Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Lyndon B. Johnson is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Wikipedia CD Selection Lyndon B. Johnson is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Lyndon B. Johnson 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 Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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.

Contents

[edit] OBVIOUS REVISION / CONTRADICTION

It says at top he withdrew because "his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his party." But later in the article it says he withdrew because massive antiwar sentiment (29% public approval is the figure cited) stood in the way of him being renominated.

Why lie at the top and tell the truth at the bottom?

Let's do this:

"Turmoil in his party" is a nice and uncontroversial (therefore fair) reason to give, so it should be preserved in it's present place. However, the bottom section will need to be gutted and something more optimistic, but not contradicting to earlier revisionism, be published instead.

Here is an example of what nobody would like to see at the top: "...his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of widespread public disapproval with the war".

there are no "lies" -- the two statements describe the same situation. The Vietnam situation was the last straw in 1968, but there were multiple factors, such as race riots and the strong sense that LBJ had lost control. The Dem party was splitting 4 ways (LBJ-Humphrey, Kennedy, McCarthy, Wallace) and each goup despised the other 3. That made reelection highly unlikely. Dropping out opened up new possibilities--LBJ might become a hero by ending the war. Rjensen 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You are deliberately trying to obfuscate the reason why Johnson withdrew from the race: widespread opposition to his Vietnam policies.
Here is the text you added to the 1968 section to make it correlate with the lie in the introductory section (That he withdrew because of "turmoil" within his party)...


"Johnson had lost control of the Democratic party, which was splitting into four factions, each of which despised the other three. The first comprised Johnson (and Humphrey), labor unions, and local party bosses (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley; the second group comprised students and intellectuals who were vociferous against the war, and rallied behind McCarthy. The third group comprised Catholics, ethnics and blacks; they rallied behind Robert Kennedy. The fourth group were traditional white Southerners, who rallied behind George C. Wallace and his third party. Vietnam was one of many issues that splintered the party. and Johnson could see no way to united the party long enough for him to win reelection. On the other hand, he could avoid defeat in November by withdrawing from the race, keeping control of the party machinery by giving the nomination to Humphrey, and assure his place in history by ending the war before the election.[1]"


First off, the Democratic Party, just as the Republican party to a lesser extent, already existed as a factious party, and always has. In fact, most political parties don't exist in the hegemonious state which you seem to infer. The "factions" you mentioned, such as the "blacks", "ethnics", "vociferous student intellectuals", and "traditional whites" (oh, such wonderful bias!) had already existed well before the 1968 primaries. So, unless you can find reasonable evidence that these "factions" did not exist before, and were indeed created by the 1968 primary election, and ultimately led to Johnson's withdrawal, I expect any mention of them to be excised from the article. Simply stating that "a bunch 'a factions happened" doesn't make it so.
Johson withdrew because widespread opposition to his Vietnam policies rendered him incapable of being renominated. Only four years earlier he had won the highest percentage of the popular vote in modern history. In 1968, with no credible Democratic challenger, he didn't even bother campagning for renomination. However, the Tet Offensive had severely diminished public support for the war by the time of the New Hampshire primary (Mar12), when McCarthy scored a surprising 42% to Johnson's 49%. A Gallup poll conducted that month found that only 36% approved of his conduct of the presidency (v. 48% in January, before Tet); only 26% approved of his conduct of the war (v. 39%). [Time, Apr. 5, 1968]. "A variety of pollsters reported that "frustration" with Johnson's Vietnam policy was eroding the president's general approval rating.(1)" "Previous research concerning the impact of the war's declining popularity on Johnson's falling job rating is echoed in the White House's own analysis (Mueller 1973; Page and Shapiro 1992, esp. 228-32)."
The "factions" you mention already existed. It was widespread opposition to the war which rendered Johnson incapable of retaining his party's unified support. Robert Kennedy's anti-war candidacy rendered renomination unimaginable. Thus, it was antiwar sentiment that forced Johnson to withdraw. I cannot find a more clear and concise reason.
Minor points:
You also say that each "faction" within the Democratic party at this time "despised" the other three. This sounds like nonsense from a childrens book. Isn't it enough to say they had opposing agendas? Please, teach us how they "despised" each other.
When was it ever the presidents job to "control" his party? Is this really the way you look at things? It would seem to me that most presidents and their parties would consider the office-holder to serve the party, rather than "control" it. Does GWBush "control" the Republican Party? I can see little evidence of it, but plenty to the contrary. (You seem to have a rather cynical view of democratic process, leading me to wonder if you are even American.)
Also, you state as a reason for withdrawal to "assure his place in history" by "ending the war before the election". Since when did it become a legitimate presidential function, especially during wartime, to "assure one's place in history"? This, like everything else you've written, seems rather ignorant.
PS. In August of '68, Gallup found for the first time that a majority of Americans, 53%, said it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam.


