Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson/Archive 3

Relations with Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson
Please consider adding this information, or something like it. I thought it was kind of funny myself, being Canadian and all.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090215/mtl_harper_obama_090215/20090215/?hub=MontrealHome

Quote:

But name calling has nothing on an incident between then-president Lyndon Johnson and Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson in 1965. After Pearson called for a pause in the bombing of Vietnam while speaking in Philadelphia, Johnson was reportedly furious at the Canadian's criticism of U.S. policy.

When Pearson visited Johnson the next day at Camp David, the 6'3" president grabbed Pearson by the collar and lifted him into the air (or pinned him against a wall, depending on which historian you read) and yelled, "You pissed on my rug!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.37.188 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

American Samoa Hospital
Under "Legacy" - Mention should be made of the Lyndon B. Johnson hospital in American Samoa (my son was born there!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.114.58.46 (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking
..after completeing Kennedy's term, was elected...: Actually, LBJ was elected President before completeing the term JFK was elected to. The term JFK was elected to, expired on January 20, 1965. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion
There is an hour-long talk available on-line in which Oxford academic, Vernon Bogdanor, gives an overview and summarizes the Johnson presdiency very nicely: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=780 I think that this would be very nice addition to this page. (I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Lacking
The hugely important role of Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War needs to be noted, if not dedicated a whole section. Will someone please do this? An amazing source of information about this can be found in Chapter 2 of William Quandt's Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967. To summarize, Johnson gave Israel the "green light" to attack the Arab forces in June 1967. Also of note, Johnson covered up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.97.161 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There was no cover-up of the Liberty attack; we now know what happened, because the tape of the pilot's conversation with his commanders was released, and it is now certain that everyone involved thought it was an Egyptian ship, and as soon as they realised it was American the attack stopped. This was no different than any other case of friendly fire, which happens in every war (cf Patrick Tillman). If the book you're recommending says otherwise, then its value as a reliable source for WP must be discounted.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, the USS liberty case is not yet solved. I'm not saying LBJ was involved but the evidence does point to his involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The survivors of the USS Liberty, who happen to come from all walks of life, are of various ethnicities and have differentpolitical beliefs, are practically unanimous in their position that the attack on their ship was deliberate. Their case is summarily presented in their website. The veterans/survivors argue,  quite convincingly, that Israel either knew beforehand or realized in time that its airplanes were attacking an American military ship but did not stop their bombing raids until American protests and warnings were lodged. This appears to have been anything but a "friendly fire" mishap.'  LBJ's administration did indeed cover up most of the incident's details and tried to silence those demanding a thorough public airing of the facts of the case and an official apology to the victims. -The Gnome (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also his involvement in the assasination of JFK should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The case of Lee Harvey Oswald having acted alone and without any conspiracy behind his actions has been resolutely established. The conspiracy-theorists, on the other hand, have never presented anything beyond speculation, allegation, and conjecture. For a thorough refutation of practically every conspiracy theory which is not entirely ludicrous, e.g. "Martians killed JFK" or "JFK still alive", see Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. -The Gnome (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

seperate article for his Presidency
This would alleviate some space and make his presidency a focus of another article.--Levineps (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry
What was Johnson's ancestry? English? Scots-Irish? Was he related to President Andrew Johnson? The article just focuses on the religious background of the Johnson and Baines families but says nothing about his ancestors, not even when they arrived in Texas.--jeanne (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How many "Johnson" entries are in just your local phone book? One of the most common surnames in the English-speaking world. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, Baseball Bugs, it could very well be from Northern Ireland as Johnson is also a common surname there. Or it could be an Anglicised form of the Scandinavian Jonsson. BTW, there aren't many Johnsons listed in my local phone book as I live in Sicily!--jeanne (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be from most anywhere in that area. And there probably aren't that many Johnsons, as such, in Sicily. But I would guess there are plenty of variants on "Giovanni", or whatever the Sicilian word for "John" is. Have you looked for an official Lyndon Johnson website, or any other site, which might get into his ancestry tree? Google is your friend. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It sure is. Thanks for your advice. Johnson was of Scots-Irish ancestry, after all.--jeanne (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how they ended up in Texas? Maybe, having lived too close to the British, they wanted to get as far away from civilization as possible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as I know, LBJ was no relation to Andrew Johnson. Those names came up as one of the endless list of coincidences between the Lincoln assassination and the JFK assassination, i.e. that both were succeeded by a Johnson. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Texas has loads of people of Scots-Irish ancestry. My mother grew up in Texas, and she was Ulster-Irish (or Scots-Irish), French and English. Her French grandmother came from Louisiana. As far as the Lincoln/JFk assassination goes, there are very strange coincidences such as Andrew born in 1808, and Lyndon in 1908.--jeanne (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And BTW Bugs, Scots-Irish/Ulster-Irish are the British, so why would the Johnsons want to move to get away from themselves (or their kind)? Unless by "British" you actually meant only "English"?

