 to RW2. But this: [1] makes it pretty clear, don't you think? Also, to quote the current version of CS, "1. This is a mobocracy". Could it be any clearer? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not querying the fact that we currently use that system, I'm just gearing up to saying it's a stupid way of running things. It's inadequate; it gives those in authority no idea of their duties or limitations, and it breeds squabbles when the ideas of how people expect things to work somehow conflict with each other. New3.pngPink(Future schismatic) 04:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Radioactive afikomen, is Pinkie your Sockie? Proxima Centauri 04:33, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
No. We have completely different IPs, for Christ's sake, and different styles of talking (something I could never learn to fake). Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Without a formal system behind it, a mob is just a mob. It can only ever be a product of the problem, not the solution. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Listen to you people moan. It brings feces to my eyes and tears to my anus. Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 04:37, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Turdblossom
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty snipping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- Barroom brawls -- Cat fight -- Chicken coop -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Community Standards/TK -- Community Standards/disruption -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Drama dump -- Epic debate -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Inactivity -- Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists? -- Make TK a sysop? -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Serious Business -- Site politics -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- The case of MarcusCicero -- The mobocracy -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Voting Procedure -- Voting standards -

So, hypothetically speaking, if this is a mobocracy, what is to stop a given user (say, me) to develop a dozen different user accounts to act as my own little mob? I guess I could rule this wiki in about three months. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 04:53, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Nothing. With enough socks (or even meatpuppets), one could swing site politics in whatever direction they wanted. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
(EC) I knew it was bad when I saw the evil laughter. ^_^
But anyway, you haven't counted on our official, 100% accurate sockspotter spotting your socks! New3.pngPink(I know you are Kira, but how to prove it?) 04:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually that's always something that's worried me about the mobocracy. What's to stop 50 YECs coming onto the site, making a few edits and then making it a creationist webiste? But that certainly is a Community Standards issue.--Bobbing up 04:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
There is the fact (or not actually a fact as much as my personal theory) that whatever Community Standards says, RW is not a mobocracy at all. A true mobocracy has no rules and no leadership. We, however, have by now established a fair amount of rules, both written and customary, and while we don't have formal leaders as such, there are clearly some editors with more influence than others. Personally, I would call us an early medieval tribal society. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:07, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Do we need to have our own Council of Trent to move on? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 05:16, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Either that or discover America again. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:26, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Debate[edit]

Shall we cut this to Debate mobocracy?--Bobbing up 05:19, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, let's. New3.pngPink(It'll be fun) 05:21, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Some backwater of a talkpage is not the place to discuss such serious site business like moving a thread. We need a proper debate before we do anything hasty. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 05:24, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I object to moving anything. It is the RW way to discuss important matters on obscure talk pages. It's what the mob wants. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:26, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
The Site owner controls what is allowed on a site. Successful site owners run things so their type of users likes things on their site. The Assfly can get away with more than any owner of a secular site could because fundy Christians are conditioned to accept authority. Proxima Centauri 05:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Mmmm. Well, I'm never on to fight the mob. So I'll just start the debate page and link to this one. :-)--Bobbing up 05:28, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Good, I can see you fully understand how this works. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
If anybody has any fight left, the debate is here: Debate:The mobocracy.--Bobbing up 05:46, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

There's no mention whatsover about his run against Kennedy[edit]

I'm not an expert of the 1960 election, so I'm not going to edit the article right now, but that election was one of the closest in history. I think it deserves some mention here. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's Roger?[edit]

No mention of Roger Ailes? Supyloco (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobs[edit]

Nobs has a problem with the truth. His edits are factually inaccurate, cherry picked, or just disingenuous. This isn't new info. Hipocrite (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? the quotes you vandalized are verifiable anywhere, as all the rest of the material is. You never even looked at what you destroyed. Please cease this treatment of another good faith editor. nobsYe shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening[edit]

The opening quote is a bit undignified, don't ya think? Kicking a corpse? quoted from a crackhead who killed himself with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head? Bit of conundrum: Who was more mentally unbalanced, Nixon or Hunter S. Thompson? But we'll have to leave it consensus if it's appropriate. nobsYe shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un 07:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As anyone here even done the slightest research on Richard Nixon? He was a progressive. And this article is incredibly un-persuasive because of its childish bias and name-calling.

This makes Conservapedia look unbiased. Seriously demeaning to this website. Its an embarrassment to an otherwise useful website.