(1) LBJ, Moyers, Box 12, Memo to Moyers from Redmon (regarding conversation with George Gallup), September 27, 1966; LBJ, Panzer, Box 215, "A Survey of the Political Climate in Nassau County, New York" (forwarded to LBJ, September 7, 1966), by Quayle, August 1966.
Mueller, John. 1973. War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: John Wiley.
Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1983. Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review 77:175-90.
--. 1992. The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans' policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wiki's job is not to do original research but to explain the consensus of scholars on the matter. The revised section tries to do that and is documented from the leading scholars. The Dem party lost heavily in the 1966 elections--when urban riots were an issue but not Vietnam. Fact is LBJ had held together the competing factions in 1964 for a landslide, they slipped away in 1966-68. Was Vietnam an important issue? yes, it was one of several. And please don't call editors ignorant--insults are not allowed in Wikiland. Meanwhile try reading the main biographies by Dallek and Woods. They will show this sentence is simply false: Johson withdrew because widespread opposition to his Vietnam policies rendered him incapable of being renominated....In 1968, with no credible Democratic challenger, he didn't even bother campagning for renomination. Rjensen 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Wiki's job is not to do original research but to explain the consensus of scholars on the matter."
I see. So we are only to use Primary Sources in service of Secondary Sources. That is what you are saying. I read otherwise.
"The revised section tries to do that and is documented from the leading scholars."
Why are these scholars not cited? Who do they lead? How are they different from orthodox scholars?
"The Dem party lost heavily in the 1966 elections--when urban riots were an issue but not Vietnam."
Which 1966 elections are you referring to? The "Dem" party did not lose "heavily" in the congressional elections. In fact, it maintained an overwhelming majority in both houses (enough to advance any agenda necessary to maintain party cohesion, I suppose).
"Fact is LBJ had held together the competing factions in 1964 for a landslide, they slipped away in 1966-68."
Can this statement be put into empirical terms? When exactly did the party "slip away"? Is the factional rift reflected in the election results of either 1966 or '68? Is it reflected in polling data?
"Was Vietnam an important issue? yes, it was one of several."
You previously mentioned "race riots" (is that term still widely used?). Are you speculating that the "Dem party" "slipped apart" after the "race riots" caused a "massive white backlash"? And that this division would have prevented Johnson from regaining the nomination? Is this the operative editorial position with respect to Johnson's decision to withdraw?
"And please don't call editors ignorant--insults are not allowed in Wikiland."
Sorry, I'm new here. I will restrain myself from making insults if you restrain your sloppy hands from making edits.
"Vietnam was not an issue in November 1966 Election?" Ha ha that is comically hilarious, someone is living in La La land... Young men were getting drafted... see United States House election, 1966... Before they even took their seats, there was a human bein in Haight, by Summer 67 over 100,000 young people were flocking there for the Summer of Love... It was a year of big change, yes Vietnam was a big issue and everyone knew it by that time...  :=o(

[edit] Warren Commission

I removed the biased and somewhat irrelevant paragraphs about the activities of the Warren Commission, those are best addressed elsewhere, not in the "policies" section of this bio. Kmerian 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but I guess an admin though that the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist were relevant to the Policies of LBJ. Kmerian 01:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domino Theory Speech

The article says he alluded to this theory in a speech. Does anyone know the date?--HistoricalPisces 16:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

he often referred to it private (recorded in the LBJ tapes) but I don't know of any public reference.

[edit] Caro Quote

Does anyone know about this vote rigging from Caro? It's a controversial thing to put in here, but if he really did prove it then it's certainly noteworthy. DirectorStratton 02:21, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how we can possibly assert that an author proved something like this "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's clearly POV. I'm leaving in the reference but deleting the passage that tells the reader what conclusion to draw. JamesMLane 22:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Caro interviewed numerous people and presents a huge amount of evidence, but "proven" is a strong word. The man's dead, so he has no way to answer the charges. I don't know that there's anyone who challenges it though.