Scientific Bonanza
"Kennedy tasked Johnson with coming up with a 'scientific bonanza' that would prove world leadership? " I'm not sure why scientific bonanza is in quotes here, is this a well known term, can anyone find a reference for this? thanks --John Cumbers (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the term used when discussing what is hoped for or what has occurred in scientific study or research. A slang term. For example, when a Hurricane hunter flies into a storm, they are hoping to obtain a great source or wealth of information therein.Kierzek (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack vs. John F.
The infobox of the Lyndon B. Johnson page is hardly the proper arena in which to discuss what name should be applied to the 35th President of the United States. IP User:67.84.7.118, ‎please take your uncited position and energy to the John F. Kennedy talk page for discussion before you muck with minor aspects of this page. Be prepared to make a better defense than "Please don't..." BusterD (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Navy
why there wasnt a USS Lyndon B. Johnson yet ? --Jor70 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Served As?
This article's introduction says that LBJ "served as the" 36th President of the United States, but I am unable to find another article about a President of the United States where the individual "served as" president rather than the individual "was" president.

This is a inconsistency that I would appreciate an expert's opinion on. The inconsistency, if it is as I described, could implicitly tell a reader that Lyndon Baines Johnson was not president, but rather merely acting president or worse, illegitimate as president.

If on the other hand, this is not an inconsistency in treatment of presidents but is Wikipedia's consensus on the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, it deserves further explanation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasdanielsosa (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

War on Poverty
Quick note:

footnote 42, linking to:, is seemingly used as substantiation that ..."The programs brought about real results, reducing rates of poverty."

There is no basis for the claims of lowered poverty rates (which is also a contested claim, see ) as a result of the WOP in the cited source. I have therefore removed the claim and moved its footnote to earlier in the paragraph where it fits better into the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSupreme23 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Info Box for Article on Lyndon Baines Johnson
The article for Lyndon Baines Johnson needs an Info Box at the top of the article. I know that an Info Box requires work, but every president deserves to have one in his article on Wikipedia.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempt?
In the third paragraph, there is an obvious, biased edit adding "his attempt to help the poor" before War on Poverty. We could omit that, or be consistent and say his attempt to uphold civil rights, his attempt at educational television, his attempt to give adequate health care to seniors and those least fortunate, his attempt to protect the environment... While I'm sure that some will disagree with my conclusion, I don't think the implication (using the word attempt) is truthful, as evidenced by the article War on Poverty. Therefore, I'm deleting those words. mp2dtw (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise wording?
I have attempted to avoid an edit war by a proposed wording: "Despite the failures of his foreign policy, Johnson is ranked favorably among some historians due to his domestic policies." I suggest people discuss this further instead of automatically reverting. PatGallacher (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your wording should satisfy any reasonable person. Of course, the "citation needed" tag is still applicable.  Thanks for the effort! LarryJeff (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to take out the "despite the failures of his foreign policy" part? I'm not claiming the Vietnam War was a success but why mention the word "failure" if Wikipedia hopes to remain neutral (74.64.100.170 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)).

