Talk:Barry Goldwater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barry Goldwater has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Barry Goldwater is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

	This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Independent ads? 2 The Party moves right 3 Goldwater's mental health 4 Goldwater as founder of the movement 5 Goldwater and the liberal consensus 6 Quotes section dropped 7 Dropped link 8 Nine holes 9 Needless Daschle Bashing / Goldwater's feat 10 Name change 11 cofounder of arizona naacp 12 Conspiracy Theories 13 Goldwater as a natural born citizen 14 Presidential Medal of Freedom 15 Unnecessary deletion? 16 Religious right 17 Removed "further reading" 18 Other removed material 19 Libel and sanity 20 Goldwater=urine 21 Goldwater v. Carter 22 US Air Force Reserve 23 Paraphrase of Cicero? 24 drink heavily 25 Mental Health 26 Odd citation 27 External source critical of this article 28 Supported by KKK 29 Name 30 Lead

[edit] Independent ads?

Hector, the ad was aired as part of Johnson's campaign, according to every source I have encountered. You may be thinking of the famous "Daisy Girl II" aired against Al Gore in 2000[1], which was created and run by Arelino Industries in Texas, which CBS calls a "mysterious group". These kinds of "non official" ads were largely unknown in the 1960s. From my understqanding, they arose in large part because of limitations of campaign finance that were not enacted until after Watergate. -- Decumanus [2]

[edit] The Party moves right

Did he "moderate his position" or did the Party go off the deep end? Goldwater told Dole in Feb '96: "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"[3]

I'm thinking a little of both, though it had more to do with the Party's movement. --AWF

[edit] Goldwater's mental health

Is it true that Barry Goldwater seeked the help of a psychiatrist, therapist, or in some similar area before he ran for President in 1964. This was taboo at that time and it seems that I recall it affected his ability to win. Please verify.....

The Johnson campaign tried to portray Goldwater as mentally unstable, but I believe you've conflated him with Thomas Eagleton, the McGovern VP nominee who withdrew his name what it was disclosed that he had had psychiatric treatment. Ellsworth 17:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Goldwater as founder of the movement

Cut this sentence:

An original thinker, fearlessly outspoken, he built the political machine that was inherited by Ronald Reagan.

I disagree with the italicized text. After the 1964 election the national Republican party was in a shambles - the Democrats had their largest House and Senate majorities since the Depression, if not since the Civil War. Goldwater certainly didn't "build a political machine" in the sense in which that is ordinarily understood i.e. by winning elections.

The party was brought back to life by the Nixon victory in '68, in which Goldwater had no part - although he did get back into the Senate, winning an open seat.

I tend to concur with Theo Lippman that Reagan was elected president in 1980 primarily because he'd been running for 16 years and the political climate was finally right for him. Ellsworth

The phrase "political machine" may be a poorly chosen one, but the basic point about the continuity between Goldwater and Reagan should be made. The Goldwater campaign not only gave birth to Reagan's political career, it was a watershed moment for the Republican Party, and more specifically, the conservative movement which came to control it. RadicalSubversiv E 00:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe that the sentence as originally written (and perhaps the article as a whole?) gives Goldwater a bit too much credit.

To take just two of the planks of Goldwater's campaign platform: 1. he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws directed at private (as opposed to governmental) economic discrimination against minorities and 2. he favored complete privatization of Social Security.

These ideas were not endorsed by any serious Republican presidential candidate since, and it is questionable whether these positions commanded a majority the national Republican party as a whole - Republicans in Congress favored the CRA of '64 by a large margin, and in fact the Act never would have passed the Senate filibuster if the GOP senators hadn't supported it. Ellsworth 14:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but I think you've phrased those examples far too narrowly. Beginning in 1968, the Republican Party absolutely did put itself squarely in opposition to the civil rights agenda. And social security privatization has become a major cornerstone of Republican domestic policy -- it's just that no presidential candidate has been political suicidal enough to propose doing so all at once. RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "civil rights agenda" shifted over time, so I agree that ultimately the Republican Party found itself at odds with the leaders of the civil rights movement on issues such as forced busing etc. - but many Democrats came into conflict with that agenda as well.