I did make a minor correction, the vote rigging was alleged to have occured in Duval County not Jim Wells County. 16:59 10 April 2006

[edit] Some Additions Needed

New to this but I think someone needs to add some more details re: LBJ's civil rights initiatives and his work to help get the bills passed. This article, like much LBJ history unfortunately, dwells too much on a Vietnam war inherited from Kennedy and not enough on the positives. Someone should also mention his Whitehouse taping system and the remarkable historical record they are (as well as foreshadowing considering the trouble Nixon got into with taping.)

Regarding the earlier question about Caro's comments on the 1948 primary, Caro's assertions have been reported by others for years. I wrote a term paper on Johnson in the 1970's and found multiple sources that said the same thing as Caro. I would agree that Caro saying he clearly proved the allegation is solely Caro's opinion. Even as a Democrat who admires what Johnson did on domestic agenda, I still think the allegations need to be noted. Maybe more sources need to be cited for the allegations.

The above comments about Johnson's domestic agenda being expanded upon are correct. As the History Channel's series The Presidents, which re-ran the week of Thanksgiving, argued the programs Johnson created and the bills Johnson signed whether you like the measures or not probably had more change on our society than any president in the 20th Century other than Franklin Roosevelt.

The discussion on Vietnam is something that could take 20 pages. Actually the first Americans were sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower and the first American was killed in Vietnam in 1959.

Many who have studied Johnson believe he agreed to the escalation in part because he didn't want to appear as soft on Communism. Democrats beginning in 1950 were constantly being charged as soft by people like Joseph McCarthy as silly as those allegations seem today. Look at what was said about Harry Truman and why he had a 23% approval rating near the end of his administration. I saw on C-Span a replay on political conventions a number of years ago and the Republicans at their 1960 convention in Chicago railed against the Kennedy-Johnson ticket as soft on Communism.

[edit] Daisy

I think this link belongs in the 1964 election part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28television_commercial%29

[edit] Vietnam War: LBJ ordered assassination of Diem?

In the section on the Vietnam War, Wikipedia states:

"While still Vice President, President Johnson ordered the execution of the president of South Vietnam in 1963, which he discusses in a White House recording made in 1966."

Has this ever been proven? The Vice President has no authority to give such orders.

You're quite right and I removed it. Rjensen 22:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All The Way Campaign

As an Australian, the only way I know this man is the 'All the way with LBJ' campaign used, I'm not even sure whether it was an election campaign or a campaign for the continuance of the Vietnam war. Perhaps the authors and editors of this article could incorporate that, which, for the rest of the world outside of the United States, is possibly the only way this man is known and in what context it was used. 211.30.80.121 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a slogan in the 1964 election campaign. I'm surprised that that's what you know about him; it's not particularly prominent. Instead of adding it to this article, I've added it to U.S. presidential election, 1964, and added a wikilink to that article in this one. JamesMLane 06:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias on LBJ failures

Lets clean this up my fellow Wikipedia, the man was a great man, i mean yes he suxed bad when it came to war, but in domestic programs he was the man, he highered standards that all of us take for gratite(sp) today. HP465 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

"At the same time, Johnson was afraid that too much focus on Vietnam would distract attention from his Great Society programs, so the levels of military escalation, while significant, were never enough to make any real headway in the war."

This is opinion rather than fact. Regardless of the fact that Johnson stuck in a hell of a lot of troops, there is absolutely no indication that ANY level of military escalation would have made headway in Vietnam.

[edit] Bias

It's amazing how biased this article is against Johnson. It said he an egomaniac and vain on the trivia, for example. I took out most of the POV and streamlined some text to make it flow better. Hadoren 20:45, May 26 2006 (UTC)

               Well, he did give the pope a bust of himself.