Neutrality does not require dishonesty. If you want to cannonize all these murderous Presidents, then you can have your brand of "neutrality" imposed on Presidential wiki's. For anyone who has studied the REAL history on these presidents, that they're a loatheful bunch of money hungry, power hungry swine lords, with very few exceptions, is abundantly clear. It's like you want to write about great white sharks like their mouths are full of pillows, exuding honey and it's amongst the most prized places to nap. "The night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again. It's a jaw-dropping deposition and it's the biggest JFK smoking gun there is - despite the fact that it has received little media attention." That quotation is in the info on a video of Johnson's mistress providing an interview in which she gives her unadulterated testimony that Johnson had made verbal threat against Kennedy, the night before Kennedy was assassinated. The day Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson returned to the conglomeration of privately owned banks called "The Fed", the ability to print US money. Kennedy had, about 6 months before that, removed the fed's ability to print money and had returned that right and ability to the congress, as it was enshrined in the constitution. Lincoln had done the same thing before he was assassinated, ceased the fed's ability to print money. Garfield was also assassinated after his boldly declaring The Fed Bank a target. "President James A. Garfield was inaugurated in 1881, he said "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce". On July 2, 1881 Garfield was shot, he dies on September 19." http://www.libertyforlife.com/banking/federal_reserve_bank.html These are all potent facts about these presidents, that their wiki pages ignore. All of it points to a multiple century history of Presidential servitude to the Rothschilds banking empire, with very few Presidential exceptions. That wikipedia offers the version of history where instead of being viscious power hungry murderers, the presidents were all baby kissing, mistress loving, super dads who were just and fair and honorable, is not neutral. It's propaganda, an attempt to prop up the establishment. It seems to me the administrators of wikipedia, in hosting this garbage his story version of history, have all set themselves up for prosecution by the even guiltier emperor, who needs to disappear the evidence they're worth, or by the mobs with torches that survive the ongoing nuke war that is the wholly inadequate response to Fukushima's nuclear meltdown.

LBJ's and Ladybird's Inauguration suit and gown
Maybe it's of interest to the article, maybe not. Feel free to use. I took the picture. http://i44.tinypic.com/j61m4m.jpg Kar98 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

General structure of infobox
The infobox is a very good structural element in wikipedia. Presenting information of individuals. But the infobox focuses on the individual's functions in life (e.g. political offices), and presents individuals biographic information such as DOB at the very end of the box. I think basic biographical information such as DOB should be presented at the beginning. 84.163.153.35 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Relative of William Womack Heath
I have read somewhere that LBJ was a "cousin" of William Womack Heath. Anybody who could validate or invalidate that piece of information? Astor Piazzolla (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.63.16.82, 1 June 2011
I find this: "In addition, Johnson became worried about his failing health and was concerned that he might not make it through another four-year term." This is cited as a contributing factor in Johnson's decision to drop out of 1968 presidential race. But could someone try to explain therein that this was private at the time? (I.e., it didn't become public until some time later that LBJ was concerned about his health.) So the only PUBLIC reason at the time was the Vietnam-War dissension.

If you want proposed specific replacement text, try" "In addition, although it was not made public at the time, Johnson had become worried ..." (keep the rest the same)

128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

lbj
is this

37th Vice President of the United States In office January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963 President 	John F. Kennedy Preceded by 	Richard Nixon Succeeded by 	Hubert Humphrey

mentioned in yr lbj-wikipedia website correct?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.11.99 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is SOXROX (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Suez Crisis
Shouldn't the article mention that Johnson vocally supported the UK, France and Israel during the Suez Crisis? (92.7.30.136 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I think it's important and significant.Est300 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Reelcrazy, 8 August 2011
The listing of offices held on the right side of the page shows him as having represented the "Illinois 10th Congressional District" when in fact, as mentioned in the article, he served the Texas 10th Congressional District.

Reelcrazy (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching that. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1963 "chicken tax" section
Deleted section on 1963 "chicken tax," which seemed out of place, digressive, and lacking in importance compared to the rest of the article. It already has its own article for anyone interested in the minutiae of tariff policy and the history of VW truck sales in the U.S., and really shouldn't have been taking up so much space here before the other, much more historically important, aspects of the Johnson administration. MingusMingus (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * good idea--it distracted readers from the main themes. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Failure" is biased.
Saying that the Lyndon Johnson's foreign policy was a "failure" is extreme bias. The phrase clearly violates Wikipedia's neutrility policy and should be rephrased. Est300 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * no it's the consensus of the RS which it's Wiki's job to report. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people can say that the Johnson foreign policy was a failure (and most do), but it's obviously biased. "Unpopular" or "controversial" prehaps, but "failure" is not neutral. Est300 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rjensen is correct. It is cited; including a cite to Robert Dallek, a well respected historian/biographer of LBJ (and others, such as JFK). Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the bias of EDITORS to watch for. Here "failures" is the judgment of the Reliable Sources that use the term: Besides the Dallek statement on the consensus of scholars (footnote 3) see Lawrence W. Serewicz, Take America at the brink of empire: Rusk, Kissinger, and the Vietnam War online p 46
 * There are no WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems here, Est300. The sources, as pointed out, are very reliable and accepted. Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial Doubts about the Vietnam War
Presidential historian Michael Beschloss discussed the LBJ tapes:

