Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 group 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."

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(

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)

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.

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

No, it was Precinct Number 13 in Jim Wells County (though there was also fraud in Duval). And there's proof that there was election fraud:

1. Luis Salas, the presiding election judge in Precinct 13, admitted that there was fraud: "Any vote for Stevenson [smile] I counted for Johnson".
2. In the photo inset after page 286, there is a picture of a car with a license plate saying "Texas-48", a cylindrical bin labeled "Precinct 13" on top of the car, Jim Wells County Deputy Sheriff Stokes Micenhimer (who arrested a poll-watcher after he asked to see the ballots, which he was entitled by law to do), Hubert Sain (the Jim Wells County Sheriff), Givens Parr (George Parr's cousin), Ed Lloyd (the person who ran Jim Wells County for George Parr), and Barney Goldthorn (a supporter of LBJ). The picture was taken the day before the election, so the ballot box was labeled before the election. Luis Salas was subpoenaed and ordered to bring all ballot boxes in his precinct, and none of the boxes were labeled "Precinct 13". Thus, he had something to hide. Also, the fact that sitting right next to the ballot box is Givens Parr, who is George Parr's cousin, is highly incriminating. And the person holding the ballot box in the picture is Ed Lloyd, who ran Jim Wells County for George Parr.
3. The allegations of election fraud were repeated in the book "The Fall of the Duke of Duval" by John E. Clark. Since the author of that book is the Assistant U.S. Attorney that helped prosecute George Parr, you'd think that would be a reliable source.
4. There were 200 votes for LBJ and 2 votes for Stevenson. In previous elections, George Parr's precincts went almost unanimously for Stevenson. I don't think it's possible that people's opinions changed that fast and that dramatically.
5. The fraudulent names on the list of voters were written in the same ink, the same handwriting, and in alphabetical order. I don't think voters come to polling places in alphabetical order.
6. In the trial, several supposed voters testified that they did not vote, and some of them testified that they were in places that are very far from Jim Wells County. Several of the supposed voters were actually dead. 7. The famous "7 that was changed to a 9" looked like a 9 was originally a 7, and after it was changed it obviously looked like it was changed.
8. B.F. Donald, the Jim Wells County Democratic Executive Committee Chairman that was the official that was required by law to be given one copy of the tally list, refused to show the tally list to Stevenson's attorney, despite the fact that the law said anybody could look at the tally sheet. Obviously, they had something to hide. He also refused to give the tally list to Harry Lee Adams, who was the new chairman of the Committee, despite the fact that the law said that Adams was entitled to that copy, not Donald. Salas told a local newspaper reporter, Cliff Dubose, the total was 765, before it got changed. So the total was not always 965.
9. All three copies of the tally list were burned shortly after the trial started. Coincidence?
10. George Parr's control over Duval and Jim Wells was absolute. "People live longer down here if they keep their mouths shut."
11. The allegations of election fraud were also confirmed in a Time Magazine article ("The Duke Delivers").
--Samuel 69105 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---a further note on the Caro "opinion", read the passages in Caro's volume on the election and you will quickly understand that the vote rigging did indeed occur. But to really appreciate it you also need to understand the brash corruption in Texas Democratic politics in that period. There was election fraud on a massive scale that is completely unimaginable today. The votes of entire city districts were literally sold off by party bosses. But let Caro narrate it, it's far superior to this ephemeral summary...

Think about it... where did he get the nickname "Landslide Lyndon", (hint... he had it before the 1964 election)

pklarnet

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.

Daisy

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

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)

Not speaking to the truthfulness of whether Johnson ordered the execution or not, but rather to the possibility of it given his office: Since Truman took office, Vice Presidents have had a seat in the National Security Council (Truman didn't know about the Atomic Bomb until after FDR had died, and thought that no VP should be that in the dark on national security concerns when they are next in line of succession). The National Security Council could have made that call, with VP Johnson as the lead in the absence of President Kennedy. It wasn't until President Ford that the assasination of foreign leaders was forbidden (by Ford's own Executive Order).

As far as White House recordings: were there recordings predating Nixon? I thought he had the equipement installed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.10.4 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

Failed

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

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/archive1. 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)

I added the Howard University commencement address

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

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).