[edit] GA on hold

I'm about ready to confirm the article's nomination but before I do so I think the trivia section should be eliminated. Important personal information like his baptisim should probably go in his "early years" section; overly personal information like his height and bathroom habits should probably be axed. TonyJoe 14:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely advocate keeping the part about the bathroom. It is a fairly well known (infamous?) portion of "the Johnson Treatment". -Fearfulsymmetry 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed

For being on hold for over a week.--SeizureDog 11:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I added the Howard University commencement address

As requested in the merge suggestion. Morris 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a few points and some Con/NeoCon propaganda

I see it's getting a few dozen changes a week. Never a good sign for an article about an ancient topic.

Where it writes "Johnson once revealed on tape his strategy in making African Americans feel obligated to the Democrats, by transforming them into the party of welfare dependency, rather than self sufficiency:" one has to remember that (1) the quote does not justify the connection, (2) the actual distinction between movements was "let blacks vote" and "don't let blacks vote", (3) many blacks and mexicans were not experiencing "self-sufficiency" so much as near-synonym "denied education and work by discrimination and left to starve" the explicit motivation for the Great Society, (4) whites were the primary benefactors of public assistance into the Reagan Era, though blacks may have had disproportionately high representation per population, they had disproportionately low representation per their much higher poverty rate.

Another quote directly contradicts the propaganda reading above, by being explicitly about self-sufficiency "I'm going to try to teach these Nigras that don't know anything how to work for themselves, instead of just breeding. I'm going to try to teach these Mexicans [that] can't talk English to learn it, so they can work for themselves." Our article attempts to misread the clause "that don't know anything" as an appositive (i.e. as a redefinition of "Nigra"), but of course it's not. It's a direct statement that uneducated "Nigras" need education, not to be left to rot.

And of course this and other articles try to make hay of his use of "Nigra", as if there were a widely accepted, well-used alternative, or as if the term had already developed the explictly pejorative modern sense of "Nigger" (pre-NWA, of course). Any white alive in the era remembers how hard it was to figure out what phraseology was acceptable each week (Black Race, Black American, American Black, Afro-American, African American, etc.).

Discussion of failure of Vietnam war can't be complete without reference to Nixon's intentional sabotage of Paris Peace Talks (for which there is no article and hardly any mention) through the agency of [Anna Chen Chennault] (no mention of this incident) and the GOP mole in the Paris Peace talks [Henry Kissinger]. (Googling "Chennault Nixon Thieu" gives a few hundred references, or just read her autobiography or Kissinger's.) Also, [J. Edgar Hoover]'s FBI taped Nixon's communication with Chennault but declined to inform Johnson (it was leaked to him about a week before the election).

[edit] fake legend

A quick search of Google will show there is no "legend" to the effect that LBJ said Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation." [1] The citation is to a newspaper column by one a writer who does not claim to have been there and who does not cite sources. The new bio by Woods (2006) p 473 shows the quote came from a Southern senator (Russell) who opposed LBJ. Rjensen 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Racist quotes

Checking out the sources, those quotes seem real and accurate and therefore should be in the article. If others feel that is not the case, can they outline here, why they think so?

In addition, before we add such quotes, can we all work together to try and produce some acceptable text on the matter here so that we don't get into another edit war?

--Charlesknight 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki needs a policy on hate speech--in this case quoting the hate speech of dead politicians in order to ridicule minorities in 2006. use of Wiki to post hate speech should be off limits. The quotations were selected from many thousands by one person (User 70.16.248.128) (that is a clear example of OR) for the purpose of "exposing" Johnson's racism. The editor did not put it in context and does not use any of the many expert studies that have analyzed LBJ's language and his attitude toward blacks and hispanics. (The editor involved is very poorly informed about black voting, so he clearly has not beed reading.) For example the transcripts use "nigra" which most readers will read (incorrectly) as "nigger". Rjensen 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
First, please do not assume bad faith that the purpose of those edits was to "ridicule minorities in 2006". I see no evidence of this. Second, Wikipedia already has an applicable policy: Wikipedia is not censored. You are highly unlikley to get offensive speech outlawed, particularly in the case of reporting documented historical use of such speech. I agree that these quotes need context and the proper transcription of Johnson's words is probably "negro". However that is not the same as a blanket ban on reporting racist speech. In the long term we do far more harm than good if we attempt to censor unpleasant truths from the past. Gwernol 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The funny thing is, to most people listening to the tapes, it sounds much more like Johnson says "nigger" than "nigra" in each one of these quotes. It is usually transcribed as "nigra", and sometimes even as "negro", but I leave it to the listener to hear what all he really says (there is a lot more). This deserves to be in the article, rather than pretend the warts aren't there - maybe without any extra commentary, in a section entitled "quotes" (other less controversial quotes might also be included). Just my two cents. It seems like pretending he never said this or denying it for whatever reason, is the real POV here. 70.16.247.128
Wikipedia generally doesn't go in much for lists of quotes (please don't cite a counter-example, I know they exist.) We have a project called Wikiquote for collecting quotations. This would possibly be appropriate there (I'm not familiar with their policies.) --Cherry blossom tree 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with this quote I'm going to try to teach these Nigras that don't know anything how to work for themselves, instead of just breeding. I'm going to try to teach these Mexicans [that] can't talk English to learn it, so they can work for themselves.