See section "President Johnson and Vietnam": "I'll tell you, the more that I stayed awake last night thinking of this thing, the more I think of it, I don't know what in the hell--it looks like to me we're getting into another Korea. It just worries the hell out of me. I don't see what we can ever hope to get out of with once we're committed. I believe the Chinese Communists are coming in to it. I don't think that we can fight ‘em ten thousand miles away from home and ever get anywhere in that area. I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out, and it's just the biggest damn mess that I ever saw....What the hell is Vietnam worth to me?...What is it worth to this country? We've got a treaty but, hell, everybody else has got a treaty out there, and they're not doing anything about it. Now, of course, if you start running from the Communists, they may just chase you right into your own kitchen....everybody I talk to that's got any sense...says, oh, God, please give this thought. Of course, I was reading Mansfield's stuff this morning, and it's just Milquetoast as it can be, it's not fine at all, but this is a terrible thing we're getting ready to do."

- PRESIDENT JOHNSON (May 27, 1964) --Javaweb (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Allegations as to statements by Jackie Kennedy
I removed the recent "cited" addition because is not factually correct. The "cited" sources that made statements (in August, 2011, before the book was released in Sept. 2011) were only generating scandalous copy and if one, for example reads the "Daily Mail" article, they don't quote what is on the tapes (and also in the book). Instead, the writer makes statements, including the words, "believed to include" and "allegedly reveal". Near the end of the article the writer does state, " 'A spokesman for ABC said the claims about the content of the tapes were erroneous'." The FOX News article cited, uses the words, "reportedly reveal". The Fox News article writer does go on to state: "The tabloid reports about the content of the tapes are totally erroneous," an ABC News spokesperson said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "ABC News isn't releasing any content from those tapes until mid-September at which point it will be clear how off base these reports are." The writer then goes on to quote the "Daily Mail". I have reviewed the book in question and the "alleged" content is not there. The matter in the end has: WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. Kierzek (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

protection
I would like to ask for Edit semi-protected on this article.
 * Then please visit WP:RFPP and make a request-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Society
This section should mention the programs he initiated and extended: Food Stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children(AFDC) program begun in the 1930's and what their legacies were rather than. In particular, there was a problem with impoverished children so the existing AFDC program was extended. Concerns about multi-generational dependency on welfare led to the entire program's bipartisan repeal in 1996. The Food Stamps program continues and childhood hunger is no longer an issue. Any thoughts on this article section? --Javaweb (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY
There is a comment in this article on the TV series THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY, which ran on THE HISTORY CHANNEL and had an installment that accused LBJ of conspiring to assassinate JFK. This particular program is infamous, since it led to protests by LBJ loyalists, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. THE HISTORY CHANNEL assembled a committee of scholars to examine the claims of the show; they concluded they had no merit, THE HISTORY CHANNEL yanked the show and apologized to the Johnson family.

This was reverted. I am not protesting, nor do I have any interest in an explanation of why it was reverted. I am just leaving this comment here to make the facts known, and then going about my business. What gets printed or not in Wikipedia is an issue not worth anything exceeding the threshold of bother. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, Mr.G., thanks for the accurate abstract. I removed a reference to the show because it reflects mostly on a History Channel acknowledged abject failure and this Wikipedia article is on a different subject. As even the broadcaster thinks it is crap, who needs it. --Javaweb (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

"You have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares." MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Running for V.P. AND then-current seat in Congress -- look up John Nance Garner in 1932
I find "he had Texas law changed to allow him to run for both offices", referring to the subsequent run of LBJ in 1960 for his U.S. Senate seat and also for the Vice Presidency. Yes, there were similar situations regarding Lloyd Bentsen (also from Texas) in 1988, Joe Lieberman (of Connecticut) in 2000, and Joe Biden (of Delaware) in 2008; Bentsen and Lieberman did not become V.P., so each of them started a new U.S. Senate term. (Joe Biden also started his new Senate term, but had to be out of there within 17 days in order to become V.P. on time.)

