Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson/Archive 1

Untitled
"a grand jury was again convened to investigate the [suspicious June 1961 death of top USDA inspector Henry Marshall, who'd been looking too close at Billy Sol Estes]. It concluded murder had been committed and that Johnson, [his DNC man Clifton] Carter and Wallace were the co-conspirators in the murder. Unfortunately, this startling decision by the grand jury was not issued until 1985. Johnson was not charged because he was dead." chapter of Blood, Money, & Power by an attorney who worked for a firm representing LBJ 1966-1971 -- but he needed a better proofreader

Johnson's wife is better known as Lady Bird Johnson rather than Claudia Johnson. That is also what the name of the linked article to her is entitled. Any questions? --65.73.0.137

There abslutely HAS to be a way to work this into the artice. There just has to. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prestapes/audio.php?media=lbj_haggar&start=00:00:01:30.0&end=00:00:02:38.0 (realaudio) --66.66.69.1 01:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cabinet
In the cabinet table, someone changed the appointments that were appointed by Kennedy from 1961 to 1963. These changes were reverted.
 * IMO, it sounds perfectly reasonable that they should be marked as 1963, since this is Johnson's cabinet now, not Kennedy's. He now had the right to fire any member of it. Any thoughts? --Golbez 15:27, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * But keeping 1961 conveys MORE information than 1963 does
 * presidents (like Truman) with holdover cabinets show all of the holdovers as starting at the same time as the new president. Morris 03:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we really should show when they actually entered office and I've said so on the Truman talk page. james_anatidae 09:30, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Retirement, death, and honors
LBJ physically accosted Canadian Prime Minister Pearson (grabbing him by the lapels) in front of Pearson's cabinet. I am pretty sure the mentions (in honors section) from Canadian gov't figures about how much LBJ affected them is really about a negative affect. I really wonder if any of this should be kept without the context. There's really way too much about funerals in way too many articles & very little about retirement & honors. I can see having a separte article for JFK's funeral, etc (there is), but WHO is going to come to wikipedia to find out what happened at all these presidential funerals? Hardly any of it is of historic value - whereas honors & retirement activities COULD be --JimWae 23:32, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the comment you put in the article, had he lived..., as he did live until two days after his second term would have ended. Morris 12:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe one's day of death depends on what one does in life - & is not a fixed date.--JimWae 19:43, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Cut/paste from White House pages
Several paragraphs seem to have been snipped from the White House pages. Is this kosher?

In terms of copyright laws, it is okay, works created by the United States Government are not subject to copyright. Morris 03:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

1960 democratic convention
I'm planning to reword slightly to make more precise. The article says "later in 1960" for example Johnson was nominated as VP the very next day after JFK was nominated as president. Morris 03:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article request
The Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park is worthy of an article, if someone would like to write it. Some starter info here: (NPS, public domain info) - MPF 10:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1964 Civil Rights Act??
In regard to Johnson and his involvement in the Act, this article lacks the serious discussion of his role involving the Act along with and comment pertaining to the Act's inportance. Unfortunately, the article is quick to mention the MFDP incident and only allows for:

"Nevertheless, two overriding crises had been gaining momentum since 1965. Despite the beginning of new anti-poverty and anti-discrimination programs, unrest and rioting in black ghettos troubled the nation. President Johnson steadily exerted his influence against segregation and on behalf of law and order, but there was no early solution."

I know that there is a picture and sidebar mentioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but shouldn't there be more of a discussion of the Act itself in relation to Johnson's presidency. I feel as if this overlook is an injustice to Johnson.

Article generally portrays LBJ in an unnecessarily negative light. For example, the ways the war on poverty and great society are discussed, and summarily discounted - in conjunction with what is contained in "Further information" (all "Vietnam rhetoric") and "Personal trivia." Can't we have a more balanced, less politicized/moralized article?

The LBJ entry is rife with right-wing revisionist bullshit. But that's what I have increasingly seen on Wikipedia - there is little interest in historical fact, and much effort taken in vilifying Democrats and liberals. When they can't win on the merits, Republicans simply lie their asses off. Good job, folks.

Wikipedia is a joke. It's basically worthless as an encylopedia, because every nutjob with an ax to grind is free to post whatever nonsense they want to in order to further their ideology, facts be damned. This entry on Johnson is pathetic, but no one will do anything about it. It reads like it was written by a member of the John Birch Society, and we all know what affection that group had for the 36th president of the United States. In the future, I'll stick to encyclopedias written by professionals.