As far as the 1968 date - Nixon proposed the "Philadelphia plan" to use "quotas, goals and timetables" to improve minority participation in government employment and contracting in 1969. So I don't see how 1968 can be regarded as the demarcation line.

And didn't Bill Clinton acknowledge that Social Security is going to need some kind of overhaul in order to keep it from breaking tha bank, and appoint some kind of commission to make recommendations in that regard?

Actually, self, that was Bush, although Clinton set up a commission on the broader issue of "entitlement reform", which went the way of others of its kind... Ellsworth 17:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But, getting back to what's in the article, I think with that sentence removed it's pretty close to being spot-on. Ellsworth 18:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Goldwater and the liberal consensus

In American politics -- and particularly when discussing the 50s and 60s -- referring to someone as a former Communist, especially without any context, is incendiary. You might as well be telling the reader "what follows is extremist dogma which you should ignore." The only thing that's even potentially relevant as background for the comment is that he is a leftist and hence unfriendly to Goldwater. Anyone interested in Hofstadter's views on capitalism-writ-large, which are immaterial to the quotation given, can consult the article about him. RadicalSubversiv E 22:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The passage in contention:

At the time, Goldwater seemed to many to be far out of step with the then-prevailing Cold-War liberal consensus in U.S. politics. Leftist Historian Richard Hofstadter remarked at the time, "When, in all our history, has anyone with ideas so bizarre, so archaic, so self-confounding, so remote from the basic American consensus, ever got so far?" [4]

Why not just drop the quotation the context can't be agreed upon? I hardly consider Hofstadter as being the last word on Goldwater anyway. Or Lewis Lapham, for that matter - the Lapham article that's cited there is just an anti-conservative screed with a few statistical charts thrown in. Lapham goes so far as to refer to the Mongols besieging Vienna, which they never did. Ellsworth 22:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am just going to drop the Lapham article which has since been determined to have other problems with it, such as containing analysis of the 2004 Republican convention as if it had already occurred, which it had not. Ellsworth 15:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with dropping the Hofstader quote (which I introduced), but there should be some remark on the prevailing liberal consensus of the time. Even within the Republican Party, the Goldwater candidacy was seen as an insurgency; this was a party whose leading figures at the time included liberals Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton and where John Lindsay was a rising star; Richard Nixon, who was on the party's ticket in every other presidential election from 1952 to 1972 - that's 5 out of 6 elections - was more or less within the liberal consensus, although certainly at the "right" edge of that consensus politics, nowhere near Goldwater in any event. -- Jmabel 23:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, the quote isn't worth battling over. We do however, as Jmabel says, need to explain that Goldwater was way outside the consensus. I've added a new paragraph in the opening trying to get at that, and inserted a quote from a recent Goldwater biography that tries to get at this issue, as well as the subsequent drastic shift in that consensus. RadicalSubversiv E 23:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the way you did it, I think it gives a broader perspective to the article. Ellsworth 23:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ummm, but I have to say, Perlstein is no more an impartial observer than Lapham or Hofstadter. Did you read his post-mortem Reagan-bashing in Salon.com? Can we maybe balance Perlstein's rather idiosyncratic analogy with something from someone more kindly disposed to Golwaters philosophy? Ellsworth 16:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is Perlstein's analogy in any way derisive of Goldwater? It's merely an attempt to describe the magnitude of the political shift that is largely a result of his political legacy. Yes, Perlstein is a lefty. But he's also a trained historian (I think at the University of Chicago) who's probably written the most comprehensive account of Goldwater's '64 campaign, which has won a fair amount of praise even from conservatives. Moreover, what do his writings on Reagan have to do with anything? RadicalSubversiv E 19:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying, Perlstein besides writing books, has had a fair career as a liberal polemicist. Nothing wrong with that, but it renders his analysis suspect.Ellsworth