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)

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)

if i can butt in here, it seems odd that this article fails to mention that he was ever a segregationist. perhaps that's the context these quotes can be put in. 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.66.32 (talk)

This is a two-year-old discussion; there have been many revisions to the article since then.  Frank  |  talk  14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

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. p. 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)

Isn't there a policy that says Wikipedia shouldn't be censored? If so, how does removing this to prevent schools from blocking Wikipedia comply with the policy? 206.251.5.179 20:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a professor of logic and have read both people's comments on this issue. Here's my analysis: Derex makes reasonable points, while RJensen repeats two very unlikely claims -- that this story would cause wikipedia to be banned from schools and that this story is placed there in order to titilate teenage boys. Derex is more reasonable about this matter.

Furthermore, here's my opinion on the issue: the story is apparently true, is NOT irrelevant, and is quite fascinating. Indeed it can be seen as very relevant to LBJ's psychology and to his rationale for staying so long in this unpopular war. Therefore, this story should be included. Furthermore (and this is a pretty knock-down argument): RJensen's preference to delete this story can provide NO JUSTIFICATION for substituting a FALSE story that he pointed to an "old war wound." This is an encyclopedia, subsituting falsity for truth is inexcusable. -CF

This is the most engrossing story about Johnson I've ever heard. That's unbelievable! It shouldn't just be in trivia, it should be in the main article... Foster 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

amd

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

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)

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 encyclopedia entry. Not that I'm complaining, but how about a citation? Thanks for your attention! --Philopedia 00:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so, and moreover, it's POV. Extremely sexy 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

PainMan: I am in no way defending LBJ, but maybe you need to look at a Rand McNally Road Atlas of Texas. Interstate 20 goes East to West through Dallas and does not come within 200 miles of the Johnson Ranch. That would be one heck of a long off ramp. The only major highway that goes close is US 290.

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)

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)

Infobox at top

In the 36th President section, it has JFK's name listed with the "President" tag. It should be in the section below, on LBJ's vice presidency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpearl (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Start Over

I think everyone here on the board can agree that this article is butchered. Reading it makes my head spin with an ever increasing dull throbbing. Johnson was a very complicated figure, no encyclopedia can do him justice. I don't understand why the article isn't condensed and the focus made on the in depth works. On that point, you don't quote Schlesinger. There are many sources for information on LBJ, why on earth you muddle up one of the few definitions of American history and the the presidency is totally beyond me (at this point i'm happy you use jr.).

  ...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...

I'm gonna call you on it. By Schlesinger's standards you can't judge a president for at least fifty years after his administration, and frankly that timetable is a little obsolete. Dallek is clearly anti lbj (i haven't read woods). i just have to wonder why you wouldn't recommend Caro, the man has TWO PULTIZER PRIZES.

LBJ could be a vulgar son of bitch, hell, he compared minor civil rights legislation to breaking a girls virginity. He told staunch southerners he wasn't for niggers, yet passed more compressive civil rights legislation in one term than republicans did in all of reconstruction. Imagine that, a president who swears and uses slurs, but doesn't hide behind an iron curtain of press secretary. Yes, we should hide our children from that.

I could really keep going but i guess i'd be doing your work for you and neglecting your complacency/propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alulim (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Please, consider mentioning this film

"LBJ" is the name of an innovative, 17 minute propaganda montage by Cuban director Santiago Alvarez. Made in 1968, it incorporates archival films and photographs, artistic motifs of medieval and American history, and original animation into a fast paced, emotionally charged indictment of Johnson and the political culture with which he was associated. [7] --Rumblegoose 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Rumblegoose 08:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

All of this information is from the website http://www.biographyplus.com/lyndon_b_johnson.htm, almost word for word. (unsigned comment)

Actually (as the biographyplus site says) the page mentioned above is a copy of the wikipedia article. Morris 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

