Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murray Chotiner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:26, 7 April 2009 [1].

Murray Chotiner[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA criteria. I've been doing considerable work on the article, and I think it is a compelling story of an enigmatic man who is known as an adviser to Nixon, in first this would be the first Nixon aide to reach FA (unless you count Pat!) Also, the 100th anniversary of Chotiner's birth is coming up in October, so no time like the present. I even went to Chotiner's grave (about five miles from my home) and took pix. The article heavily relies on fee articles, but that's just one of those things. Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TEcH. Review
  • The following ref name is used more than once to name a ref, when it should only be naming one specific ref
  • vin

--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that has been fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A couple of prose niggles:-
    • Lead: can you do something about three successive sentences in the second paragraph beginning "Chotiner..."?
    • Lead: the name Chotiner is annoyingly over-repeated in the final paragraph, too. A little rephrasing will fix this.

I imagine Voorhis will be coming up soon and I'll look forward to that. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes and caught a couple of typos, hopefully the last. Yes, Voorhis is coming up, but as I have one of his books on order, and it is next in line at GAN, I figured I'd hold off for a bit. Hope you will strike your comments and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I better read the article first. Will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • General: A most interesting account of a shadowy figure who exists around the edges of most Nixon biographies and the Watergate books. Good to see some solid flesh and bones. The prose needs a bit of attention, though. The habit encountered—and now corrected—in the lead, of over-repetition of the name Chotiner, continues in the article (sometimes, other names are over-repeated, too). It's not just a case of substituting with pronouns, sometimes rephrasing is necessary. For example the inelegant "Chotiner initially practiced law with Jack Chotiner" could easily be replaced by saying that the Chotiner brothers practiced law together, especially as the name Chotiner appears twice more later in the same sentence. I suggest that the rest of the article is thoroughly checked out for the recurrence of this fault—this could have been done if the article had been to peer review. I always wonder about the wisdom of making FAC the first formal review of an article.
  • A problem that occurs in many biographical articles is defining what constitutes "early life". In this case the section takes us to 1946 when Chotiner was 37. This is not all early life. It might be "Early life and career", or you might split the section, but it shouldn't be left as it is. Likewise, not all the "Rise of Richard Nixon (1946-56)" section deals with the rise of Nixon - see Chotiner personal details at the end. Also, I'd say that as Nixon was elected vice president in 1952, he had "risen" by then. The date range in the title might suggest that he was not prominent before 1956.
  • The following are examples of sentences that I found troublesome:
    • "Albert Chotiner, a cigar maker by trade, managed a chain of movie theatres in California, and soon left the family, leaving Murray and his older brother, Jack Chotiner, as the sole support of their mother."
      • First, I think this is two sentences; the first "and" connects unrelated clauses
      • "He soon left the family". The last date reference we have is 1920. If Chotiner Sr left the family soon after 1920, it is hard to see how Murray, aged 11 or 12, can have been one of the "sole supports" of their mother. Do we have nothing more precise about when the father left?
      • Is it possible for two people to be "sole" supports?
    • "Chotiner coined the campaign slogan, "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER" for Knowland, implying that Democratic challenger Will Rogers, Jr. would do just that." First, why the caps? Second, it's not at all clear what Rogers was going to surrender. Rather than end the sentence with "would do just that", you should explain what "just that" is.
    • "Chotiner helped persuade Eisenhower's backers to advocate for Nixon, rather than Knowland, as General Eisenhower's running mate." As the paragraph is mainly about the vice presidential nomination, the last five words are pretty redundant. I would cut them, thereby avoiding another repetition.
    • "Chotiner had previously suggested that Nixon run a "permanent campaign" throughout his six-year senatorial term, avoiding the need for such a fund." Not clear what this means - why would the need for such a fund be avoided by this action?
    • In the "Death and legacy" section, first sentence, the words "in fact" are redundant. I wonder, too, whether the words "and legacy" are redundant, since he doesn't seem to have one - I'd hardly say "Chotiner's law" qualifies as a legacy, and I think you should clarify that it is an informal law, like Murphy's or Sod's, rather than a statute.