No, I don't think it does. The work in question is a scholarly and well-respected one, and thus an appropriate source for a quote. Other works by the writer are immaterial. RadicalSubversiv E 20:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other works I find valuable for two reasons: 1. It gives you an insight into the writer's POV 2. It tells you whether the person is inclined to play fast and loose with the facts. For an example of Perlstein's bloviations on Reagan, Goldwater and conservatives, I give you this salon article. Just on the last three paragraphs, Perlstein berates Reagan for not being able "make peace...with the welfare queens he fabricated" (how do you make peace with someone who you fabricated?) and for not "deign[ing] to publicly acknowledge" AIDS until 1987 - this is way off, see Ronald Reagan. A good analyst will get his facts right no matter how great his antipathy for his subject. Ellsworth

That Perlstein personally has a left POV is certain. What is at issue is whether it seeps into the work, and the quote provided, in such a way that it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. As for the Reagan article, the only fact you've got him on is the AIDS matter, which is a common mistake, based on Reagan's long-standing refusal to address the epidemic in any kind of official way. RadicalSubversiv E 22:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's more, much more, on Perlstein's POV extending to getting the facts wrong than just what I cited. That was just a couple examples. (Should someone who fancies himself a historian be excused for making a "common mistake"?) But that's really a discussion for the article on Perlstein, which has yet to be written.
I will try to parse the quote at a later time. Ellsworth 22:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the quote, I think it injects a needless sexual element into the analysis, that has no analog with the issues in Goldwater's 64 campaign. Ellsworth 20:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but feel free to remove that phrase with an ellipsis if you think it necessary.

Also, "historian" is fine, and probably more accurate. RadicalSubversiv E 20:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll leave it the way it is for now, until I can find something to counterweight it. Ellsworth 21:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes section dropped

I have dropped it, as they all relate to a single subject and there's a link to the Goldwater page on wikiquote. Here's the section as last edited:

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

- From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.

- Response to Jerry Falwell stating he was concerned that Sandra Day O'Connor might be moderate on abortion and other social issues, 1981.

I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.

- Interview by The Advocate

A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.

- Interview to the Los Angeles Times, 1994

By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars...Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?

- Speech to Senate, Sept. 15, 1981

I don't like being called the New Right; I'm an old, old son-of-a-bitch. I'm a conservative.

- Showing his contempt for a new conservative movement focused on Republican Jesse Helms of North Carolina, 1992.

User 24.34.210.33 added a bunch of quotes. The ones that weren't already on wikiquote got added there under "unsourced". I also made a note of it on the discussion page and on the user's talk page.--Rockero 03:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dropped link

This link:

• Extended obituary from the Arizona Republic

doesn't go where it says it does. I'll put it back if I can find the article. Ellsworth 22:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found it, it's back in. Ellsworth 21:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nine holes

The joke about someone half-Jewish being allowed to play nine holes at the restricted golf course is an old one, told about many people. If we are going to mention it here, it should be with a citation (e.g. a particular time Goldwater told the story about himself). It's perfectly likely that he told this story about himself; it's even possible that he actually used the joke in such a situation at a real country club, but it's unlikely that he invented the joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

In his autobiography, "Goldwater," BG attributes this joke to his brother Bob, speaking about HIS brother Barry at "a golf pro tournament near Los Angeles." B. Goldwater adds, "The story got a big laugh, but the incident never occurred." [PaulW3]

Article has been changed accordingly. Thanks. Ellsworth

Incidentally, someone who knows how to work this Wikipedia thing (this is my first visit) should add Goldwater's autobiography to the recommended reading list. It's wonderful reading. The book is: "Goldwater" by Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, copyright 1988, pub. Doubleday, NYC, ISBN 0-385-23947-5 [PaulW3]

Done. Ellsworth 14:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needless Daschle Bashing / Goldwater's feat