E. Howard Hunt, LBJ and JFK

is this entry closed for editing by non-registered users because of the recent death-bed confession of watergate "conspiracy theorist" E. Howard Hunt? Hunt admits to being involved in the JFK assassination and says that LBJ was also heavily involved. Anybody who believes the Warren commission is delusional. Not even the House Select Committee on assassinations believed much of Earl Warrens cover-up, a FACT that is strangely also missing. WIKI needs to stop trying to censor truth. In this case WIKI is helping despicable traitors escape justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.233.168.98 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I too believe LBJ was somewhat responsible for the deaths of JFK, RFK and indeed MLK however without proof its unfair to state or speculate as fact what is probable and what is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk • contribs)

But who is "MLK" though? Extremely sexy 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Steven Mark Brown

Not even a brief mention of the possibility that LBJ had an illegitimate son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.215.97 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 June 2007

Wrong date

As a new user, I am unable to edit the page on Lyndon Johnson, however, there is an incorrect date. President Johnson graduated from Southwest Teacher's College in 1930, not 1931. If anyone questions the date, you can check it on the LBJ Library website. They ought to know ;)

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

Cynthia CynthiaD 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New Approval Rating Graph

I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page.

--Jean-Francois Landry 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact Check

Does this reference support this statement? "In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth with a tendency to lie and was elected president of his eleventh-grade class. He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924. < ref>Caro, Robert A. Volume I</ref>" Veriss 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot prove "with a tendency to lie" with a citation (and not just a schoolmate's) take it out of the article. HS121261 134.94.128.106 06:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

His Nickname for his Private Part?

It has been stated that he referred to his Private Part as "Jumbo" just like President Clinton was said to refer to his Private Part as "Willard". Just thought it was interesting to read that some of the world's most powerful people have names for their Privates. No mention of this in the trivia section, but I thought it was worth a mention in the discussion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.35.249 (talk • contribs)

New Query

Just one question: Did LBJ die a married man or not? If so, why not? (plays into todays david vitter story). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.132.195 (talk • contribs)

Please update!

Under the chapter legacy, it says that Lady Bird is still alive, while the fact is she died a few days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.141.108 (talk • contribs)

Indeed: well spotted. Extremely sexy 14:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Texas flag icons?

While I'm sure many good Texan folk are proud to claim him as one of their own exclusively, the fact remains that he was a former President of the United States - not a former governor of the State of Texas. As such, I think the use of the Texas state flag icons instead of the American flag icons in listing his birth & death dates is highly inappropriate. The same problem exists on the Lady Bird Johnson page.

As I said there, rather than unilaterally changing it (and risking the ire of some unhappy folks in a pickup at my doorstep!), I thought I'd put it to discussion first. Incidentally, the flag that draped his coffin was (properly) the U.S. "Stars & Stripes" - not the Texas "Lone Star". Any thoughts? Anyone live far enough from Texas - either in the Northern States, Canada, Europe or elsewhere - brave enough to risk taking it upon themselves to fix it?! (Or perhaps someone even closer than that, with a fully paid term life insurance policy?!) Just kidding! But thanks.208.127.115.247 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Location of death

I was reading an article of LBJ it said that he died at the San Antonio International Airpot en route to BMAC(Broke Army Medical Center) on Jan 23, 1973.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.66.219 (talk • contribs)

Is this article for real?

Johnson's administration was one of the most corrupt in American history. He was personal involved with 4 MAJOR investigations including at least one pertaining to murder prior to his ascension to the presidency (at which point the investigations ended). There is not one mention in this whole article about these things. In another part of Wikipedia -- the JFK Assassination page, you can find the following information:

• At the time of Kennedy's death, Johnson was the subject of four major criminal investigations involving government contract violations, misappropriation of funds, money laundering and bribery.[40] All these investigations were terminated upon LBJ's accession to the Presidency.[citation needed]

Johnson was linked professionally and personally to a convicted murderer, Malcolm 'Mac' Wallace, who in turn was linked to the JFK assassination by testimony and forensic evidence, including a fingerprint; however, both of the forms of evidence are still disputed.[41]

Wallace, who was studying at Columbia University in the 1940s, while teaching at Long Island University, the University of Texas and the University of North Carolina, met Johnson through a mutual acquaintance, Edward Clark, and took on a job at the US Department of Agriculture in October 1950. Wallace began an affair with LBJ's sister, Josefa, who was also having a relationship with Texan golf course owner John Kinser. Kinser is believed to have attempted to blackmail Johnson through his connection with Josefa. This is in dispute.

