Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nixon's Resignation Letter

Nixon's Resignation Letter[edit]

Reason: In the aftermath of the Watergate Scandal President Richard M. Nixon lost the faith of the citizens of the United States, and after fighting a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to convince the public that he was not associated with the scandal Nixon yeilded to public demand and resigned the presidency, becoming the only serving U.S. President to do so. As such, this is the first (and to date only) letter ever submitted concerning the resignation of a president, a rare and historical find that I feel deserves an FP star.
Articles this image appears in: United States Secretary of State, Watergate scandal, Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Richard Nixon
Creator: Richard Nixon / United States Government

Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this picture really portrays some of the history of the Watergate Scandal --jfk52917, future US Senator (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While the image is a bit small, I support it for its superior EV. I also added it to Richard Nixon, where it also belongs. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative 1 Top EV. (Altering to support the higher resolution version). Durova^Charge! 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt #1Comment. I thought about nomming this myself, but it seems kind of blurry. Is this really the best resolution of the document available anywhere? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hang on guys, this is a bunch of text on a piece of paper. What about this could possibly be a featured picture? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have text FPs of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Edwin Smith papyrus, Emile Zola's J'accuse letter, and both the German and Japanese instruments of surrender from World War II. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus can change and be put to the test, and just because one document has been approved doesn't mean every one in that genre has to be featured. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - Only if we start a new FP category for Documents. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with a FP category for documents. Shall we work on consensus guidelines for featuring documents, as distinct from other kinds of images? Spikebrennan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that would be a good way forward. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Superb EV. NauticaShad es 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey. If the image showed the scene of Nixon signing the letter, or announcing it to people (with acceptable quality), I would definitely support, but just the text?? Nope. --Caspian blue 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured text pictures
c. 1600 B.C.	1787	1823	1898	1945	1945

Four featured text image are manuscripts while two images such as the German instrument of surrender and J'accuse are pressed by machines. The dates of them are also older than the 1974 image.--Caspian blue 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half and half, Caspian. The Japanese document was written on a different sort of typewriter. And mere age doesn't make a historic image more or less important. This is the only United States president in history to resign from office. Durova^Charge! 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I carefully checked the Japanese document, but I do not believe it was a production from a typewriter. Age is also an important factor to judge its value in historical and art pieces. Moreover I don't think the degree of the impact that the surrenders of Germany and Japan caused to the word is as same as the resignation letter of a president in a country.(of course, the country has been boasting her strong power after 20th century)--Caspian blue 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a script typewriter. Here's a sample of how they produce.[1] Slightly different typeface on that model, but should convey the idea. Every instance of each letter is exactly the same; the indentations and lines are mechanically even. During the mid-twentieth century there were typewriters that didn't use courier typeface. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of bias towards American topics is a valid concern, but the solution would be to expand our coverage of non-American topics, not to cripple our coverage of American ones. And I think you would be hard-pressed to argue the only resignation of a US president in over two hundred years was not a significant event in American history. Fletcher (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, if you've checked, the majority of our non-US text FPs are images I nominated. I'd certainly be glad to nominate other major historic resignations if they become available in high quality free licensed form. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are plenty of heads of other states that have resigned in writing - some of whom will also have been the only one in their country to ever do so. Just to put some perspective back in. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per above - Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An iconic letter with huge EV value. Skinny87 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too small for my liking (800px...), nominate for replacement and Support Alternative 1 - simply higher resolution, not sure why the original was the smaller version anyway. Obtained from the US Archives site. Caption needs to be enhanced, but undoubtedly an historic image. Even then a weak support, because it's only relevant next to a photo of him signing it - although the signed letter itself is more encyclopaedic than just the text of the letter. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This seems very encyclopedic. As for the concerns about it being just text, I would say that Nixon's handwritten signature, Kissinger's notation and initials, and the White House letterhead are graphical elements that give it historical impact it wouldn't have if it were just a plain transcription of the letter. However, the caption does need improvement: I was a little confused why it was addressed to Kissinger, which is only explained if you follow the link to the National Archives (or if you have, you know, independent knowledge). Apparently, Nixon's presidency officially ended when Kissinger penned the "HK" on that note. Fletcher (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Lots of EV here. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vast amounts of EV and a very good quality scan mean that this meets the FP criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What next? The Dead Sea Scrolls are "just text"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment seems like pointing at me. Don't exaggerate your feeling to mock people in disagreement with you. If I did not highly think of such old and valuable "manuscript" in history, I would not even send my time searching and organizing the images in the table above.--Caspian blue 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I challenge the people who claim "vast amounts" or "lots" of EV to show me EV in this picture that can't be represented by text, and goes beyond the two signatures. For instance, can we crop it to the two signatures and it retains its EV? What Fletcher has pointed out can be told in two sentences, which doesn't really impress me against the saying that "a picture's worth a thousand words". I don't think this meets the definition of a picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A picture may be worth a thousand words, but I don't think every picture requires a thousand words' description -- sometimes a picture is effective precisely in its simplicity. This picture is effective in showing an official process (Nixon's resignation) commonly described in words, but not seen. The brevity of the letter allows it to be seen, rather than just read. Indeed had Nixon rambled on for five pages rationalizing his actions, it would be far less effective as a picture (or set of pictures), being so dominated by text, and would probably not be very interesting. It's the stark banality of the letter, juxtaposed with the effect it had, that makes it an historically significant picture.Fletcher (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question we are asking is not whether Nixon should have rambled on. The question is whether this is a featurable "picture", and nothing so far has convinced me of that. And I doubt your stark banality comment can be referenced, so it will have no utility anywhere else on Wikipedia. The huge difference between this and the other FPs listed above is, of course, that no article could be written about the subject of the here nominated picture, whereas all the others have one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be a matter of how one regards at these things, PLW. When some editors see restorations of historic engineering designs they ask for vector diagrams and consider it a waste of time that I put so much effort into paper grain. My formal training is in history rather than engineering, so my goal is to bring the reader back in time and let them imagine--even for a moment--that they're a patent agent in a world lit by candles registering the very first light bulb design. I'm one of the youngest people who remembers Watergate, remembers the 'I am not a crook' speech, remembers the discovery of a missing 18 minutes on the presidential tapes. It was as if the political world was crashing down, and no one knew how it would end. Suppose for a moment it's 1974 and you're a reporter for the Washington Post, or Speaker of the House, or Gerald Ford himself: the surprise and relief and the wonder that the resignation actually happened, followed by thoughts of What next? When an encyclopedia reader can see such an important document for themselves it's easier to imagine it in one's own hand; it makes that history so much more vivid. Maybe you don't view the information that way, but to those of us who do that's enormously valuable. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've given my opinion and you are free to disagree with it, although I don't understand the basis for your disagreement. I do not need to source my opinions given outside of article space, so I find that objection somewhat odd. I also note that the Criteria do not require a Featured Picture to have a standalone article dedicated to the particular subject. Although many FPs do have such an article, some do not, such as File:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg, a picture of a whipped slave used in historical articles, for which there is no article for that particular person; for our purposes, the "subject" can be interpreted to be the topic of the article in which the image is used, just as, in this case, we do not need an article about the actual letter. Rather, the image should add value to the articles in which it's used, and as explained, it is illustrative of an historical event (regarding Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon; and also in United States Secretary of State by visually depicting an abstract process described in the text. I see less EV for the Twenty-fifth Amendment). Fletcher (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then let me be more clear. There is absolutely no precedent for this nomination being approved, as the other scripts that are featured all have their own article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Do be more clear then. Bring forth diffs of any conversation before this one where the supposed imperative of a separate article for text FPs was discussed. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not quite. The absence of an article demonstrates that this document does not have the necessary notability to have an article of its own (if you want to prove me wrong, write one, and reference it well with reliable sources), in addition to not really being a picture in the first place. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you've got completely the wrong idea about EV here PLW. An FP doesn't have to have an entire article based around it, it merely needs to contribute to an article and I think this document probably contributes significantly to many of the articles. You might disagree about documents vs photos etc, but it certainly seems like consensus is against you on this one, judging by the supports. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stick to criticising my actual statements rather than putting words in my mouth. I defeated the notion that any of the above-listed documents constitute any sort of precedent for this nomination. It's not featurable, because it's not a picture. It's a jpeg copy of what in the modern day would be a Word document. The assumption that in the case of the other documents, an exception was made due to their extreme importance and notability is highly warranted, and equally the assumption that such an exception should not be made for this document because it's notability has not been demonstrated to the same extent (and btw, the word document comment does not apply to all the above, since some of them include handwriting that may in itself be interesting, or thoughtful laying out (I don't like "layouting")). I do not believe this belongs in the image category at all. If you've read along carefully, you'll have noticed that I'm not opposed in principle to a "Featured Documents" or some such category of featured content, but it will take several more days (being optimistic) until such a process is going to be running. Let me remind you that the huge difference between the two categories is that the majority of pictures proper can be understood by the illiterate (e.g. disabled people, children, and huge but decreasing portions of the developing world), while documents will be entirely unintelligible to those groups. And btw, just because you can read does not entitle you to belittle those groups. Try and remind yourselves why you're contributing to this project. Hopefully, it's not for self-aggrandisement, or if it is, please do a convincing job of hiding it. I'm absolutely genuine, honest, firm, and serious in that request. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you asked me to stop putting words in your mouth without actually providing any examples of exactly where I did so, I find it hard to respond to your request. By the sounds of things though, you're just playing semantics here. You absolutely did say "There is absolutely no precedent for this nomination being approved, as the other scripts that are featured all have their own article" and "The absence of an article demonstrates that this document does not have the necessary notability to have an article of its own". Any reasonable person would paraphrase that to mean that you believe that it should have an article based around it for it to be notable enough to be a FP. If this interpretation is wrong, then I think you are being particularly obscure in your argument. If it is right, then where exactly have I put words in your mouth? Anyway, back to the rest of your reply. You say it isn't a picture. Well I had a look at the dictionary and it has two particularly relevent definitions: "visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc" and "any visible image, however produced". I suspect that based on that definition, it clearly is a picture. Besides, this is a scan of a physical document with an actual inked signature on it. Word document texts are by definition encoded with alpha-numeric characters, not pixels. Your analogy is therefore incorrect. I think you're just making yourself look ridiculous again by insinuating that because I don't see the problem with this document being featured, that I want to belittle the illiterate and aggrandise myself! Please get off your high horse, and I'm absolutely genuine, honest, firm, and serious in that request too. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to me that you are wilfully ignoring the particular combination of things at work here. It is not a picture and in addition, does not seem to have any exceptional notability that would permit us to make an exception, as evidenced by the fact that no article has been written about the piece of paper here depicted, in stark contrast to the existing FPs that might be seen to fall into a similar category. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To be honest, I think you're wilfully ignoring the indisputable fact that it is a picture, among other things. I find it impossible to have a discussion with someone who simply isn't on the same plane of reality as the rest of us. I give up. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect to inclusionism, scanning in a piece of printed text and uploading it as a jpeg does not make it a picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's been explained above what's wrong with this point of view. Granted, you can be entertaining when you improvise new rationalizations (yes, we must oppose the image for the sake of illiterate children in Uganda!) but now you're becoming a broken record. Fletcher (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        PLW, you posted a challenge in boldface and italics for people to explain what EV exists here that cannot be replicated within the article body. Several people have. You have not acknowledged merit to any of these positions--even within the scope of 'we'll agree to disagree'. You posted this request, so please articulate what sort of response you would respect. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid your request is self-contradicting. I don't ask questions that I already know the answer to. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it's fairly often when editors engage in open discussion that they initiate a question with some sort of idea of the lines along which reasonable responses may lie. They might not always be persuaded by those responses, but the terms in which you phrased this--first a 'challenge', then later an assertion that you 'defeated' a notion, suggests a competitive orientation rather than normal editorial dialog. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict) I've been asking for EV other than the thinly-baked, "well, it's a president resigning and it has his signature under it". It hasn't convinced me and will not, no matter how many times you repeat it. If you have anything new and interesting that directly relates to the piece of paper here depicted, please bring it forward, but again, of course you can say anything you like in FPC but if you can't reference it in an article, it has no bearing on the encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no ambiguity in my mind. de Bivort 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although this may be a picture of ink and paper, it is the event solidified. All of these documents are what allows the world to function; this one is no different. Granted, typed letters and signatures alone are not impressive or important, but that is just a small aspect of the whole concept represented by this document. To those who oppose, consider all consequences that this one paper embodies. It is far more than letter; it is the physical manifestation of the ideas behind the events and thinking of that time. That’s what a good picture does; it communicates ideas to the viewer. This is why I hope those who oppose might change their mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.165.120 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IP users do not have suffrage at FPC. If you wish to vote in any WP process, including FPC, FAC, XfD and so on, please create an account. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. High quality historical document. It's a very simple sheet of paper, but I think the starkness and what it represents is what makes it powerful and interesting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose important document but I don't think it adds enough value to the articles it's present in. I can't see how anyone's understanding of the topics would be reduced if it were removed. None of the articles describe the appearance or content of the letter itself and only one actually appears to mention it at all. Guest9999 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion of whether picture obsoletes text or text obsoletes picture

Do the articles have to describe the letter though? Being visual content, I'd like to think it removes the need to describe the letter since the image describes itself! It isn't an absolutely necessary image for the articles, but it does add another dimension to the resignation IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse argument applies. Since it is text, no digital reproduction in jpeg format of it is needed to illustrate it. If the text were notable, it would be reproduced in an article without the need for a picture. In the vast majority of legal texts, for instance, we don't reproduce them in text format, not by taking a picture of a book that carries the text. Nobody has explained to me why this text is any different. To be specific, how does it address criterion 5? How does the facsimile specifically add value that pure text could not give, i.e. how does it add value? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A little thought experiment: go to your bank and ask to withdraw the balance of your account. When the teller asks for identification, provide an unsigned text document you composed in Microsoft Word containing all the same information as appears on your driver's license (or whatever you use for ID). See if that flies and get back to us. Fletcher (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you agree that the signatures are the only significant feature in this facsimile? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pot. Kettle. Black. You're putting words in his mouth... I think you'd find he's suggesting the entire document as a whole is the significant feature, though. All aspects (text, signatures, paper texture, letterhead, etc) are relevant to the document being an official resignation of the President. If any of these were missing, the credibility of the letter would probably be diminished. Likewise the alphanumeric information on a driver's license doesn't make it a valid form of ID - the physical card and all of the aspects of it (counterfeiting protection, photo, signature, etc) do. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dear Diliff, I fail to see how asking a question is putting words in someone's mouth. That's all I have to say in reply. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As usual, you harp over one fairly insignificant part of a conversation and conveniently pretend that the rest of it doesn't exist. As Durova mentioned, you regularly fail to respond to or acknowledge any of the arguments' merit. It really isn't worth the trouble of responding to you if that is the game you want to play. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If the arguments are so meritorious, why are you finding it so hard to lay them out for me? Referring to "the arguments" is hardly convincing if you don't even seem to know what they are. Your drivers' license comparison was hardly relevant, since this document has none of the features you refer to (photo? counterfeiting protection?). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no difficulty at all in 'laying them out for you' and I have done so on a number of occasions above. As I said there, I gave up because you refused to acknowledge them or respond to the points raised. I'm not going to bother to restate them to you as you will no doubt ignore or dismiss them again. My responses in this part of the thread were no longer to discuss this article with you, they were just to try to explain how pig-headed you've been! ;-P Even that seems to be a waste of time as you've just feigned ignorance of your own actions, so I hereby give up even replying to you again on this nomination. You've had your say and so have I. Let the community decide... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Edit conflict) Not at all. The document has to be viewed as a whole; its significance comes from the fact that it's the official document that ended Nixon's presidency. To render it as text would make it something less. And your idea of cropping it to just the two signatures was obviously ludicrous. Fletcher (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a devil's advocate thought experiment. I'm still left with the impression that the supposed notability of this document stems from patriotic feelings towards the US, not from an objective consideration of its overall importance, or ability to communicate meaning (there is a reason why we have Template:Globalize/USA). I enjoyed your brief expose of US history and what it means to you personally, but I still don't believe this document communicates any of that. It's just a piece of bureaucracy that had to be completed so things could continue to go their usual way. Bureaucracy btw does not yet have an image at all. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this image belongs on the pen is mightier than the sword: a powerful reminder of the power of words. Definite Encyclopedic Value. Happy‑melon 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that he "penned" his own resignation, not somebody else's - unless you know something we don't. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Letter of Resignation of Richard M. Nixon, 1974.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]