Everyone keeps adding back the Tom Daschle bit that I keep erasing. The sentence as it is constructed is inaccurate and is meant to convey an inaccurate impression. Tom Daschle was not the senate Majority Leader, William H. Frist was. Daschle was the Minority Leader when he was defeated. You could possibly say he was a former Majority leader because he had at one point previously been one, however McFarland wasn't a former Majority Leader when he was defeated. John Thune's victory is not equivalent to Goldwater's and bears very little relevance to Barry Goldwater himself. If you wanted an illustrative point for Goldwater’s victory why not look to the previous time it actually happened as opposed to the current time when it didn't quite happen. (unsigned, undated, presumably anonymous, was mid-November 2004 -- this annotation added by Jmabel 22:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC))
Skip next para. for my response. Ellsworth

Have reverted the removal of the sentence that after Goldwater in '52, no one was able to defeat a Senate majority leader for re-election until 2004. This seems pertinent due to its being an unusual occurrence. Discussion? Ellsworth 21:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you accept "last time a Senate Floor Leader was defeated for re-election until 2004"? Ellsworth 23:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or see the latest version. Ellsworth

Careful--Frist defeated the Democratic floor-leader elect. What has all this got to do with Goldwater 30 or 40 years earlier??? Rjensen 10:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying "nobody has defeated a Senate majority leader since" would be both accurate, and sound better for Goldwater, if that's the intention. - Matthew238 09:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Hid this text:

(and changed his name from Goldwasser to Goldwater [It appears that the family was spelling the name "Goldwater" at least as early as the 1860 Census in Los Angeles, California])

Which is it? Please check sources and then put the correct text back in the body of the article. Ellsworth 14:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the goldwater family going back 4 or 5 generations is from russia (no Poland) and changed the name to Goldwater when the family moved to english speaking countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.193.220.242 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.

[edit] cofounder of arizona naacp

seeing what a racist platform he ran on in the 1960s i found the NAACP founding hard to believe. Can someone back it up with a source?--Gary123 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

You'll find mention of this in pretty much any detailed biographical information on Goldwater; I'm pretty sure it's in Perlstein's book, and certainly others. It's important to understand (and perhaps this needs to be clarified), that Goldwater didn't run on a racist platform in the same way that Southern segregationists did. His opposition to much of the 60s civil rights legislation had to do with his political philosophy about the role of government. He had very little taste for appeals to white racism, and fastidiously avoided them until late in the campaign when he felt he had been unfairly smeared. RadicalSubversiv E 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

Exchange between User:FDR and User:Jmabel deleted by mutual agreement 16:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goldwater as a natural born citizen

There was a Supreme Court case deciding that Native Americans/Eskimos were American citizens even though Alaska was not a state. I'll tell you its exact date later. I am not imagining the case. The point is, I doubt the section about their being a potential for constitutional crisis. It should be changed. When I have the time, I'll find the case, cite it, and edit the section myself. And that sentence about a "political consensus" existing after WWII is absurd. Look the word "consensus" up in a dictionary. Or, if we accept hyperboles, then there has been a conservative consensus in the U.S. for the last 25 years. Obviously, neither is the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.168.98 (talk • contribs) 27 Oct 2005.

I imagine that you are right about citizen from birth. But the term "liberal consensus" for US politics from the end of WWII down to the late 1960s or early 1970s is in wide use among political scientists and, yes, there is a different consensus (I'd call it a "free market" consensus more than a conservative consensus) in the country roughly since the 1980 elections). "Consensus" in national politics never means unanimity, it basically means ideological hegemony. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Medal of Freedom

AuH2O is categorized as a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, but there is no mention of the medal in the article. Does anybody know if he was awarded one of the 20,000 PMsoF Truman gave to returning WWII vets? Or was it one of the post-Kennedy medals awarded only to select individuals? I did a cursory web search but was unable to discover anything.--Rockero 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea, but speaking of "AuH₂O", shouldn't we mention this name somewhere seeing as it is one of the most famous, recognizable presidential slogans? Kind of like, "I Like Ike" and the sort? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary deletion?

