Talk:Great Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Civil Rights Act? 2 POV? 3 Civil Rights Section 4 Great Society template/box? 5 The legacies of Great Society. 6 VISTA 7 Immigration and Civil Rights 8 Heavy Plagiarism from Encarta 9 Extreme bias

[edit] Civil Rights Act?

Wouldn't the Great Society include the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Typos 23:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear-cut definition as to what Great Society is and isn't, but I think of it as Johnson's name for what he was pushing, mostly in the economic area. The Civil Rights Act was certainly something Johnson got through, but it was part of JFK's legacy. JamesMLane 01:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. I only ask, because it seemed to fit the agenda of the Great Society and the Joe Califano article placed it under the same rubric. Typos 04:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

This statement does not seem neutral: "Another Johnson success was the establishment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development." I think it would be fair to say that the creation of HUD and its subsequent policies are not universally or even largely seen as an unqualified success. Even if they are I am not sure that this is a NPOV way to phrase this information. I am going to change this sentence to a more neutral statement about the creation of HUD.

[edit] Civil Rights Section

In the Civil Rights section, a sentence about the Civil Rights Act of 1968 states that it "extended constitutional protections to Indians on reservations." Isn't the correct term for 'Indians' 'Native Americans'? It seems somehow politically incorrect/offensive that they should be referred to as such. 67.162.149.163 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I made the change.Leuliett 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue's not so clearcut -- as the article on Native American name controversy points out, many Indians prefer the term "Indian." Indians were closely involved in the creation and the naming of the U. S. National Museum of the American Indian. OtherDave (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Society template/box?

More than a {{Presidential Domestic Programs}}, might a {{Great Society}} or {{Great Society Programs}} template be useful? It would start with Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and etc. ? -- Sholom 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The legacies of Great Society.

I find this paragraph troubling for several reasons. I guess I'd like an understanding of the allegations of Alan Brinkley and Charles Murray rather than two quotes using language like "modest achievement" or "being ineffective" & "creating an underclass" lacking any supporting evidence. I'd suggest that this country already had and will always have an "underclass", though I wouldn't characterise any group of people as lazy because it's presumptuous, callous and judgemental. If the War on Poverty were a failure after nearly halving the poverty rate in a brief time, why did the rate increase afterwards never again matching the 1973 rate of 11.1? As they are, these sentences seem more like a pot shot than evidence that the war on poverty failed to improve life for millions of Americans.

Can we find the official poverty rate for blacks in 1960? One sentence says 55%, the next 47%. Both seem stretched to attempt to prove their points. The Census Bureau's website says 55% in 1959 without a figure for 1960. The next figure is 42% in 1966. According to the Census Bureau, the black poverty rate in the US did not fall to 27% until 1997. It was 35% in 1968. While the contributor sites a source, it appears to be inaccurate. The other contributor's source can't be disproven by the Census Bureau because their figures don't go back that far, but I wonder if they're credible.US Census Bureau Historical Poverty Tables

If the War on Poverty was responsible for the destruction of the black family, was it also responsible for gay liberation, the Rolling Stones, race riots and everything else that coincided with that era? This might be an interesting point for analysis. But once again, as it is, the sentence seems like a pot shot rather than a contribution towards a greater understanding of Great Society and those who opposed it--if those opposing it should have a view here as long as we're as cautious as we should be in the presentation of Great Society.

I don't think that this paragraph is helpful or objective. However, I'll disclose that I'm tremendously fond of LBJ and his domestic policies. It may be my bias that prevents something that is objective from seeming objective. In discussing the legacy, I'd like to see an analysis of where we'd be today without Great Society. I suspect each of us benefits a great deal, both culturally and economically, today and I'll endeavour to find credible, objective substantiation soon to bring that point here.

mp2dtw 05:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire section could use some reworking. Much of the text specifically addresses the War on Poverty, and probably should be moved to that entry. The "Great Society" isn't a synonym for the "War on Poverty" and this section tends to conflate the two. My intention was to discuss how in recent decades the criticisms of the poverty programs overshadowed the larger Great Society agenda. Leuliett 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the confusion with the poverty statistics is that some percentages refer to individuals below the poverty line and some to the number of families below the poverty line. Again, some of this text should be on the War on Poverty entry. Leuliett 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VISTA

