Talk:Checkers speech: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:04, 27 December 2011

Checkers speech 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 June 4, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 4, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
May 14, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
June 2, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 19, 2009.
Current status: Featured article

Dogs FA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column.

WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Recent changes patrol: members can review the recent changes list to be aware of improvements or vandalism.
Expand and improve citations: Akita (dog), American Bully, Artois Hound, Azawakh, Barbet (dog), Basset Fauve de Bretagne, Bavarian Mountain Hound, Bearded Collie, Beauceron, Berger Picard, Black and Tan Terrier, Black Norwegian Elkhound, Border Collie, Border Terrier, Bouvier des Ardennes, Bouvier des Flandres, Braque du Bourbonnais, Brazilian Terrier, Briquet Griffon Vendéen, Brittany (dog), Bullenbeisser, Bull Terrier, Ca de Bou, Cairn Terrier, Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Campeiro Bulldog, Central Asian Shepherd Dog, Chilean Terrier, Chow Chow, Colombian Fino Hound, Corsican Dog, Cretan Hound, Croatian Sheepdog, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Danish Spitz, Dingo, Dobermann, Dogue Brasileiro, Dunker, East Siberian Laika, English Cocker Spaniel, English Foxhound, English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan), Erbi Txakur, Estonian Hound, Estrela Mountain Dog, Finnish Lapphund, Flat-coated Retriever, French Bulldog, Galgo Español, Gaucho sheepdog, German Hound, German Shepherd, German Wirehaired Pointer, Glen of Imaal Terrier, Gordon Setter, Great Dane, Greek Harehound, Griffon Bruxellois, Guatemalan Dogo, Gull Dong, Halden Hound, Hamiltonstövare, Hanover Hound, Havanese dog, Hokkaido (dog), Hovawart, Ibizan Hound, Icelandic Sheepdog, Indian Spitz, Irish Setter, Irish Terrier, Irish Water Spaniel, Istrian Coarse-haired Hound, Jagdterrier, Jämthund, Kai Ken, Karakachan dog, Karelian Bear Dog, Karst Shepherd, Keeshond, Kokoni, Kooikerhondje, Koolie, Kuchi dog, Kuvasz, Labrador Retriever, Large Münsterländer, Lucas Terrier, Magyar Agár, Miniature Bull Terrier, Miniature Fox Terrier, Mongrel, Mountain Cur, Northern Inuit Dog, Norwegian Elkhound, Norwich Terrier, Old Danish Pointer, Old English Bulldog, Old English Sheepdog, Pastor Garafiano, Pastore della Lessinia e del Lagorai, Patterdale Terrier, Pekingese, Perro Majorero, Peruvian Hairless Dog, Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen, Pharaoh Hound, Plummer Terrier, Plott Hound, Polish Greyhound, Porcelaine, Portuguese Water Dog, Pudelpointer, Rajapalayam dog, Rat Terrier, Saarloos wolfdog, Sabueso Español, Saint Miguel Cattle Dog, Šarplaninac, Schipperke, Serrano Bulldog, Shikoku dog, Skye Terrier, Sloughi, Slovak Cuvac, Small Münsterländer, Smithfield (dog), Smooth Collie, South Russian Ovcharka, Spanish Water Dog, Standard Schnauzer, Swedish Vallhund, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Terceira Mastiff, Thai Bangkaew Dog, Tibetan Mastiff, Tibetan spaniel, Tornjak, Weimaraner, Welsh Hound, Welsh Terrier, West Siberian Laika, Westphalian Dachsbracke, Xoloitzcuintle, Xigou
Stub class articles in need of development: Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, Argentine pila dog, Armant (dog), Assyrian Mastiff, Banjara Hound, Billy (dog), Braque Dupuy, Bruno Jura Hound, Bulgarian Scenthound, Ca Rater Mallorquí, Calupoh, Campeiro Bulldog, Can de Chira, Cane Paratore, Cantabrian Water Dog, Chortai, Córdoba fighting dog, Denmark Feist, East European Shepherd, English Shepherd, Faroese Sheepdog, Gończy Polski, Grand Griffon Vendéen, Gull Dong, Hanover Hound, Hygen Hound, Japanese Terrier, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Kunming dog, Kurdish Mastiff, Levriero Sardo, Mahratta Hound, Majorca Ratter, Maneto, Markiesje, Molossus (dog), Montenegrin Mountain Hound, Rampur Greyhound, Romanian Mioritic Shepherd Dog, Sapsali, Sarabi dog, Schweizer Laufhund, Segugio Maremmano, Segugio dell'Appennino, Sinhala Hound, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Taigan, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Tazy, Toy Bulldog, Treeing Cur, Vikhan Sheepdog, Westphalian Dachsbracke, White Shepherd
Suggested Featured Articles due for re-assessment: Beagle (2007)
Suggested Good Articles due for re-assessment: Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009)
Requested images: Briquet de Provence, Denmark Feist, Erbi Txakur, Jeju dog, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Levriero Sardo, Liangshan Dog, Perdigueiro Galego, Segugio dell'Appennino, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Tarsus çatalburun, Tibetan Kyi Apso, Vikhan Sheepdog, Villanuco de Las Encartaciones

Politics FA‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 23, 2009 and September 23, 2010.