    • Top points for visiting and photographing Chotiner's grave – but while you were there you might have cleaned up the stonework so the rest of us can read the inscription.

I have picked up the odd typo. On the whole this is a strong article which I am inclined to support when the above points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The issues will take probably until the weekend, as I am presently away and will not have the sources with me until Saturday. A few quick things. The capped slogan is as per the original. I think the cemetery would have a fit if I started bringing cleaning chemicals there, so I guess that's the best I can do. We had to have one free image, that will have to do. I'm trying to find out more about Chotiner's childhood, but will rephrase to avoid the point. It begs the question of why his mother didn't work, but the Morris book says his mother was "difficult", there may have been illness. Anyhow, I won't get to most of this until tomorrow and will finish on the weekend. I'm going to delete the whole Knowland for VP thing, because I now have a source that says that Knowland was offered the job and turned it down. I am going to restructure the 1946-1960 part of the article to make it align with Nixon's jobs. Congress, VP. It is the best way to do it, I think, and will of course modify the headings.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time: my remarks about the stonework were intended as graveyard humour.Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I addressed it in case anyone didn't get it. Progress report: I've addressed all but the "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER" (I want to quote the passage from the book and get reaction), the permanent campaign (that was put in by someone else and I'm going to consult references) and I've left it as "Death and legacy", it is a fairly conventional way of ending an article, and I don't have a better title offhand. "Death" seems kinda short.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reference to Richard Nixon's memoirs, which was the cite inserted by another editor to support the info about the campaigning through the six year term (I modified the information when it was inserted, to what I thought it meant), there is not enough info to see exactly what Chotiner was proposing, so i am deleting the passage about the permanent campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact language, which I heavily borrowed from due to the same uncertaintly as to what he meant that you had, page 292 of Morris, is "In 1946 he (Chotiner) was able to work only part-time on the Nixon campaign because he was also helping to manage William Knowland's reelection to the Senate. For that run he had coined the slogan "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER," a motto in which he managed, characteristically, to convey that the Democratic opponent, Will Rogers Jr., contemplated doing just that." I can certainly switch it to lower case, and put a comment in that the original was all caps. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My main points, detailed above, have beeen largely addressed in a genial fashion, though I'd still like to know what Rogers was being accused, however cryptically, of surrendering. I could go on quibbling about unimportant things, but I'll save us the time. This is a comprehensive and well-researched article that illuminates some murky corners of presidential politics to the great shock of us innocent Brits - do the likes of Chotiner still operate? While you're in this genre, why not try Dick Tuck next? Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've thought about Tuck, but so much of what Tuck did is disputed it would be hard to write a factual article. While Chotiner is gone, I suspect he influenced negative campaigning for all time, though he did not begin it. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
I fixed this for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, you put newspaper article titles in quotation marks (not italics) and the newspaper itself in italics. While I won't oppose over this (since you're consistent within the page) it's distinctly different than most and you may get folks objecting later because of it.