On October 22, 1951, Wallace shot Kinser dead in his golf shop, and escaped by vehicle. An eyewitness to the shooting made a note of Wallace's license plate, and Wallace was arrested and charged with murder. Wallace was released on bail after Edward Clark arranged for two financial supporters of LBJ (M. E. Ruby and Bill Carroll) to stand bail for him. LBJ's personal attorney John Cofer agreed to represent Wallace at his trial, which began in February, 1952.

The jury found Wallace guilty of "murder with malice aforethought", eleven of the jurors urging the death penalty. Judge Charles O. Betts overruled the jury and announced a suspended sentence of five years imprisonment. Wallace immediately walked free and other deaths were linked to him, especially some relating to the Billie Sol Estes fraud.

On August 9, 1984, Estes' lawyer, Douglas Caddy, wrote to the U.S. Department of Justice, claiming that Wallace, Billie Sol Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson and Cliff Carter had been involved in eight murders, including that of John F. Kennedy. Caddy stated: "Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders."

How come no reference to any of this is mentioned in the article? This article is NOT NPOV. Ikilled007 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that's very strange indeed. Extremely sexy 15:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I got to say that the above is huge pile of garbage. There has never been so much as a shred of evidence that links LBJ to the murder of JFK. Instead, he saw through the civil rights legislation that JFK only promised. That's the real LBJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.18.13 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be mention of these allegations in this article. While it is true there is no "hard" evidence, there are allegations that LBJ was involved in the assasination of JFK. I would refer you to the following Website, and the links to articles and news reports listed on the site:

http://www.saintjohnhunt.com

Links to "interviews, articles and stories from print, radio and on-line media" can be found at the bottom of the following page:

http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/background.html

97.97.250.35 (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Jones97.97.250.35 (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson's name

Hi,

I was just wondering was Lyndon Johnson's name really just "Baby" for the first few months of his life because his parents couldn't decide on a name for him? Please let me know. Thanks. Albert Cheng 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed gross distortion of the MFDP

This was in this article: "At the national convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey a black activist group calling itself the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) demanded all the Mississippi seats, although it had not followed party rules and had few voters. To appease the MFDP, Johnson sent in Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and the party's liberal leaders offered it two seats. The country's most prestigious civil rights leaders, including Roy Wilkins, Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin, all accepted the solution (as did all the states except Mississippi and Alabama), but the MFDP, coming under control of Black Power radicals, rejected any compromise. It therefore lost liberal support and the convention went smoothly for LBJ without a searing battle over civil rights."

This is an attempt to re-write history. The MFDP were black Mississippians who had literally risked their lives to vote and organize themselves as Democrats. They claimed--perfectly logically--that it was the official segregationist Mississippi Democratic Party who had the more tenuous claim to legitimacy, as the "official" Mississippi Democratic leaders violated US law and their own party's rules by excluding black Mississippians, who, it should be noted for those who are unaware, *were barred by racist violence from voting* for all of their lives until shortly before the date of these events. The MFDP also claimed, again logically, that they were more representative Democrats than the official segregationist delegation, who were openly threatening to bolt the natinal party, and who consistently rejected key planks of the Democratic Party platform. The MFDP's delegates were selected following Democratic Party rules. In short, the MFDP claimed they were the legitimate representatives of the Democratic Party from Mississippi, while the segregationist delegation was not. This was a serious credentialing fight, and almost turned to the MFDP's favor until Reuther, Humphrey et. al. had their chits called in by LBJ. "Black Power radicals" is a silly anachronism--"Black Power" was popularized by Stokely Carmichael post-1964, and was not how the MFDP described themselves. The citing of Branch's work is a gross mischaracterization; it may pull some de-contextualized facts from it, but the meaning does not follow Branch. Doprendek (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doprendek (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you sticking with the characterization of Fannie Lou Hamer as a Black Power radical?