Is the actual quote incorrect or is it misleading without further context? if so, what is that context?

The wikipeda page for "nigra" says it is "A slang or derogatory word for black people", are you saying he was not using in that way (or maybe that page needs changing?)?

--Charlesknight 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LBJ is saying that low-education blacks and hispanics need education so they can do better in life. He followed that statement with the largest aid to minority education program in American history, part of the Great Society. Rjensen 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
On the question of "nigra" a lot of reliable sources use this as the transliteration of what Johnson said, for example The New York Times. Having heard the tapes it sounds to me that Johnson is saying "negro" but his distinct accent renders it more like "nigra". I don't think he's saying "nigger", though that might be a question of interpreation. Either way, "nigra" appears to be a common and reasonably accurate transcription of his actual words. Gwernol 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
the question is 1) why were these three quotations chosen out of thousands. 2) should Wiki allow hate speech in the guise of quotations from the past? on point 1) One reason perhaps is that one editor assumed Nigra = nigger and therefore Johnson was a racist who needs to be "exposed". The exposure part is sheer POV. That is where original research leads people who have not read the biographies by Woods and Dallek and many others. Rjensen 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Direct quotes from individuals are not original research and I still don't see the link with hate speech. From what I have seen so far, there is nothing to stop those quotes being added to the article (with sufficent context). --Charlesknight 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes can be original research if they are used to present or imply a particular view of a subject, although this is more an issue of WP:POV than direct OR. As you say, Charles, the issue comes down to context. I agree that blindly adding these quotes without the context that Rjensen provides above is a problem. That doesn't mean that the quotes cannot be included, but the right context is critical to maintaining a neutral point of view. Gwernol 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A direct quote is not original research, but attempting to use a direct quote to make further points absolutely is. Also, just because something is "real and accurate" does not mean that it should be in this article. I'm sure there are thousands of sourceable quotes by Johnson, but unless they are important enough to merit mention in a 60kb summary, then they should not be in this article. The problem of original research is possibly not insurmountable if you can find some secondary sources that draw the same conclusions but I suspect that the problem of giving undue weight to these conclusions is. Even if they do represent casual racism (and there are people arguing that they don't) it was nothing out of the ordinary for the time. --Cherry blossom tree 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Coming into this dispute fresh (saw it on AN/I), my first impression is that both the AnonIP and Rjensen are both pushing the limits of WP:POINT. Whlie the quotes themseleves are rather vile, this is an encyclopedia, and the quotes (or at least the gist of them) are clearly relevant to LBJ's character and should be included. That being said, some context is necessary, as is always the case with direct quotes. If the quotes were given just before a large cash infusion to the education system, say that - both are important pieces of information. In addition, I don't think that all three quotes are necessary. As another editor said, Wikiquote does exist for a reason, IMO including one of the quotes gets the message across without resorting to making a point or pushing a point of view. -- pm_shef 03:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody read this - do not delete!