Comments

Can we please get a cite of the Checkers speech being "ridiculed" if that final sentence is going to stay in the article? I don't see how personal information can be considered irrelevant, given that the accusation involved shenanigans with Nixon's personal finances. I strongly disagree with the notion that Nixon would use his personal financial state as a trivial matter; he abhorred having to invade his and Pat's privacy, Pat didn't like it either, and throughout his memoirs and books, Nixon refers to this as a tremendous strain on his family at the time. - Anon.

A close read/ view of the speech shows that Nixon was an early advocate of campaign finance reform. He criticized other senators for having placed their wives on their office payrolls in order to defray travel expenses. Ultimately though, it is Nixon who is remembered for the greatest campaign finance abuses.

Links broken

Sadly, both the obituary links cited are no longer available from their respective newspapers. Robert K S 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. I found in in the NY Times.Killiondude (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the best we can do?

More interestingly, how about some REAL commentary on the speech? NO mention of the tactic of pulling away fromt the main issues at hand and focusing on family values, and essentially distracting attentions from the idea of corruption. This is a public and VERY successful example of a concept (I forget the name) utilized by spin doctors. This article is poorly written and the analysis is just pedestrian.

It seems to me that it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when writing anything concerning Nixon. Either way you find his detractors or apologists grinding out their biased rhetoric. Seldom have I read anything about him that takes a middle ground. Incidentally, I met him in 1962 when he was running for Governor of California and found him to be a self-absorbed person who was totally uninterested in talking about anything with me. Or maybe he was just having a bad day. T.E. Goodwin 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We're keeping the dog"

That parenthetical remark about the speech being a subtle attack on the Democratic Party -- that attack was so subtle I still don't see it. (This is because the assertion was a subtle way for the writer, a Nixon lover, to make a derogatory joke "fair and balanced", by linking it to a decade-old FDR speech, thereby deflecting the dog-Nixon comparison made by his own party).

Wow, that's easy. I can put parentheses around any outrageous, unfounded statement that I want, and then I won't have to provide context or citations or anything! So, what does Checkers have to do with the Fala speech? Both speeches involve dogs. That's it? Are these incidents in any way similar, that the joke could be construed in this manner? That parenthetical statement is badly written and needs to provide more information, or just be removed.

Article expansion

Hi, I've started to revamp and expand this project with the goal of bringing it to FA level in the next few months. Please feel free to help out. Images are an especial need here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Viscous"?

The article lists a quotation naming attacks against Nixon as a "viscous smear". Shouldn't this be "vicious"? 151.204.151.188 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, typo, it has been corrected. Please feel free to correct any spelling or other errors you may see; WP is the encyclopedia anyone may edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved issues from Good Article nomination

I don't feel I should add to the GAN page once the article has been promoted, so I will note some unresolved issues and what I've done about them here:

Nixon's expense allowance: I've given more detail on that.
Engraving bill: Morris really doesn't give much info on that. Dana Smith wrote Nixon in July 1952 that it was unpaid, and that he was hoping to pay it off once $500 that a contributor had promised Bernie Brennan came in. I rephrased it to take out the word "major" because the source won't actually support it.
Today's dollars: I will play with that website later in the day, as in the Woodes Rogers article, and get present day, or at least 2007 figures, most likely for Nixon's salary since that is the most obvious figure to use.

I think that was it on specific concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely long lead for an FA

Shouldn't that have been resolved? 198.203.177.177 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to be relatively long in order to fully summarize such an extensive article, so I'd say it's fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information is repeated in detail in the article body. I still think it would be more concise if it ended at the first paragraph, merging some of the content from the last paragraph of the lead. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kinda the idea. The lede is supposed to be a summary, broadly, of the article. Sort of "in a nutshell". Have you read WP:Lead section?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No picture of the title character?

