Talk:Committee for the Re-Election of the President

Untitled

where is mention of Robert Vesco or BeeBee Rebozo?19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.61.209 (talk)

Untitled

"CREEP" is the predominant term in the Watergate articles i saw, but there is no acknowledgement that (IIRC) this was never a term used by its supporters. It may predominate outside WP as well, but inside it, the PoV of the term (just as the effect is!) should be noted. E.g.

CREEP (as its many critics' usage has made the dominant term for what called itself CRP).

--Jerzy(t) 18:23, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

It may be but it's still partial. I think mentions of the Committee to Re-elect the President should have CRP unless in a specifically anti-Nixon context. Dbiv 22:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CREEP may be derogatory, but it has become the generally used term - it's even in my history book, which I never saw mention CRP. CREEP is best known as the agency that planted bugs, monitored the democrats, and other "creepy" things. I think CREEP is accurate and generally accepted - CRP is a suprise to most people, I would guess.

Also, shouldn't this article just be a redirect to Watergate? It's kind of small, and in the Watergate article. --The Human Spellchecker 04:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

It reminds me of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which was immediately re-labeled as "Star Wars" by it's liberal opponents, and the national media, obeying its master's voice, used the pejorative term instead of its correct one.209.179.21.14 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanded

this article needs to be expanded. i have tagged it. --Awiseman 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The name of this page should be changed. It is the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, not "to Re-Elect" the president. I can't figure out how to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

CREEP Consensus

Could we reach a consensus on the inclusion of the informal acronym, CREEP? Since it was so widespread, including in media, I had included reference to it in the body of the article, hoping to curtail the need for further reversals, as I had, several times, reversed edits seeking to make CREEP the preferred acronym, both before and after. With the on-going disruptions, perhaps a consensus decision could be reached and stuck to?

I would propose having it in the content, though not in the introductory paragraph. A CREEP redirect might also be useful. Lindenfall (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

NapoleonX? Bkonrad? Somercet? Fys? With so much action around this, I'm surprised not to see this discussion already underway.

Nast on Alaska

Tried to solve this issue last year, with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President&diff=870955960&oldid=868293685 in a way that I thought was both balanced and historically accurate, but I now see that the effort was later excised... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President&diff=901203394&oldid=901203191

and must disagree that the inclusion "blatantly violates Wikipedia’s stated goal of (Neutral Point of View)NPOV", as stated by the deleting editor. (Compare "Seward's Folly", for instance, in that regard.)

Opinion: no mention whatsoever ignores the connection completely, which was widely reported in media, and seems contrary to the goal of information here; I do not think the pseudo-acronym should be allowed credence beyond that, as it is a derisive nickname, however widely used by contemporaries. Lindenfall (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comparison: Perhaps it could be handled in a similar manner to how "Seward's Folly" is discussed in William H. Seward#Notes? That page also displays the above cartoon — I believe it is included, despite its clear and utter lack of a WP:NPOV, as an aspect of the history, just as I had presented CREEP as such in the body of the article. Lindenfall (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, inclusion is so far from "blatantly violates Wikipedia’s stated goal of (Neutral Point of View)NPOV" that I'd argue the complete opposite, that completely omitting such a well-known and widely used initialism for this committee is utterly irresponsible for an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 19:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

NapoleonX Ignoring a discussion, and continue on a tiresome edit-war instead, is not constructive re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President&diff=901493750&oldid=901409648 and many more, which led to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President&diff=901493750&oldid=901409648 Edit summaries are not a forum; join the discussion, and we can achieve consensus. Lindenfall (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was given notice of discussion here, and am not usually involved in anything political-like, but i am aware of this term, and think it must be stated/explained at least in the body of the article, if not in the lede. Basically I agree with User:Bkonrad (Older != wiser). I haven't reviewed the edit history here, but I understand there has been some disagreement before, and I think it is best to discuss the topic explicitly here on the Talk page. One editor, User:NapoleonX, has been mentioned as having a different view, which they should state and defend here, please!

Also, this discussion might be elevated by formally designating it to be a Request For Comments (see wp:RFC for instructions) which will cause a formal process to be run, including formal notices of discussion, and eventually a close by an uninvolved administrator. It is okay to use an RFC for many situations, but if the disagreeing parties won't agree to discuss the topic, or if it becomes clear that a local consensus cannot be established, then I think an RFC is even more necessary to bring in others and to establish a formal, wide consensus.--Doncram (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the edit summaries posted was (call this Statement 1): "The pseudo-acronym CREEP which is a partisan nickname is inappropriate in an encyclopedia unless you want to be a Democratic Wikipedia, in which case you should drop the pretense of trying to be NPOV. Richard Nixon was derisively nicknamed “Tricky Dick” but no encyclopedia truly trying to have a NPOV would include that. Yes it’s true the media did start using CREEP but they despised Nixon. Another derisive nickname was applied to Bill Clinton, “Slick Willie” The fact that somebo.."