I find it very telling that the administration is willing to pull out all the stops and put the page under protection to prevent anything negative or uncomplimentary being said about Lyndon Johnson. I want a detailed explanation of why the following factual paragraph was deemed to contain "irrelevant" or "pov pushing" information about the man.. If I don't get one, this is also going to Request for Comment, since it seems you want to make a big stink about this issue. Abbie Hoffman 16:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

After the Tet offensive of January 1968, his presidency was dominated by the Vietnam War more than ever. As casualties mounted and success seemed further away than ever, Johnson's popularity plummeted. College students and others protested, burned draft cards, and chanted, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Johnson could scarcely travel anywhere without facing protests, and was not allowed by the Secret Service to attend the 1968 Democratic National Convention, where tens of thousands of hippies, Yippies, Black Panthers, and other opponents of Johnson's policy both in Vietnam and in the ghettoes converged to protest. At this convention protest, the Yippies nominated a pig named Pigasus to succeed Johnson, and riot police and the national guard reponded with brute force. However, delegates at the convention were hoping to see him so that they could celebrate his 60th birthday, which happened on the second day of the convention, with him. Thanks to the Secret Service, he celebrated it privately with his family at his ranch in Texas. Meanwhile, at the same moment "Happy birthday, Mr. President" was being sung inside the convention, an angry crowd of at least 5,000 protesters outside led by Paul Krassner screamed "F*#@ you, Lyndon Johnson!!"

This is an encyclopedia and does not need the names of pigs or dogs or how many candles were on a 60th birthday cake. One anti-LBJ chant seems adequate esp since the other opponents like Wallace and Kennedy get no quotes at all. The point we have to make is that LBJ's party had splintered 4-ways, and three of those strongly opposed him. It is not true the delegates were eager to see him--who said that? Rjensen 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If have followed these reverts and assertions with interest. Speaking as a non-American with no axe to grind either way it is clear that the assertation above, which indeed may well be true, is still not written in the formal tone we would expect. The comments left during the various reverts also seem to indicate a total lack of NPOV. The entry itself, with bias statements like "brute force" and unnecesary capitalisation of the quote is utterly lacking in profesionalism. I would be more inclined to accept parts of this if the original comments when adding had not been so vicious and POV Peter Orme.12:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't think "brute force" is a factual and accurate way to describe what happened at the Democrats Convention in Chicago 1968, you haven't seen the footage that was broadcast all over the world. The peole who don't want anyone to read on wikipedia what people really thought about LBJ are living in a dream land. Trying to suppress information about exactly how widespread dissent really was, is another hallmark of totalitarianism. But nowadays it backfires every time, because an internet that anyone can freely access, is the enemy of such people who would control what you can know and read about -- and the more the pig tries to suppress the facts, the more they are going to continually come up in its face until more people hear about it. You haven't heard the last about this yet. Many people alive now were alive then, and everyone knows darn well what really happened, whether Wikipedia is honest enough to admit the truth or not.
Although some editors would clearly like this article to be an airbrushed tribute to LBJ, there is no reason in the world why Wikipedia should cater to this mindset. It should tell the whole story.