My point here is that I recall reading about something being done for then-House Speaker John Nance Garner, who was also from Texas and who in 1932 then ran for re-election to U.S. House AND for V.P. (was FDR's running mate). He won both, and because the new Congress and the new terms for President & VP all started on March 4, 1933, he could not start new term in U.S. House, but became VP instead. Need research into the laws governing John Nance Garner in 1932 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

THIS year (2012), Paul Ryan has the Republican VP nomination and is a candidate for re-election to U.S. House (from Wisconsin). In a year ending in 2 (which is also what 1932 was), the House district he's running in may be somewhat different from the one he represents, due to reapportionment (which does not affect the U.S. Senate).

Personal Life
Not a lot on that. Married to Lady Bird Johnson. Also a lot of scurrilous innuendo available on the 'net about LBJ. Might be nice to have an indication of the truth - or otherwise, of course - of that. One assumes he drove, drank [not at the same time], owned houses, perhaps supported a sports team or two, even had a net worth above zero. Some background would be nice. Thanks. Autochthony wrote on 15 September 2012, about 2235z. 109.154.21.249 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

better source needed tags
I noticed that in three places in the article, someone has added a "better source needed" tag to information that is cited to Robert Caro's three-volume biography of Johnson. My understanding is that Caro's work is extremely well regarded and has won numerous awards. What is the rationale for these tags? Should they be removed? GabrielF (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, there seems to be no good reason for the tags so I've removed them. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Post about Paul Ryan
I undid what one user posted because, while true, it doesn't really belong on this page.
 * Similarly, Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan was able to retain his seat in Congress despite the Romney-Ryan ticket losing the 2012 election.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewi (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013
Please add this book to the list under Further Reading:
 * Fernlund, Kevin Jon. (2009). Lyndon B. Johnson and Modern America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

134.124.26.245 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The book is listed at Lyndon B. Johnson bibliography. Could you explain why you think it merits inclusion in this list, which is necessarily shorter? Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Since you haven't replied yet and no one else has weighed in, I'm closing the request. Please reopen it if you'd like it reconsidered. Rivertorch (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't shoot, I'm only the piano player
I've read Gerald Blaine nearly shot LBJ in Nov '63. Any truth to it? If so, shouldn't it be included? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  07:08 & 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

1967 Arab Israel War
McNamara is quoted regarding US warships being "turned around" during the 1967 war. In the "50 years of War" documentary, the same event is shown in a completely different context / tone. As per the documentary, the Soviets were planning to use Soviet aircraft (painted in syrian or eqyptian colors) flown by Soviet pilots. However, the Soviets did not deploy their aircrafts because the US "turned around" warships to "within 50 miles of the coast, knowing that the ships were being tracked by the Soviets." Additional research needed. MarutanRay (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)MarutanRay 17/Mar/2013

LBJ's High School Yearbook
Many years ago I digested two biographies of this person. My memory of them is that they each noted an early flaw of character. Lyndon was the president of the student body and multiple photos of him appeared in the school's Yearbook. Supposedly, one photograph of Lyndon was so upsetting to his ego that he arranged to intercept the cartons of yearbooks at delivery. Then, in isolation, he was said to have used a razor to removed the page with the offending photo from each yearbook. Whether this case is proved or disproved, it deserves mention in the article, for the interest of young readers. --Edward Chilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.210.182 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Timing of Johnson's Death
The article makes this questionable claim: "His death also occurred just two days after the end of what would have been his final term in office had he successfully won reelection in 1968." This was presumably deduced from the date of his death, not taken from a reliable source. Actually, we don't inaugurate Presidents on weekends, so Nixon's second inauguration was not held on Saturday, January 20th, it was delayed until Monday January 22nd, the day of Johnson's death. I don't have a source, but I remember the irony of dying on what would have been the last day of his second term. While my memory isn't a valid source for Wikipedia's standards, if anybody knows of a source, this would be very helpful. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The term ends on Jan. 20, regardless of what day of the week it is. When the 20th falls on a Sunday, the inaugural takes place the next day, but the president is sworn in privately on Sunday.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't need a source to state that the distance between January 20th and January 22nd is 2 days. And Hot Stop is right.  At noon on January 20th, the incumbent's term ends. He's outta there, he's gone.  Now, whether the new president gets sworn in a few minutes later, or up to 2 days later, is a different issue.  By operation of the US Constitution, the president-elect becomes president at noon on the 20th, and if he died after that time but before he had a chance to be sworn in, he would die as president, not as president-elect.  The purpose of the swearing in is to allow him to carry out the functions/office of president.  Between noon on the 20th and whenever the swearing in happens, he is president but can't sign laws, impose vetos, or do anything else his office entails.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There is some bias
I am afraid that this article leans quite a bit towards Stateist politicians (I believed these are called "liberals" in the US). The best examples are in 5.3 and 5.5. Someone, please fix this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JankeleBeta3 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? He was a Democrat, he believed in and attempted to implement liberal programs, there is no bias evident. You appear to want the article to reflect your anti-liberal bias however. 49.195.57.209 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree the bias criticism. The article touts the "war on poverty" as a success. However, according to the Wikipedia article on poverty, the poverty rate in the US in 2011 was the same as it ws in 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigT62 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a selective reading of that graph on poverty rate. According to the war on poverty article which uses the same graph and data: 'In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.' Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014
LBJ the democrar (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Portrait Issue?
It might be a good idea to reduce the size of President Johnson's portrait, as it seems to be fairly ginormous. 19:08, 17 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.122.200 (talk)