Just a minor point, but the phrase about VISTA (in the War on Poverty section) seems a little misleading to me. To say that VISTA "sent middle-class young people on 'missions' into poor neighborhoods" seems to imply a somewhat condescending "missionary" atittude, as if the VISTAs see themselves as more advanced or more civilized than the poor whom they served. But this missionary atttitude was pretty actively discouraged when i was a VISTA (admitedly not when the program was founded, but in the early nineties.). At that time, The majority of VISTAs were from the communities they served, and they were not necessarily middle class. Even the VISTAs who did come from outside the community were expected to live and work as part of the community and to help the community become self-sufficient, not dependent on do-gooders. I understood that this was always part of the the philosophy of the program, but perhaps I was wrong; does anyone know?Hickoryhillster 04:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the VISTA section could be phrased better. The wording was copied from the Reader's Companion to American History, so original work and more neutral wording would be better. Leuliett 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried rewording it, but would welcome further improvements.Hickoryhillster 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration and Civil Rights

An anonymous user (who might be a sock puppet for a banned user JerryJones) recently argued for the immigration act of 1965 to be included in Culture and Arts section rather than under Civil Rights. In the broadest sense, all Great Society programs were designed to change "culture". In my opinion the Culture and Arts section should reflect the intent of the Great Society legislative agenda, so the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts, national museums, and public television are the only initiatives that should be included.

Several sources argue for the logic of including the immigration act as in the list of civil rights acts. For example, historian Taylor Branch in the third volume of his definitive history of the civil rights movement, At Canaan's Edge, writes that, although neither politicians nor the press grasped the Immigration Act’s significance at the time, it "rightfully joined the two great civil rights laws as a third enduring pillar of the freedom movement." Furthermore, the publication Federal Civil Rights Statutes: A Primer (September 9, 2005 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/53772.pdf) compiled by the Congressional Research Service lists the immigration act in its list of federal civil rights statues.

Several analyses of immigration law suggest that the 1965 act "was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement". (e.g. http://www.cis.org/articles/1995/back395.html). Leuliett 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Plagiarism from Encarta

Alas, part of the article is copies word for word from Encarta's article on LBJ. It's online: See [1] --are other parts copies from other sources word for word??

for example: Encarta: Almost immediately 14 separate task forces began thoroughly studying nearly all major aspects of United States society, each working without publicity while it did its job. Presidential assistants Bill Moyers and Richard N. Goodwin helped create these groups, drawing on the expertise of other government officials in selecting the members. During June the task forces were recruited. The average membership was nine, and particular care was taken to include governmental experts, as well as academicians. Each task force was assigned a particular subject: cooperation among government agencies in dealing with financial questions; making the federal government more efficient and less costly; developing policies to prevent economic recessions; developing policies on economic issues related to other countries; and determining how best to help individuals maintain their income. It is notable that only one of these task forces dealt with foreign policy. Many of Kennedy’s committees had dealt with foreign affairs, and he had encountered political problems when their proposals were leaked to the press."

Wiki: Almost immediately 14 separate task forces began thoroughly studying nearly all major aspects of United States society, each working without publicity while it did its job. Presidential assistants Bill Moyers and Richard N. Goodwin helped create these groups, drawing on the expertise of other government officials in selecting the members. During June the task forces were recruited. The average membership was nine, and particular care was taken to include governmental experts, as well as academicians. Each task force was assigned a particular subject: cooperation among government agencies in dealing with financial questions; making the federal government more efficient and less costly; developing policies to prevent economic recessions; developing policies on economic issues related to other countries; and determining how best to help individuals maintain their income. It is notable that only one of these task forces dealt with foreign policy. Many of Kennedy’s committees had dealt with foreign affairs, and he had encountered political problems when their proposals were leaked to the press. I marked the copied passages and credited Encarta. Rjensen 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's an encyclopedia Mactabbed 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

it does matter. we don't copy Encarta (it's demeaning and violates our reliable sources rules)Rjensen 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme bias

The introduction to this sings praise for LBJ, with no citations for why it "was so sucessful". This is absolute rubbish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)