You don't need to have them in bold .. I fixed it for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll clean up my other articles based on this, when I have some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 34 (Smith, Howard K..) is lacking a last access date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the Monad article that isn't in the LA Times article, other than the fact that Heinlein turned to Scince Fiction, which is hardly contentious. I will take it out if you want, but it seems to me to be helpful to have. I'll leave it up to you. I'll dispose of the other issues later in the day, can't do it now. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made all your changes, Ealdgyth. I removed both refs. I had a backup ref for the 1938 race. I removed the info that people thought he, not Mitchell, was running the Nixon campaign, because I have no backup there. I'll read through my Nixon refs in a bit and see if I can find anything. It is a tidbit, but we can easily do without it. Who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - The copyrighted image File:Chotiner.jpg is unjustified, for an individual with involment at such high levels in the US, it is implausible there is not a free image taken by the US federal government Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. I will look for one, but I'd point out to you that Chotiner was a Federal employee for less than two years, and was not an original member of the Nixon White House staff. Therefore, there may not be one, or it may not be available with ordinary effort, and it may not be possible to act on your oppose. Note that for much of his career, Chotiner was a campaign official, and the Federal government would not routinely take photographs of such officials. I will make a serious effort to find one, though. Meanwhile, can you point at some language in the policy on images which supports your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point out that of Chotiner's three fellow White House counsels of the time, two have articles, Charles Colson and Clark Mollenhoff, and neither have free use pictures. While other crap exists, of course, it is evidence that people at Chotiner's level did not regularly have free use photos made. And of course Chuck Colson was far more prominent than Chotiner ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Mattisse has been kind enough to add on to the fair use rationale of that image, and I've fine tuned that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the internet by any means I know how, and I find no free use picturs of Chotiner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Fasach Nua to revisit his oppose, he has refused. The oppose is not consistent with WP:WIAFA; as I can't prove a negative, I will ask that the oppose be disregarded as unactionable. That being said, I'll look into offline possibilities. I'm not holding my breath though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that today's TFA, Barthélemy Boganda has only a fair use image, plus a user-created image of his country's flag. I really don't think that Fasach Nua's oppose is very well made.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to revisit my oppose, and after careful consideration I did, [2], and found the original assessment to be valid and the oppose stood. I do not appreciate being misrepresented in this forum. As for one particular article using copyrighted material, it should be noted that FU is based on WP:NFCC which deals with contribution and education, and nothing so meaningless as a quota system for non-free content. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I said revisit, I really meant "change" or "withdraw" at least. I am sorry if my inexact terminology offended you, and as I posted diffs, I don't think there was any "misrepresentation". Still, you are asking me to prove a negative, and your oppose is not consistent with WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This well written article has become wonderfully rounded out since I read it last. The complex and subtle details of the sleazy political operations of this under-the-radar political operative draws the reader into the article. I am surprised so much information was able to be unearthed. The article carefully referenced from a number of well-rounded sources. Compelling to read. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • One nit pick: references should always come after punctuation, including dashes, and not before. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:FN#Ref_tags_and_punctuation: "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but jeez, Mattisse, having it after a dash looks ridiculous! I'll just rephrase to eliminate the dash.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I got smacked down for that very thing on these pages once! It's just for your own good! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess so. Well, I changed it. It is like the old adage about "who" and "whom", "When whom is proper, rephrase so it isn't."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had seen the article previously in doing some updates to other Nixon-related articles and the work that has been done to expand and source the article is impressive. This is an excellent model for expansion of other such articles. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not happy with the writing yet. Taking time off this damned poll to look at interesting stuff here; I'd like to find this in better state before it's promoted.
  • "a close associate and friend of Richard Nixon during much of President Nixon's political career." Tension between "Richard Nixon" and "President Richard Nixon". I'd shift the "Pr" to the first item, and make the second just his surname ...? Oh, but then we find that he was a friend before the presidency. Need to fix this. "Richard Nixon, who became the ?34th Pres. of the US ...".
  • "Chotiner was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; his father moved the family to California and then abandoned it. He attended UCLA, and then ...". His father abandoned California or his family? His father attended UCLA? Please go through and check for such ambiguities.
  • "he became a part of several political campaigns"—bit awkward ... "played an active role in"?
  • Why is "communism" with a capital C, and twice?
  • Is "operative" pejorative? I'd have thought it had a negative tinge. Is that OK?
  • You could probably remove "which" in the last sentence of the second para.
  • I think we shouldn't have to hit the link to "influence-peddling" to learn why Congress would be investigating it. Is it, was it, a crime?