There is nothing unusual about the Richard Nixon article; it can fairly be categorized as commonplace. Check out the Ronald Reagan article for more of the same harsh, frothing-at-the-mouth criticism.
If RationalWiki were to treat all politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) as scurrilous scumbags (which they usually are), some of the over-the-top seething hatred might be justified; but that is not the case. The scale always tilts left.
Pick any article and do a side-by-side comparison. Invariably, Wikipedia is the best of the lot. Conservapedia comes in a distant second. And RationalWiki, well... they just sling mud and hurl insults; but only at their opposite counterparts.
If nothing else, RationalWiki is reliably predictable; it's just another far-left mouthpiece. And like its myriad brethren, excruciatingly boring and monotonous. Slings and Arrows (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I smell a raging balance fallacy in the arguments so far. Is it "name calling" to designate Nixon as a "criminal", or what is referred to here? Where is the Democratic parallel to Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the lead-up to the Iraq War? The reason you can find so many Republican nutters called out on RW is not mere bias, but because the Republicans are currently the nuttier (by far!) major U.S. political party - just look at the parties' respective primary candidates for Pete's sake. Oh, and "far-left mouthpiece", really? From which vantage point? The Republican National Convention? The Tea Party? Leftist (depending on the vantage point) bias, perhaps, but "far-left"; don't think so. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be beneficial to read the opening quote from Hunter S. Thompson. Of course, Nixon was a criminal; most politicians are. But desecrating someone's corpse (especially a US President), is a sick and twisted dissension into Looney Ville. Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"Of course, Nixon was a criminal; most politicians are." Balance fallacy, again. "Most politicians" don't break into their political opponents' offices to steal their documents, run wire taps on or otherwise spy on or harass them, or defends their flagrant abuse of executive power with "Oh, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." And the quote is simply Hunter S. Thompson being Hunter S. Thompson (his hatred of Nixon was arguably only matched by his fascination of the man). What you're doing here is essentially waving a red herring in the guise of a tone argument without confronting the facts of the matter. Sure, the Thompson quote is not "nice", but compared to what Nixon actually did, it's very small potatoes. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In a nutshell, the whole Watergate fiasco can be summarized as follows. Nixon wanted to find out what lies his opponent would be telling, so that he could counter with his own set of lies. I really don’t care if they spy on one another, as long as they leave me the hell alone. Slings and Arrows (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a remarkably complacent attitude, oh, and a rather selective version of events. Watergate was simply the thin end of the wedge that revealed a host of other "dirty tricks" (and not all of them originating in Nixon's presidency), not least using the FBI to spy on U.S. citizens etc. But hey, as long as they didn't spy on you in particular it's okay, right? Braving Godwin's law I'll remind you of Martin Niemöller'sWikipedia's W.svg subsequent lamentWikipedia's W.svg of his earlier passivity, or, for that matter, an admonition from the 1790sWikipedia's W.svg: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." ScepticWombat (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
They do spy me, and you, and everyone else. You would be very naïve to think otherwise. We have surveillance cameras everywhere now; they have become so ubiquitous that we no longer even notice. All internet and cell phone traffic are closely monitored. The satellites overhead are so powerful they can read the head of a dime; and with infrared imaging can see inside your house.
But as long as they leave me alone, I really don’t care. But hey, if you want to fret over it, knock yourself out; just don’t do anything undignified, someone is probably watching. Slings and Arrows (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sceptic asks, "Where is the Democratic parallel to Watergate?" Here. Bobthe Battery Operated Boyfriend 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Victor Lasky is “dead on balls accurate”; it didn’t start with Watergate; nor has it ever come to an end. All politicians are crooks who spend each day with their pants down around their ankles, eager to violate anyone (human or beast) who will hold still.
If I were ever told that a politician (Republican or Democrat) was coming to my home, I would immediately hide all valuables, lock the women and children in the cellar, barricade the entry, and stand out front with a loaded shotgun. Slings and Arrows (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh surprise, nobs can quote a conservative trying to play the balance fallacy shading into not as bad as while Watergate was hammering the Republicans. Sure, other POTUSes had stepped beyond the limits, but even Republicans were outraged at the level of Nixonian mendacity. Note also that Lasky's examples from JFK and LBJ are far from the kinds of widespread and flagrant abuse seen during the Nixon years (the Watergate break in was as stupid and unnecessary as it was illegal as Nixon would've won in a landslide anyway). What is even more nefarious is Nixon's clearly unconstitutional claims of authority, which amounted to the kind of Imperial PresidencyWikipedia's W.svg the promotion of which would not surface again until the bizarre claims by Dubya's hocus pocus lawyers arguing for similar Presidential powers, most (in)famously John "Torture Memo" YooWikipedia's W.svg, but to a lesser extent also Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft. Note that the Nixon and Dubya low points were linked by the presence of such people as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who, unlike most others, had concluded that the problem with Nixon's scandalous and illegal activities weren't their character, but simply that they had been discovered...

If I had to choose between Tricky Dick and Dubya, however, I'd definitely choose the former as he at least was savvy on foreign policy. Note how Nixon's dithering on Vietnam was (arguably more than) balanced by his "opening" to China, SALT I, and the ABM Treaty (scrapped by Dubya, btw) in contrast to Dubya's foreign policy which was pretty much an expensive (in lives and money) failure from start to finish.

As for the earlier claim that Conservapedia(?!?) and Wikipedia always trump RW, I'd point to one article where I think RW currently manages to actually outdo Wikipedia, namely William Lane Craig. While I've added to that one quite extensively and I'm thus no unbiased witness, I think that even prior to my own contributions the RW version was better than Wiki's (not to speak of Conservapedia's gushing praiseConservlogo late april.png), because Craig fans and Wiki sourcing policy has so far kept the extensive and scathing criticism and well-known debunking of WLC's PRATTs out of William Lane CraigWikipedia's W.svg. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

The cite just added from the youtube video clip and original tapes shows the quotes, "You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates."[21] and "You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags ", need to merged into one quote. Where the remainder of the second quote comes from still is unsourced. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Founding the DEA.[edit]

Nixon also "started" the War on Drugs with the creation of the DEA, mostly for political gain as part of his southern strategy. — Unsigned, by: Greatnecro / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 02:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

'Compare and contrast'[edit]

Anyone knowing more about US politics care to do a 'compare and contrast "bad" Presidents' piece? (Indicate clearly which sense of 'bad' is being used.) Anna Livia (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nixon was actually a fairly decent president policy wise, shame he, well, you know.... Oxyaena Harass 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)