User:24.180.83.108 removed the last sentence of the introduction that read, "By the end of his life, however, Goldwater had become frustrated with what he saw as the Christian Right's influence on the Republican Party." It seems like an important aspect of his life and politics, it is elaborated on later in the article, and the user has given no reasoning for its removal, neither on the talkpage nor elsewhere. Leads me to suspect POV.... I considered simply reverting it, but I thought I'd see what the community has to say first.--Rockero 18:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been restored. I think that is the right decision. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious right

In section "Goldwater and the revival of American conservatism", I cut the reference to the "totalitarian ideology" of the religious righ. To the best of my knowledge, Goldwater never referred to the "totalitarian ideology" of the religious right, and this is putting words into his mouth. If I am wrong, please cite where he said something to this effect, and restore. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "further reading"

The following "further reading" has been removed. Since I have no reason to think it's particularly on topic, I'm not restoring. On the other hand, I really don't like having nearly uncommented, undiscussed mass deletion of material.

• Clark, Jerome. The UFO Encyclopedia, Volume One: UFO's in the 1980's; Apogee Books, 1990, ISBN 1558883010
• Wendland, Michael F. 1988. The Arizona Project: How a team of investigative reporters got revenge on deadline Mark Siegel; Revised edition (August 1, 1988) ISBN 0945165021

-- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other removed material

I'm not going to try to exhaustively list everything that was recently removed—it's there in the history, if someone wants to look—but the following seem to me like they belong in the article.

Goldwater used to tell a joke about his brother Bob being told at a golf course, "You can't play here, this is a restricted course," to which he responded "I'm only half Jewish...is it all right if I only play nine holes?" In his autobiography he remarks, "The story got a big laugh, but the incident never occurred."

This was a joke Goldwater told repeatedly. I think it casts and interesting light on his relation to a partially Jewish identity. It is the only mention of this other than mention of his father's conversion. If this is gone, something else should be in the article related to that.

Hard to pigeonhole, he began as a reform Democrat, served as a friend and colleague of Joseph McCarthy to the bitter end (one of only 22 Senators who voted against McCarthy's censure), developed a deep friendship with President John F. Kennedy and a lasting dislike for Lyndon B. Johnson, whom he said "used every dirty trick in the bag", and Richard Nixon, whom he later called "the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life" (though he was a key ally of Nixon during his administration).

The article now has no mention that he was ever a Democrat, no mention of being one of the roughly 1/5 of the Senate who opposed McCarthy's censure (in general, discussion of his anti-Communism has been much reduced), no mention of friendship with JFK, no mention of his disliking Nixon, and lacks the "used every dirty trick in the bag" quote about Johnson. All of these seem to me to round out the portrait of the man. It's hard to see how dropping that enhances a portrait of the man.

Also, his interest in UFOs has also now been relatively downplayed, what with dropping Clark's description of him almost losing his friendship with Curtis LeMay over the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In a serious article we should avoid jokes. Yes, most politicians tell jokes. His religion was Episcopal; his ethnic heritage was Jewish. Article says that; No jokes needed. Was his interest in UFO's serious? Not according to the material that was cut out. (Here's a powerful US Senator and committee chairman who could have made speeches or held Senate hearings if he thought UFOs were true, but he never did. Whoever inserted the item added three books on UFOs!) Did he support McCarthy? Yes, that should be included, because that was an important public act and tied to his anti-communism, which is important. Mention that as a youth before he got into politics he was a Democrat? That is a small point but it could go in. (The more important point is that he was a major player in moving Ariz from Dem to GOP in 1950-52.) Was he friends with many Senators, and disliked some, and made wise cracks about some? Yes, but that is trivia and does not belong. People who want gossip should read a popular biography or a supermarket tabloid (re UFO) not an encyclopedia.Rjensen 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked on the UFO story, and indeed Goldwater in 1994 told Larry King he believed there were alien life forms. As the article notes, he was becoming senile. The letter to a constituent was staff written--the sort of thing congression staff write to true believers. Rjensen 13:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm usually on the other side of these arguments, trying to strip out relative trivia (and I really don't care that much either way about the UFO thing) but I think some of these changes have tended to remove his humanity from the article. His friendships did not follow party lines, and he was outspoken in his views on other prominent politicians of the era. Both are unusual. I think the article should reflect that. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything unusual here. Before the 1990s cross-party friendships were the norm in Washington. He and Kennedy were freshmen senators together and often were at the same parties, where they chatted. Goldwater was not especially friendly with Kennedy. He did have occasional snide remarks about people, but that was not especially noteworthy. So let's skip the gossip and focus more on his actions. For example, much more is needed on his labor policy (where again he collaborated with the Kennedys). Rjensen 05:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