1964 election - MS delegation issue
I have replaced the following text in the article with a less detailed version which more fully sets forth LBJ's involvement:

In mid-1964, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) 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. At the national convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey the 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 primary conducted under Jim Crow laws in which blacks were excluded because of poll taxes, literacy tests, and even violence against black voters. The national Party's liberal leaders supported a compromise in which the white delegation and the MFDP would have an even division of the seats; Johnson was concerned that, while the regular Democrats of Mississippi would probably vote for Goldwater anyway, if the Democratic Party rejected the regular Democrats, he would lose the Democratic Party political structure that he needed to win in the South. Eventually, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and black civil rights leaders (including Roy Wilkins, Martin Luther King, and Bayard Rustin) worked out a compromise with MFDP leaders: the MFDP would receive two non-voting seats on the floor of the Convention; the regular Mississippi delegation would be required to pledge to support the party ticket; and no future Democratic convention would accept a delegation chosen by a discriminatory poll. When the leaders took the proposal back to the 64 members who had made the bus trip to Atlantic City, they voted it down. As MFDP Vice Chair Fannie Lou Hamer said, "We didn't come all the way up here to compromise for no more than we'd gotten here. We didn't come all this way for no two seats, 'cause all of us is tired." The failure of the compromise effort allowed the rest of the Democratic Party to conclude that the MFDP was simply being unreasonable, and they lost a great deal of their liberal support. After that, the convention went smoothly for Johnson without a searing battle over civil rights. Evans and Novak (1966), pp. 451–456; Taylor Branch. Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963–65, pp. 444–470. Despite the landslide victory, Johnson, who carried the South as a whole in the election, lost the Deep South states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina, the first time a Democratic candidate had done so since Reconstruction.

Hoppyh (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your version. Kierzek (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Big typo
Ulysses S. Grant about Template:Covert earlier. 66.234.58.136 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Some different fish to fry
Looking at the article as a whole, there are some big issues that maybe we could work on.

For one thing there is very little material regarding Johnson's foreign policy outside of Vietnam. I.M.O., "Inter-American Affairs" could get a whole section, including the appointment of Thomas C. Mann (and his supposedly declaration of the "Mann Doctrine"; the occupation of the Dominican Republic; and involvement in events like the military coup in Brazil.

On another extreme, the sections on Vietnam, while arguably of appropriate length due to the size of the war, are a bit rambling and might overuse a president-centric decision model. ("Johnson decided", "Johnson decided", "Johnson sent", etc.) Worse, the article currently misrepresents the Gulf of Tonkin incident as the beginning of Johnson's relationship to the war. Check out 1963 in the Vietnam War and 1964 in the Vietnam War to see many significant events preceding August 1964, notably the signing of National Security Action Memorandum 273 on November 26, 1963, and the covert sabotage campaign known as Operation 34A.

Doesn't economic policy deserve a section? The Johnson administration oversaw the demise of the gold standard (seemingly causing a diplomatic spat with France), and took the silver out of dimes. There was some "free trade" action. On the labor side, there was big unionization of public sector workers, and such famous strikes as that of the Memphis sanitation workers. Speaking of which, there were three world-infamous assassinations which took place in the United States on Johnson's watch, and one of them is not currently mentioned.