Comment #41 is absolutely right -- the entire paragraph about the MFDP is historically inaccurate, and including a citation to right-wing blowhard Bob Novak is hardly persuasive. The description of the MFDP on the Wikipedia page for Fannie Lou Hamer is much more accurate --

In the summer of 1964, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, or "Freedom Democrats" for short, was organized with the purpose of challenging Mississippi's all-white and anti-civil rights delegation to the Democratic National Convention of that year as not representative of all Mississippians. Hamer was elected Vice-Chair.

The Freedom Democrats' efforts drew national attention to the plight of African-Americans in Mississippi, and represented a challenge to President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for a second term; their success would mean that other Southern delegations, who were already leaning toward Republican challenger Barry Goldwater, would publicly break from the convention's decision to nominate Johnson — meaning in turn that he would almost certainly lose those states' electoral votes in the election. Hamer, singing her signature hymns, drew a great deal of attention from the media, enraging Johnson, who referred to her in speaking to his advisors as "that illiterate woman".

Hamer was invited, along with the rest of the MFDP officers, to address the Convention's Credentials Committee. She recounted the problems she had encountered in registration, and the ordeal of the jail in Winona, and, near tears, concluded:

"All of this is on account we want to register [sic], to become first-class citizens, and if the Freedom Democratic Party is not seated now, I question America. Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be threatened daily because we want to live as decent human beings - in America?"

In Washington, D.C., President Johnson called an emergency press conference in an effort to divert press coverage away from Hamer's testimony; but many television networks ran the speech unedited on their late news programs. The Credentials Committee received thousands of calls and letters in support of the Freedom Democrats.

Johnson then dispatched several trusted Democratic Party operatives to attempt to negotiate with the Freedom Democrats, including Senator Hubert Humphrey (who was campaigning for the Vice-Presidential nomination), Walter Mondale, Walter Reuther, and J. Edgar Hoover. They suggested a compromise which would give the MFDP two seats in exchange for other concessions, and secured the endorsement of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for the plan. But when Humphrey outlined the compromise, saying that his position on the ticket was at stake, Hamer, invoking her Christian beliefs, sharply rebuked him:

"Do you mean to tell me that your position is more important than four hundred thousand black people's lives? Senator Humphrey, I know lots of people in Mississippi who have lost their jobs trying to register to vote. I had to leave the plantation where I worked in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Now if you lose this job of Vice-President because you do what is right, because you help the MFDP, everything will be all right. God will take care of you. But if you take [the nomination] this way, why, you will never be able to do any good for civil rights, for poor people, for peace, or any of those things you talk about. Senator Humphrey, I'm going to pray to Jesus for you."

Future negotiations were conducted without Hamer, and the compromise was modified such that the Convention would select the two delegates to be seated, for fear the MFDP would appoint Hamer. In the end, the MFDP rejected the compromise, but had changed the debate to the point that the Democratic Party adopted a clause which demanded equality of representation from their states' delegations in 1968.

Or you could use the text from the Wikipedia entry on the 1964 Presidential election:

At the national convention the integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) claimed the seats for delegates for Mississippi, not on the grounds of the Party rules, but because the official Mississippi delegation had been elected by a Jim Crow primary. The party's liberal leaders supported an even division of the seats between the two delegations; Johnson was concerned that, while the regular Democrats of Mississippi would probably vote for Goldwater anyway, rejecting them would lose him the South. Eventually, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and the black civil rights leaders including Roy Wilkins, Martin Luther King, and Bayard Rustin worked out a compromise: the MFDP took two seats; the regular Mississippi delegation was required to pledge to support the party ticket; and no future Democratic convention would accept a delegation chosen by a discriminatory poll. Joseph Rauh, the MFDP's lawyer, initially refused this deal, but they eventually took their seats. Many white delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign any pledge, and left the convention; and many young civil rights workers were offended by any compromise. [1] Johnson carried the South as a whole in the election, but lost the white vote in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina.

