Talk:Richard Nixon

Gerald Ford Linking on infobox

To keep things consistent and easier to navigate for the reader both links should be present as discussed previously it was in a mutual agreement to leave both links for "Vice president" and "successor" in the info-box, and this edit was made.

Also as per Franklin D. Roosevelts RfC showing we should be consistent on presidential info-boxes as all the successors are linked and it is easier to navigate for the reader. Dr.TheHistorian✎ 21:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't much care, but can you refer us to the discussion in which this agreement was reached? Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion is linked above and you were part of it. Believe that you accepted to have the link remain. Dr.TheHistorian✎ 22:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I get your point @DrtheHistorian, but then that's not how it works here. There should be no overlinking and in my opinion, we should stick to the tradition where if the vice president is the successor of the president, the link to their page should be on the successor and not the vp or both. But again, I do get your point. Richie1509 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is, people keep adding the second link. It just happened with Harding. Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thats the thing, some readers come and look at succession and some want to read about the vice-president. They might not know that the Vice-president is the successor. Expecting readers to look around and find a link is not convenient. This should not be a case of over-linking as it does not distract the reader but it makes it easier to navigate, therefore we should keep both links here and in all other similar cases. Dr.TheHistorian✎ 16:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A comparable discussion has been going on at Talk:Ronald Reagan#Infobox linking to VP or Successor. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2026

“Succeeded By Gerald Ford” doesn’t have a hyperlink to Gerald Fords page. ~2026-42835-32 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There have been discussions on the Nixon, Reagan and FDR talk pages but the bottom line is that MOS:LINKONCE applies and we do not link a second time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Missing Post Presidential History, 1985 MLB Arbitrator Role

Proposed Text to Insert: In October 1985, Nixon stepped into a prominent domestic cultural role when he was selected by both Major League Baseball and the Major League Umpires Association to act as a binding arbitrator. The league and the umpires were locked in a tense financial dispute regarding postseason pay following the expansion of the playoffs, which threatened a strike during the League Championship Series and World Series. On October 21, 1985, Nixon held a three-hour hearing at his Manhattan office, listening to arguments from baseball officials and union head Richie Phillips. On October 28, he issued an eight-page binding decision that awarded the 12 working playoff umpires a 40% pay increase (an additional $4,000 per umpire) while adjusting future league contributions to the general umpires' benefit pool, successfully resolving the labor crisis. Supporting Citations (For Editors to Copy/Paste): ~2026-43664-06 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Chennault Affair Citation #152 Is NOT Neutral

Under the 1968 Presidential Campaign header there is a sentence which reads "Whether the Nixon campaign interfered with negotiations between the Johnson administration and the South Vietnamese by engaging Anna Chennault, a fundraiser for the Republican party, remains a controversy." The citation provided is "Misunderstanding a Monkey Wrench". Richard Nixon Foundation. June 2, 2017. Thus, the citation saying that Nixon's involvement in thwarting peace talks in Vietnam is controversial is essentially from Nixon himself. This is equivalent of taking Nixon's initial word for Watergate as fact. Or even citing to the Nixon foundation when talking about Watergate. I do not think many people would find it appropriate to say something as important as "his involvement is Watergate is in controversy" and then someone cites to the Nixon Foundation.

To me this reads as someone who is obviously pro-Nixon not wanting to grapple with the fact that there is very credible evidence from the FBI and historians that Nixon did in fact thwart peace talks in South Vietnam for his own political gain. It causes a featured article to not be either neutral nor accurate. Obviously, I cannot change the page. But I can bring it to the attention of everyone that this is a red flag and should be changed. Lutany (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I would refer you to the several previous discussions on this point that can be found in the talk page archives and tell you that this is consensus language implemented after discussion. Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the citation is not neutral. Lutany (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Evidence? Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you serious? The citation is to THE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION. A foundation who says "The Richard Nixon Foundation advances the legacy and vision of President Richard Nixon 
by applying his principles to defining issues that face our world today." (emphasis added). Advancing someone's legacy is a bias. There is no possible way to spin it as neutral. The key word is ADVANCES which means they have a biased position. Also the citation does not link to an article that describes the events neutrally. They only describe the entire Chennault Affair in complete denial. The article denies the existence of peace talks all together: "In fact, aside from Mr. Farrell’s mistaken “monkey wrench” claim, there was no “peace plan” to scuttle.". The entire article is in denial of Nixon's involvement in the Chennault Affair. It is not a neutral source. So if you can tell me how it is I am all ears. Lutany (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)