i would like to note that according to several encyclopedia refrences i have read Barry was a big antisemite and probably wouldant of said anything like that..... is this true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.193.220.242 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.

[edit] Libel and sanity

I cut this:

Before the 1964 election, a muckraking magazine, Fact, published by Ralph Ginzburg, polled psychiatrists on whether Goldwater was psychologically fit to be President. Most of the psychiatrists said no. (Goldwater had had a nervous breakdown in his youth.) After the election, Goldwater sued for libel--and a jury awarded him $75,000 against Goldwater and the magazine, and $1 against Ginzburg, the magazine, and Warren Boroson, an editor at the magazine. Boroson claims that the main biography of Goldwater in the magazine was actually written by David Bar-Illan, the Israeli pianist.

For starters: citation? But assuming that is forthcoming, this is incoherent: "After the election, Goldwater sued for libel--and a jury awarded him $75,000 against Goldwater and the magazine, and $1 against Ginzburg, the magazine, and Warren Boroson" The jury awarded Goldwater $75,000 against Goldwater and the magazine??? Work out what you mean to say, cite your source. I suppose that if true this would merit mention in Wikipedia (it is very hard for a public figure to win a libel case in the U.S., so if he won, that certainly belongs in Wikipedia somewhere), though perhaps more in terms of libel law or Ginzburg than in terms of Goldwater (I don't see the point in a short biographical article of raising a libelous accusation, only to say it was dismissed as libelous). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

case from findlaw. Oh, and you might like this article too. Kotepho 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's in, but with Boroson spelled Borrenson so he's still got a bitch. 209.6.189.247 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) corrected that 209.6.189.247 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, glad it's fixed. I will point out, with reference to Boroson's published comments, that when I cut this:

1. "…a jury awarded him $75,000 against Goldwater and the magazine…" was incoherent to the point of making a nonsense of what was being stated. How do you award against both sides of a case?
2. No citation was provided in the article, which is where the citation belongs.
3. The fact that he was a primary source was irrelevant, until he published elsewhere. I'm not necessarily thrilled with this, but WP:NOR applies even if you are involved in the events in question. I think we should come up with some equivalent of an affidavit for cases like this, but we haven't. There are quite a few of us who have been involved in historically important events or institutions who would probably like at times to write about obscure or controversial matters solely from our personal knowledge and experience, but we are not supposed to. - Jmabel | Talk 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• You were polite and considerate. Boroson was not. Vote is 2-1 against NOR easing. 209.6.189.247 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think 'polite' is pushing it; he wasn't exactly kind. I agree that him being a primary source does not matter, but I would at least try to verify it. Kotepho 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And so you did - footnote reads "Wikipedia site filled with major mistakes", April 11, 2006. Boroson feels he went overboard in that column - fact not published yet. Wikien-l figured Jmabel's original pluck-and-ask was right on. One may always constrain oneself to be nicer. It's a challenging area. 209.6.189.247 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldwater=urine

It would be interesting to note that, according to Bill Bryson in his book The Mother Tongue, names like "goldwater" were in fact imposed on families during periods of subjugation. The name means urine. It is a testimate to the american dream that a family named "Goldwater" could rise so high. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.240.45.155 (talk • contribs) 5 Feb 2006.

i am a Goldwater and i would like to point out that the name has nothing to do with urine. i am not sure exactly what i means but i am led to belive that it has something to do with wine. also based on your theary it could also refer to liquid sulfer because of its yellow colour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.193.220.242 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.