Can you get someone new to run through the whole text? Tony (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes you have suggested, making it clear exactly why Congress was investigating Chotiner, and have asked Mattisse to give the article a once-over. I left one capitalized communism in, by the way, as it is a direct quote. If she can't do it, I'll see if I can find someone else. Thank you as always for your honest feedback. I don't ask that people love my articles, all I ask is that they tell me what they think, because as you have noted, it is hard to be objective about your own prose. I'm going to have to leave a note on your talk page when this is done, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse went through the article pretty thoroughly and did her usual fine job, and then I took a pass through it myself and cleared up a few stylistic things. I think that takes care of that, and I'll leave a note on Tony's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be a nattering nabob of negativity, it's unfortunate that Fasach Nua's valid point about File:Chotiner.jpg is being dismissed. There is indeed a reasonable expectation that a federal employee in Chotiner's capacity would have been photographed by a federal employee - if not in his role as advisor/manager, then perhaps as an attorney. LIFE apparently found opportunity and reason to photograph him. NFCC#1 does not provide consideration of effort. "Ordinary effort" is not a threshold and, if an effort threshold is even implied, it would likely be "reasonable effort". Indeed, we can't expect nominators to prove a negative, but we can expect more than an mere internet search. For example, only a small fraction of the LoC's archives have been digitalized; a web search is not sufficient. Was the LoC consulted? Эlcobbola talk 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, it is and it isn't, actually. I don't think it is necessary per WP:WIAFA, for sure. That being said, I'd like to have a free use photo in there, it is more useful, you don't have to worry about it getting argued about, and if this article is promoted, I'd like to see it TFA for the 100th anniversary of his birth in October. So I've done some research into where to look. The place to go really isn't the LoC, but the National Archives Nixon room in College Park, and I'm going to try to get there soon, I've been travelling a lot so it hasn't been possible. I've spoken with Jason Shultz at NARA and while they won't do research for you, they have many pictures that are not accessible by Web. But if I find some, they will have to be reproduced, and that will take a bit of time. That basically is why I haven't discussed this before, it is still a bit indefinite and I can't make guarantees on timeframe.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as WIAFA and NFCC are currently written, it isn't necessary (thus the reason I've only commented, not opposed). There aren't defined expectations for the level of thoroughness/diligence to be exercised in investigating the existence of free alternatives. That said, given that there is a not unreasonable expectation that a free image exists it is, again, unfortunate that only a rudimentary search was done before submitting to FAC (there's no deadline). Whether Fasach Nua's oppose can be considered actionable is, thankfully, a decision out of my hands. Thanks, though, for the nice article and the opportunity to use one of my favourite quotes. Agnew was quite the character. Эlcobbola talk 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Agnew is on my list of possible article improvement projects. However, odds are I'll never get there, since it is well down the list and new projects keep suggesting themselves. I should note that I live only 30 miles from College Park, so it is at least possible for me to go there, and I don't mind spending money on reproductions. Were I a college kid in Mississippi or Edmonton, it probably wouldn't be possible, since I could not have afforded to go or hire someone to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I forgot: NFCC#10A requires attribution of a copyright holder. If a non-free image is to stay, would using one of the aforementioned LIFE images be acceptable? Frankly, I think they're aesthetically superior and use would allow us to properly attribute a copyright holder. Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Let me look at the LIFE images, but first see what NARA can do for me if I can get over there tomorrow. If I can't, it may be early May before I can again. Busy, busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, LIFE photographed him because Chotiner (who was not a federal employee then) was subpoenaed before a Senate committee in 1956, and it was a major story. It's all in the article. Doesn't mean a federal employee would. However, there is a good chance that the Nixon library may have some, we'll see. If they don't, I think I will have made a good faith effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent 2 hours searching through databases of old journals, newspapers, books, and legal documents for images of Chotiner (including the NYTimes database going back to 1851). I found absolutely nothing in terms of free use images, one image attributed to the associated press (emailed to Wehwalt), and another image of Chotiner sitting with Nixon that had no attribution at all. --auburnpilot talk 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above and beyond, AP! Anyhow, if I get out of court at a reasonable hour, I'm going over to College Park. Thing is, I understand parking is limited, they make you watch a power point presentation before beginning research, all that good stuff. We'll see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Murray_Chotiner&oldid=1138467350"