The tone of the above responses vindicates what I said. Why can't you understand that it would be as bad to have bias that says this man was all good as to have bias that says he was all bad. NPOV !! Come on, this is supposed to be a FACTUAL account - not a soapbox for someone with an axe to grind. And to re-iterate I am a non US citizen and couldn't frankly care less about L B Johnsons policies or popularity - except for having an accurate NPOV description of them for all to learn from!!! Isn't there an "I hate Lyndon Johnson" fan club you could join to save you vandalising this project ? Peter Orme.
I am not trying to vandalize or delete any facts here, Please note that every word I have been trying to add to this article is 100% true and nobody denies this. The issue is whether or or not facts that accurately portray how widespread the dissent was, are "encyclopedic". Why is the name of the pig not encyclopedic? I thought facts were encyclopedic. It is only the bias of the apparatchiks who have appointed themselves guardians of this article that has proclaimed this fact not encyclopedic, just like Johnson's use of the n word. The issue will not magically go away and disappear until you are honest enough to allow the article to be honest. I am going to continue to post here every day and call attention to the deficiency in the article with RFC's etc. until this POV travesty is finally addressed in the article in some form or other. Remember, every word that has been suppressed from the article is FACTUAL. This isn't for any reason other than that you don't want the facts to appear in print, because some people are uncomfortable with these facts.
There are millions of facts about LBJ. (three biographies run over 1000 pages each, and each is selective; the LBJ Library has hundreds of thousands of documents on him.) The issue is which facts are important enough for a short encyclopedia article, and which do not reflect a preconceived POV on the part of one editor. More details on the pig than on the War on Poverty???? As for gross language, the Wikipedia article will be filtered out by school software, thus losing millions of potential users. Rjensen 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for the more moderate (unsigned) posting. Can I make one point - "you" whoever you refer to does not include me. I care all about facts - and for the third and hopefully final time as a non-US resident JBL's performance/politics/lies/truths etc. etc. are utterly unimportant to me - I really couldn't care less if he made America great or made the US the worst country in the world.....(sigh ! God Bless America Eh !)....HOWEVER - Good for you on wanting FACTS. That, as you rightly point out, is the whole point here. However Rjensen is on the nail with their comments. If you had the sense to add FACTS in a NPOV that are appropriate to this article, with citation, then this whole stupid thing would have ended ages ago. Why not re-write in a NPOV encyclopedic style, without SHOUTING the quotation, and then there is no reason why it can't be added.Peter Orme.
Okay, I am working on the paragraph here on the talk page, since the article page has been protected, to keep uncomfortable or uncomplimentary facts from being added (!). I have now changed the caps and even changed the obscenity so as not to trigger the filters. Will you please add the relevant facts to the Vietnam section for me, Peter? I would make more changes for NPOV, but I only see cold facts in the above paragraph, not really opinion. 'Brute force' is the only way to describe what went down on International TV, unless you don't think police officers bashing in people's heads with their truncheons, etc. is brute force. Thanks. 70.16.244.195
Actually I do feel that the rewrite is generally acceptable. I would prefer however a citation, or at least to be marked in need of citation for the "brute force", "pigasus" and other comments. Also, I appreciate removing the obscenity - could we use "F You" ?? Not sure on that - I don't want to lose the value of having the quote (if citable) as I think it would add value and don't want it dumbed down too much. In regards to the "pigasus" line, there is a stub article on this under "Categories: animals in Politics" so despite Wikipedia can't cite itself I think that looks legitimate. I would prefer an admin to look at this and some other consensus before posting, but I personally feel that the paragraph is acceptable pending ciatation. Peter Orme.