[edit] Goldwater v. Carter

The article says that "Goldwater went so far as to challenge the constitutionality of President Jimmy Carter's policies towards the Panama Canal in the famous Supreme Court case of Goldwater v. Carter." This is incorrect, as the accurate linked article on Goldwater v. Carter indicates. Goldwater v. Carter concerned American relations with Taiwan. It had nothing to to with the Panama canal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.43.162 (talk • contribs) 28 Feb 2006.

[edit] US Air Force Reserve

I don't understand how Goldwater could serve in the Air Force reserve and serve in the US Senate at the same time, even running for President while serving in the reserve. - Matthew238 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem being? - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• He organized the 9999th Air Reserve Group, a group comprised of Congressmen and staff members. Geekboy72 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphrase of Cicero?

Although this article and numerous websites describe BG's extremism quote as a paraphrase of Cicero, I haven't found any similar quote by Cicero. A more likely inspiration is from Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man: "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 17 April 2006.

[edit] drink heavily

"He began to drink heavily, a health issue he never completely overcame."

IMHO this needs clarification. Is it meant to say that his heavy drinking caused physical problems? or do you mean to say that he was an alcholic who continued to drink heavily, and that alcholoism is a health issue? Was his drinking even a problem? Did he have driving or social incidents?

The whole statement is unclear and unsupported. I have no opinion about the vaildity of what the author is trying to say, but suggest that the statement be clarified and supported, or deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.146.61 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.

[edit] Mental Health

"(Goldwater had had a nervous breakdown in his youth.)" Could someone expand or give a link or reference to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.85.217 (talk • contribs) July 20, 2006.

[edit] Odd citation

I don't see the relevance of the web link in the reference at the end of the paragraph that begins "The Goldwater campaign spotlighted Ronald Reagan". It's to the online first chapter of a Bush biography. Goldwater is not even mentioned. I take it that a different chapter of the book may be relevant; fine; but why link an irrelvant chapter? - Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External source critical of this article

[5].--BigCow 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

well the author seems to think "I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge." In charge? actually he lost a lawsuit when Goldwater sued him -- a nasty situation for an arrogant person, no matter how bright his wit. Rjensen 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supported by KKK

There's a good image of KKK members supporting Goldwater at [6]. Wonder if this could/should be worked into the article somehow. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the photo shows 3 anonymous people in a publicity stunt. The article is about Goldwater--what did he say about the kkk. Rjensen 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know very little about Goldwater. I thought perhaps there was some reason the KKK liked him, but there's nothing about this in the article. The photo could illustrate something about his relationship with the KKK, if in fact he had one. If not, then no biggie. howcheng {chat} 02:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

50-50 that something like this was a stunt instigated by opponents. As the article makes it clear, Goldwater was never a segregationist, he just believed that some desegregationist fedeal legislation exceeded what he saw as the federal government's powers. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Someone keeps changing the name in the infobox to "B.M. Goldwater". I cannot think of him ever using this form of his name. But it doesn't seem worth an edit war. So I will allow at least seven days for someone to explain the rationale for this before I revert again. Still, if no good rationale is forthcoming, I plan to revert. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

We've lost quite a bit of the former lead in the last month or so. Pretty much everything that was removed seems to me to have been more or less on the mark. As far as I can tell on a quick scan, it has not simply been placed elsewhere in the article, either. Do we really want to remove all of this? - Jmabel | Talk 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we are getting some rather hagiographical writing: "…while supporters considered him an honest and honorable defender of the Constitution." - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel makes a good point and I tried to fix it. Note that Goldwater played a minor role 1965-1980 in conservative politics and had little to do with Reagan or Reaganism.Rjensen 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely improved but "a younger generation… including Ronald Reagan"? Reagan was barely two years younger than Goldwater. - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reagan's followers were a lot younger than Reagan or Goldwater. The point is that after 1965-66 or so they were not following Goldwater but instead began following Reagan. Rjensen 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but that doesn't make Reagan himself part of a younger generation. I'll reword, if no one has beaten me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC) You beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)