I have rewritten this paragraph so that it is more in line with the Fannie Lou Hamer Wikipedia entry, with the Wikipedia entry on the 1964 election, and with the rest of documentable history. However, one also might wonder about how truly relevant the whole incident is to the life of Lyndon Johnson; it didn't affect his election or, as far as I can tell, anything that Johnson himself did. Cvllelaw (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lbj1964.jpg

Image:Lbj1964.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad writing

According to the opening paragraph, "Johnson died after a heart attack, the third in his lifetime". Wow! How many heart attacks did he have outside his lifetime?

This is the sort of thing that screams out: "Don't bother reading any more of this article." 90.197.127.93 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can change it, although everyone else has the right to change your edits too. --Pumpmeup 09:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eugene McCarthy was not "prominent"?

The 1968 election section states: "Entering the 1968 election campaign, initially, no prominent Democratic candidate was prepared to run against a sitting President of his own party. Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota challenged Johnson . . ." McCarthy was on LBJ's shortlist of three in consideration for the Vice-president slot in 1964. He gave a nominating speech for Adlai Stevenson at the 1960 DNC which was as well-received as Obama's 2004 DNC speech. In what sense was McCarthy NOT a prominent Democrat?Dblobaum (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Radio Station

There should be something in the article about his radio station. It's an example of him using his power to enrich himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.66.144 (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Birth

I find it interesting how you mentioned his date of birth in the introductory paragraphy, but failed to not mention his birthplace three paragraphys later. For some people who look just at the introduction paragraphy, it may be an inconvience. Also, it is important information for a president, for anyone that matter. I added his birthplace of Stonewall, Texas in the the introduction paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow00play (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnson Cult

Would it be appropriate to include a link on the Johnson Cult? Orville Eastland (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fiction or Fact?

Is this true: that Johnson was the 36th President.

Or is this true: That he was the 37th?

Wikipedia states that he was the 36th unlike a few other articles, which say that he is the 37th President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.161.219 (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

www.whitehouse.gov reports him as 36th.  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Liberal" legislation

Calling his legislation liberal is a viewpoint and viewpoints violates WP:NPOV. Most specifically, it violates WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. If the legislation is indeed liberal, then the reader can make that judgment for themselves because the facts will speak to it. From today's viewpoint, there isn't anything liberal about civil rights or Medicare. That's just the way the world is today. I could just as easily make argument that civil rights and Medicare were radical steps towards socialism for the time. Either argument is a viewpoint which we are trying to avoid.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The Great Society, like the New Deal before it, are the flagships of liberal legislative history. Using the term in the lede is just reporting what happened. LBJ didn't just have a legislative agenda, he had a legislative agenda of a particular kind, and there's nothing POV about saying what kind it was. If LBJ's legislation was not liberal, I'd like to know what was. -- Zsero (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, politics is a slippery business. One man's liberal policy is another man's "fill-in-the-negative-blank" policy. Without commenting on today's politics, one can look to 19th century American politics and find the roots of modern day major American parties and see differences in what a Democrat and Republican would support. I think the same is true of the often-pejorative term "liberal."  Frank  |  talk  12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, that comes from your interpretation of liberal which is a viewpoint. Liberal is a very murky word with various meanings. WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves says:

"Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources."

If LBJ's legislation is liberal, then the facts will speak to it.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How Come Neither LBJ Nor Mrs. Johnson Did Anything to Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans or to Adjust Their GI Bill?

As a Vietnam veteran, I must point out that LBJ certainly presided over an escalation of the war. Yet neither LBJ nor his wife (who lived many decades longer) did anything to welcome home Vietnam veterans or adjust their GI Bill for inflation. When the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in 1982, neither Mrs. Johnson nor Ronald Reagan nor Jimmy Carter, etc even bothered to show up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.202 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seeing as he died in 1973, he's got a reasonable excuse for not showing up. However, this isn't the place for discussing his life, just the article. Harksaw (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well done

This is a well-written article that provides a balanced view of LBJ's life and especially his presidency. Very well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.18.13 (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Assassination of JFK

The second paragraph seems to kick off with a biased phrase: "To create the illusion that he was investigating Kennedy's murder..." Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix this properly right now. Khatores (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article failed its good article review because it lacks citations for a lot of information. Please take a look at WP:CITE to learn more about what to cite and how to do so. Once more citations are added to this article, please renominate it. Gary King (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)