[edit] Yet another cited fact deleted from article that makes Revisionists squirm

User RJensen has just deleted yet another uncomfortable fact with a citation, in his effort to construct a shrine to Johnson's good memory, without doing the standard courtesy of putting it here on the talk page for all to see:

  • In late 1967, when asked by reporters why he was so committed to the war in Vietnam, the president "unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ, and declared, 'That is why'" according to Arthur Goldberg, Johnson's ambassador to the UN.

Rourke, John (2006). International Politics on the World Stage: Eleventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 67. ISBN-13 978-0-07-110735-8.


RFC is coming man

The gross story will get Wiki's article blocked from school computers thus hurting millions of users. This is trivia and no intellectual context whatever is provided--it is there to titilate teenage boys (which is why schools have this blocking software). Rjensen 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm no teenage boy; I'm a professor. And I found it a telling anecdote about Johnson's state of mind and attitude. If there is no intellectual context, perhaps you could add some as a historian. I doubt very much that blocking software will pick up on the phrase "substantial organ". And if it does, well I see no reason for Wikipedia to abet censorship of basic historical material. Derex 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is not censoring "basic historical materal" it is dropping self-described trivia presented only to titilate the teenager. It was added in order to ridicule LBJ. Wiki is at risk of being forbidden in the schools (I'm a consultant to k12 schools and talk to teachers and librarians)--primarily because of the obscene vandalism it is prone to, but this kind of trivia does not help the goal of being a usefule reference source that teachers can recommend to students. Rjensen 06:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The real or imagined motivations of those adding the material is of no interest or relevance. Nor is the remote possibility that this particular article is banned over that anecdote. Let the Wikimedia board handle school-blocking policy. If Wikipedia as a whole is banned, pearl necklace, donkey punch, and Max Hardcore will be the reasons, not Lyndon B. Johnson's member.
Further the incident doesn't seem "ridiculous" to me; it strikes me as a vivid illustration of the importance Johnson placed on one rationale for the war — to avoid the appearance of weakness. That's not a terribly different rationale for war than one often proferred today. I wonder if the aide recounted the story simply to titillate teenage boys, who tend not to be terribly interested in old men's parts anyway. I would take a different stance if I perceived the incident as gratuitous, such as Johnson defecating in front of aides. Our audience is not just school children anyway.
The Journal of Southern History[2], the New York Times [3], and the Boston Globe [4] all mention the incident.
I read in the newspaper today that a Texas art teacher was fired for taking a field-trip to a museum. There was — gasp — a naked statue there. I don't see much difference between that and this. Shall we also remove mention of semen stains on blue dresses for fear of offending Texas school-boards? If you want the material excised, you are more likely to succeed by arguing that it is of little value in better understanding the man or his attitudes. That strikes me as a tough case to make, as it as a powerful illustration of an earthy man's rationale for a war. Derex 06:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Derex seems to write off Wikipedia as a source for k12 students. That would be unfortunate, but it will happen more and more often enless editors maintain quality standards for an encylopedia. Dumping salacious material in the trivia section is the sort of low-quality junk we need to guard against. Rjensen 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So move it out of trivia. And no, I don't write it off for k-12 students. If any school board is so idiotic as to ban this article over that reference, then the students have _far_ bigger problems than not reading this article. There's not anything at all sexual about some old fart flapping his dong on a desk. I'll further note that you did not respond to a single one of my points, but merely repeated yourself. Nor did you even respond _to_ me, you responded _about_ me, which is downright rude where I come from. Derex 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
To respond to Derex's points: Derex talks about going into a museum. I would be astonished if he went into a museum without quality control. Surely the one he chose had curators who decided what quality is like and did not show us the junk. In this case we have a junk story that was chosen by an editor to ridicule LBJ. And yes, sorry, school boards do not let that kind of obscene story into their schools. As Derex and I agree, this is a story about "old fart flapping his dong on a desk." Like the museum curator, we can do better--for example, there is hardly a mention of LBJ's war on poverty. Rjensen 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
First, let me apologize to any old farts who may be about. Your position is that the material of poor quality — that the incident does not yield sufficient insight given our limited space. You have not yet made a reasoned argument for that view, but have merely stated it. I have made an argument to the contrary. You objected that the material was salacious; in a sexual context, LBJ was indeed an old fart. This was not a sexual context, but a response by the commander in chief to the question of war. Almost everyone knows exactly what LBJ meant by that gesture, and I find it difficult to imagine that you are not among them. I also find it telling that you left pointless trivia about Johnson defecating in front of his aides, which I was shocked to see was actually included, but you removed this. That strikes me as inconsistent with your stated concern for the children. Derex 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I actually think this worked better in the trivia section. It's a sufficiently telling incident that I think it should be included somewhere. But it is not essential to the textual narrative. Derex 22:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] amd

"Presidents amd Public Opinion" is incorrect. Should be 'and'. --darklilac 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improper Deletion?

I noticed while looking at the history for this article, a deletion was made by Rjensen of a story he considered "obscene." [5]

So, I did a little Google search of the quote which was deleted. 48 cites contain this exact quote, word for word.[6] I found that pretty interesting.

Allixpeeke 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

the quote is probably true. Is it encyclopedic? I doubt it. Will it mislead readers as to the cause of the Vietnam war? yes. Will it get Wiki banned in school libraries. yes. Rjensen 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Bit Odd If You Ask Me

The article includes the remark: In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth with a tendency to lie. That reads a bit odd for an encyclopaedia entry. Not that I'm complaining, but how about a citation? Thanks for your attention! --Philopedia 00:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the story of his corruption?

Johnson went to DC in 1937 with $0 in his pocket. He went back to Texas in 1969 with $42M and a freeway offramp to his front door! It's on I20 (that's Interstate 20 in Texas for non-Americans). I've driven by it twice.

When he was Majority Leader if you just wanted your legislation considered, it cost you $50K. To get it passed cost more.

He is, by far, even more than Clinton, the most corrupt president in our history.

Someone needs to document this. The article is totally incomplete without mention of his unmatched corruption. PainMan 06:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikis

Why does this article not have any interwiki links? --Eleassar my talk 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They are in the source code, but not shown. Probably the problem is on my side. --Eleassar my talk 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
But the categories aren't shown either: strange. Extremely sexy 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a stray exclamation mark causing all the trouble. --Cherry blossom tree 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that: that's my fault then. Extremely sexy 16:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Manifesto contradiction

The LBJ article says he refused to sign the Southern Manifesto. The Southern Manifesto article says he was not asked to sign it. If somebody could clear this up, that would be great. - JdwNYC 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/y/n/Talk%7ELyndon_B._Johnson_7550.html"