About that, I say that we do NOT want Wikipedia to be a "Democratic"-party oriented wikipedia, and I agree that "CREEP" was probably a loaded term used relatively more by Democrats than Republicans (although I am not sure about that, and have not attempted to find sources on that assertion). It would be fine and appropriate to include the term AND to explain that it was somewhat derisively used by some, and used more by Democrats than Republicans, if that can be supported by sources. Also I think that "Tricky Dick" and "Slick Willie" should be mentioned as derisive terms that had some sticking power, in their respective articles. (Are they covered or not in the Nixon and Clinton articles, or related articles about their politics or whatever?)

Yes they are covered:

• Tricky Dick redirects to Richard Nixon article, which includes one mention in "Senate" section: "During this campaign, Nixon was first called "Tricky Dick" by his opponents for his campaign tactics." (with footnote to Gellman, Irwin (1999). The Contender. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4165-7255-8. no wikilink to source) No further mention in the Wikipedia article.
• Slick Willie is a disambiguation page which includes link to Bill Clinton article. That includes, in "Public image" section, "Opponents sometimes referred to him as "Slick Willie", a nickname which was first applied to him in 1980 by Pine Bluff Commercial journalist Paul Greenberg;[204] Greenberg believed that Clinton was abandoning the progressive policies of previous Arkansas Governors such as Winthrop Rockefeller, Dale Bumpers and David Pryor.[204] The claim "Slick Willie" would last throughout his presidency.[205]" (sourced to American Frontline:Stories of Bill. Retrieved May 4, 2015 and to Mérida, Kevin (December 20, 1998). "It's Come To This: A Nickname That's Proven Hard to Slip". The Washington Post. Each of those sources are wikilinked). That passage's two mentions are all that it appears.

Seems from 2 examples that the practice, at least sometimes, is to mention the negative nicknames. Further I wonder if there is a policy, guideline, or essay specifically about this issue? --Doncram (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To try to advance things here, what is the explicit wording and sources wanted by those who want "CREEP" to be mentioned? What was deleted was

The abbreviation CREEP was derisively applied to the CRP as a nickname by Nixon's opponents; the pejorative became popular due to the Watergate scandal.

I am not sure that's the best wording and the best sourcing about the topic. --Doncram (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Another edit summary was (call this Statement 2): "This sentence is a politically biased entry. It blatantly violates Wikipedia’s stated goal of (Neutral Point of View)NPOV. I know they wouldn’t allow something like this on the WP page of an organization associated with a Democratic President. Please don’t include it in reference to a Republican political organization, even if it is in connection with the much vilified and demonized President Richard Nixon."

I tend to disagree; I think it is a fact that the term was used, and that its usage was salient and I think it needs to be mentioned. I also think that negative terms, if salient enough, should be included in articles about Democrat party persons. Hmm, I wonder if that means every time Donald Trump comes out with a new tweet labelling a Democrat something negative, do we have to include it into the Democrat's article? Well, probably not, if the label is newly coined and does not really stick (which probably has to be defined somehow). Or maybe those Trumpian labels (or comparable terms coined by Democrats) could be covered best in some article about political campaigns or interactions, not necessarily in the biographies of individual Democrats (or Republicans). But "Tricky Dick" and "CREEP" were really well-established, in an era that was more polite than now, and are certainly "encyclopedic" in my view. --Doncram (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay I can live with CREEP being included in the CRP WP page as long it is not given undue weight. Inclusion at the tail end of the WP page as sort of an aside, without its inclusion in the introduction. NapoleonX (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NapoleonX, just as proposed, and just like it was before you initially deleted it, then. Glad you can finally "live with" an historically accuracy inclusion, after much ado. That you will now stop your stubborn edit war over it was the only consensus we really needed here. We can consider the matter closed. Lindenfall (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bkonrad, Doncram A break in the vigil is nigh re: NapoleonX — "3 months (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NapoleonX

Thank you for playing. And, exhale. Lindenfall (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall: We currently have 4 refs for this article: three are dedicated to "CREEP" and all three say the same thing. (The other reference is for "money laundering" and "slush fund," but the ref mentions neither of these two things, and even the Wiki page for Watergate does not mention money laundering. This page is just awful. But anyway...)

Adding CREEP once in the intro, but in a separate paragraph, would be defensible, since people reading about Nixon or Watergate in media from that era might be confused if they come across "CREEP". I would like to move the third para in History up to the intro and delete CREEP from the intro's first para. 73.190.18.206 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

73.190.18.206 Yes, the article needs work. Should you look through the history and notes above, you will see that it was quite a struggle to right anything in this article, and only CREEP proponents landed that in the lead. "money laundering" must have already been there before, or have been added after my input, because it's not something I'd include unsourced. I tried to improve this article, but so much misguided opposition is a tiresome pain in my neck. (See above and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President&offset=&limit=500&action=history) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President&diff=prev&oldid=901203582 is merely the middle of what the CREEP battle devolved into. I had, at some point, changed the abbreviation from CREEP to CRP, and had wrote: "The abbreviation CREEP was derisively applied to the CRP as a nickname by Nixon's opponents; the pejorative became popular due to the Watergate scandal." I recall CREEP as a widely used prejorative that many mistook as the real acronym. I don't really care if it's also mentioned in the lead, so long as it's in context. Lindenfall (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)