This article sports pictures of buildings and other locations that became marginally significant months later, and of people somewhat connected to the topic, and even includes a mention of where "Checkers" is buried, fer cryin' out loud, but no picture of Checkers. Am I missing something?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a free use photo of Checkers, I'd use it. We don't. I don't think a fair use photo would be justified as the article is not about Checkers, but the speech. I took most of the photos for this articles (two buildings, and the notes), and the article needed photos. I'm sorry if they are marginal, but what else could I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP keeps adding unsourced material.

I note that an IP has three times added a statement, without citations, that amounts a slam at Nixon for the 1960 debates. The only thing I am aware of in common between the Checkers speech and the debates is that both involved Nixon and television. In any event, the statement is POV and lacks a source. I propose to remove it. I'm not as concerned about the "path" thing, that's just a convenient shorthand way of referring to Nixon becoming president. Obviously he had setbacks along the way. The question of 1956 has always been a bit hazy to me, and I am anxiously looking forward to the second volume of Gellman's bio of Nixon, which will deal with his VPship. In the meantime, we try to cover Nixon as neutrally as possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RN supporters are valiant in his defense, but occasionally get into disputes where none should exist.

I added some important facts left out, like the gargantuan audience for the Checkers speech -- 60 million viewers and listeners in 1952. Tonight's network evening news broadcasts 60 yeas later will not top 30 million all combined. Most of the history on Checkers was completed before the "new media vs. old media" paradigm of the Internet found its way into peoples' consciousness, but that dynamic was very real in 52-- newspapers called for him to quit the ticket and RN countered through the newer mediums of television and radio.

RN's electoral career was not marked by any path, but by near catastrophy (52, 56, 68-Wallace) and actual catastrophy (60, 62, 74). Calling it a path makes it sound like a cake walk, which RN would never have said. 56 was most likely Ike's fault, as everyone agrees Nixon had served Ike well in those years.

There is substantial evidence that RN lost in 60 due to his poor visual performance in the debates, and I'm hunting around for the cite that goes with the Checkers speech in 52. The camera's dislike for RN was seen in the polling and RN's failure to appreciate its implications cost him the 1960 election via the debates. In 68 they corrected for all of RN's weaknesses -- his pallor, his 62 rant, and his youth -- with the slogan: "Tanned, Rested, and Ready."

It's all about competition, and even RN had to recognize his weaknesses, compensate for them, and adjust to changing competitive situations. You should just leave the uncited fact there with a "citation needed" tag. I'll find it later or somebody else can add it. It's not like saying he burned the tapes, and it's not the only uncited fact in the article.

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 I note that an IP has three times added a statement, without citations, that amounts a slam at Nixon for the 1960 debates.  The only thing I am aware of in common between the Checkers speech and the debates is that both involved Nixon and television.  In any event, the statement is POV and lacks a source.  I propose to remove it.  I'm not as concerned about the "path" thing, that's just a convenient shorthand way of referring to Nixon becoming president.  Obviously he had setbacks along the way.  The question of 1956 has always been a bit hazy to me, and I am anxiously looking forward to the second volume of Gellman's bio of Nixon, which will deal with his VPship.  In the meantime, we try to cover Nixon as neutrally as possible.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
+:RN supporters are valiant in his defense, but occasionally get into disputes where none should exist.
+:I added some important facts left out, like the gargantuan audience for the Checkers speech -- 60 million viewers and listeners in 1952.  Tonight's network evening news broadcasts 60 yeas later will not top 30 million all combined.  Most of the history on Checkers was completed before the "new media vs. old media" paradigm of the Internet found its way into peoples' consciousness, but that dynamic was very real in 52-- newspapers called for him to quit the ticket and RN countered through the newer mediums of television and radio.
+:RN's electoral career was not marked by any path, but by near catastrophy (52, 56, 68-Wallace) and actual catastrophy (60, 62, 74).  Calling it a path makes it sound like a cake walk, which RN would never have said.  56 was most likely Ike's fault, as everyone agrees Nixon had served Ike well in those years.
+:There is substantial evidence that RN lost in 60 due to his poor visual performance in the debates, and I'm hunting around for the cite that goes with the Checkers speech in 52.  The camera's dislike for RN was seen in the polling and RN's failure to appreciate its implications cost him the 1960 election via the debates.  In 68 they corrected for all of RN's weaknesses -- his pallor, his 62 rant, and his youth -- with the slogan: "Tanned, Rested, and Ready."
+:It's all about competition, and even RN had to recognize his weaknesses, compensate for them, and adjust to changing competitive situations.  You should just leave the uncited fact there with a "citation needed" tag.  I'll find it later or somebody else can add it.  It's not like saying he burned the tapes, and it's not the only uncited fact in the article.