Talk:H. R. Haldeman

Son-of-a-bitch quote

Every President needs a son-of-a-bitch, and I'm Nixon's

the quote i recall, and i find no source that quotes a full sentence with the wording

the president's son-of-a-bitch.

It is likely that all the sources saying he

called himself "the president's son-of-a-bitch."

are mispunctuations of what follows from the other version: that he called himself the President's (i.e., Nixon's) "son-of-a-bitch".
But i settled for a different paraphrase:

once described being the president's "son-of-a-bitch" as part of his job.

The date of February 21 for conviction may be from a careless reading of [1]: convicted Jan 1, sentenced February 21.

"His burial site has never been revealed" implies that it is known he was not cremated. It doesn't say that that's known, so it raises the suspicion that it's just careless. Since it's hard to bury someone legally and have the location go unnoticed for over 10 years, and since it would be odd for someone who conceals their burial location to have it announced that they weren't cremated, i'd bet the correct statement is "the dispostion of his remains is unknown". Anyone know anything?
--Jerzy(t) 03:08, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

The Washington Post article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/haldeman.html

Some of the attempts to remove direct quotes from this source material have changed sense. For example our article implies that the 18 1/2 minute gap was just Haldeman and Nixon, the source that that was one of the conversations believed to be in it.Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 5 July 2004‎ (UTC)

The words from "For example ..." to "...to be in it." look garbled; if they are a sentence, they say that Nixon was the source. Please clarify.

But since the WP article contains a factual error, it is a dangerous source.

--Jerzy(t) 22:38, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

The Haldeman Diaries

Could someone include the fact that The Ends Of Power was a collaboration with someone else (his name escapes me at the minute). I also think that The Haldeman Diaries (published 1994) is a more important book than The Ends Of Power and that the comment made in the text about The Ends of Power is rather misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldeman~enwiki (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 July 2004 (UTC)

The ghost writer was Joe DiMona, a reporter from Boston. I've just read Ends of Power, and it brought back so many happy memories of Watergate and Nixon, I'd recommend it to anyone. According to Haldeman, every single person in the United States was in a plot to trick Nixon into bugging the offices of political enemies. It's a hoot from cover to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehowardhunted (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Germans

Haldeman and Ehrlichman may have been known as the Germans but Haldeman's family were in fact Swiss. I don't think they're anything wrong with saying they were known as the Germans but not to point out that his family were Swiss is sloppy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.38.176 (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2004‎ (UTC)

• I fixed this in the Haldeman and Ehrlichman articles, numerous sources referred to the nickname as "The Berlin Wall" and not "The Germans". Sounds like to me that someone was just misquoting the reference. --Wgfinley 21:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ends of Power

"The Ends of Power" was written "with" Joseph DiMona.

Haldeman would have agreed that "The Haldeman Diaries" is, by far, the more important work

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankhh (talk • contribs) 05:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Burial

From Jerzy:

"His burial site has never been revealed" implies that it is known he was not cremated. It doesn't say that that's known, so it raises the suspicion that it's just careless. Since it's hard to bury someone legally and have the location go unnoticed for over 10 years, and since it would be odd for someone who conceals their burial location to have it announced that they weren't cremated, i'd bet the correct statement is "the dispostion of his remains is unknown". Anyone know anything?

You're absolutely right. I have made a change to the entry that remedies this.

HHH

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankhh (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

German?

"Haldeman and Ehrlichman may have been known as the Germans but Haldeman's family were in fact Swiss. I don't think they're anything wrong with saying they were known as the Germans but not to point out that his family were Swiss is sloppy.

I fixed this in the Haldeman and Ehrlichman articles, numerous sources referred to the nickname as "The Berlin Wall" and not "The Germans". Sounds like to me that someone was just misquoting the reference. --Wgfinley 21:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

(a)Haldeman is, indeed, Swiss. More specifically, "Schweizerdeutsch" - i.e., Swiss of German derivation. (b)nonetheless, it remains accurate to state that Haldeman & Ehrlichman were variously referred to as "The Germans," "The Kruats," and "The Berlin Wall."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankhh (talk • contribs) 05:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I was wondering too: in de-Wikipedia it says, "Haldeman" points to a swiss origin; That seems most likely to me, as I know many German, Swiss and also Austrian surnames (and surnames of relative languages, sutch as dutch etc.) - and Haldeman sound more like a swiss name, just as, i.e., Hürlimann :) if it would be a German name (meaning the country) it would sound rather "Haldmann"... just guessing ;) -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.

I was going to reconfigure the quote marks on the SOB quote, despite the concurence of the Washington Post. Multiple sources support

-- Heidijane 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubt about two particular dates

I'm kind of an ignorant, if you wish; but I don't understan this two dates;

"On January 1, 1975, Haldeman was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and sentenced to an 18-month prison sentence, which he served in Lompoc Federal Prison. Haldeman was released on December 20,1978.

My question is this: ¿Why was he released in 1978, if he was sent to prison in 1975, to serve an 18-month prison sentence?

I'm mexican, and I'm trying to translate all the articles that I can about geopolitics and foreign politics in several countries to my native language, that is spanish. I'm just begining to do that, and currently I'm translating this article about Haldeman, because I translated before the article "The Madman Theory" (it is included in the Category:Foreign Politics) and I saw the name of Haldeman, and I didn't know who really was.

Thank you, in advance.--Ahabvader (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question about the two dates reflects an assumption that Haldeman went to prison on the day he was sentenced to prison. This is not always the way things happen in the U.S. court system. Haldeman's lawyers may have been able to keep him out of prison until after a court of appeals had rendered judgment(s) pertinent to his conviction. I have not bothered to look up what actually occurred. Conceivably, either the 1975 or 1978 date is a typo. Publius3 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Field of study?

The article says that Haldeman graduated from the UCLA. What was his field of study there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.24.2 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall tenor

The overall tenor of the leading WP entry on HRH is pathetic, considering he had a ringside seat at some of the most important American political transactions of the late 20th C. If you read the Haldeman Diaries, you will find a terse, business-like summary of his important role in this epoc. In his diaries, he obviously omits a lot of things that he personally pledged to keep under wraps, perhaps trusting that history would lay them out for public viewing, but for himself not betraying his benefactors. For this you cannot fault him, nor relegate him to a morally tarnished role; that is for the long view of history itself to do. Just stick with the facts, please. Carmelzone (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Haldeman a J.D.?

The bio box for the Haldeman entry indicates that Bob Haldeman held a J.D., i.e. law degree, from UCLA.

I don't believe this is correct.

None of the major newspaper obits I've found say anything about a law degree.

I was alive and kicking during the Watergate scandal, and I distinctly recall the suggestion being made by the columnists and editorialists of the day that one reason (of many) that the Watergate scandal occurred was that, while acting as Nixon's chief of staff, Haldeman had no legal background and hence no ready grasp of the ramifications of some of his actions and directives.

Haldeman had worked for years as an advertising executive before getting into politics full-time on Nixon's behalf; and Nixon valued and trusted HRH because because of his extraordinary, (literally) Boy-Scout-style loyalty.

FWIW, the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on HRH states that Haldeman "graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles in business administration (1948)." The young Haldeman had been in the Navy late in WWII before going to college, and then he went into advertising in '49. I don't know when he could possibly had time to obtain a law degree.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Later life

Citation

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1993/11/13/414293.html?pageNumber=31 Slegan1133 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)