Throughout the article—which you understand, I don't mean to knock, but only to improve—are scattered some possibly unsupported editorializations, such as the "shocked" descriptor of the nation after a somewhat unpopular Lyndon "How Many Kids Did You Kill Today" Johnson decided not to seek re-election—or the assessment of a "sudden halt" of the civil rights movement in summer 1965

Okay, nice to see everybody, hope you're having a good 2015 so far. groupuscule (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories and JFK's Thoughts on a Possible Johnson Administration
I added a new paragraph to this article discussing the conspiracy theories surrounding Lyndon Johnson's possible role in the Kennedy Assassination (there was no specific mentions of this previously). I also included information concerning Jackie Kennedy's recollections on JFK's thoughts of a future Johnson Presidency (according to interview tapes, JFK did not believe Johnson should be president and was working with Bobby Kennedy to find a different nominee in 1968). Innovatinghistory (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * First there is a whole article on JFK conspiracy theories and it includes a section on LBJ; so that is where the bulk of any of your first addition should be; therefore, it needs WP:Copy edit (ce) work and I will do it. As for the second addition it is too vague and needs revision from a better WP:RS source, such as Robert Dallek. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that there is an entire article dedicated to Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, but there should not be any problems transposing some of that information to the Lyndon Johnson article. Most of the paragraph I inserted includes new details not previously listed in the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.  The lines you left in are too general on their own and do not include the appropriate details.
 * I disagree completely that the second source is too vague. My source was an ABC News article referencing a television special hosted by Diane Sawyer.  I would consider the American Broadcasting Company to be an extremely credible source (furthermore, the article was referring a primary source - taped interviews with Jackie Kennedy).  I would like some more editors to comment here, but I strongly advise inserting these two sentences back into the article.  Innovatinghistory (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My point was not that the source was vague but the reported statement; what was written was just a generalized statement from a news reporter. One could get the same information in better detail and in proper context from a historian/biographer such as Dallek. Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * However, just because the statement is in a fairly broad context (which I dispute in this case) does not mean it is inaccurate. There is certainly room to add more information or a citation, but erasing the content is not the answer.  In the interim, I am going to restore the Jackie Kennedy recollection information and leave out the conspiracy theory details (for now) until we can get more voices in this discussion.
 * Also, the source I am using for these sentences definitely meets the criteria of WP:RS. Innovatinghistory (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue for me is the poor quality of the statement by Jackie Kennedy. Her biographies indicate that she played little role in political discussions. Note that she did not say that JFK told her this. Rather, it seems most likely that she is repeating gossip that she heard later from other people. Her statement is very vague – For example, she does not have the names of any of the alternative VPs. We have very explicit testimony of lots of first-hand sources that are much more credible than Jackie on this topic.  Secondly, her statement is a primary source and Wikipedia flags those as dangerous territory for interpretation. ABC no doubt accurately reported what she told them, but ABC did not make any effort whatsoever to validate the truth of what she said.  Third, what Wikipedia should use are reliable secondary sources on JFK and LBJ like one of the multiple serious  biographies which have examined the topic in depth. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is our place to argue whether Jackie Kennedy is a reliable source. My sentence specifically says that the information comes from Mrs. Kennedy's recollections and uses no other citations to back up these facts.  It is for the readers of Wikipedia, not the editors, to determine whether her memories are credible.  As long as our information is factual (the sentence was factual because I prefaced it by saying "Mrs. Kennedy claimed...") and it is properly cited, I would not censor it based on the source.  We should also remember that in the field of history, primary sources are viewed by favorably (for substantial research) than secondary sources.  Innovatinghistory (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Other long time editors (Binksternet and Rjensen) have now put forth the sentiments and policy I have tried to convey. I would suggest you read up on the links I have given you Innovatinghistory to better understand things; secondary sources are more objective and cover a subject more indepth with cross checking and fact facting; more reliable (when done correctly). Also see: Verifiability. Kierzek (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not up to the readers, it is up to the editors to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Those guidelines emphasize having a reliable secondary source, and warn against use of primary sources such as interviews with Jackie Kennedy.  My point is that scholars and experts spend an enormous amount of time and energy tracking down rumors and gossip and bits of information to come up with the most credible story.  That is, Wikipedia says let the RS deal with the primary sources, not the Wikipedia editors.  The job of us editors is to report what the RS have concluded, rather than toss together a smorgasbord of miscellaneous rumors and gossip. I added the following text, based on three reliable sources:
 * "There is no doubt that Bobby Kennedy and Johnson hated each other. [ref] Jeff Shesol, Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1998).[ref] But dropping Johnson from the ticket would produce heavy losses in the South in the 1964 election, and both Kennedys were agreed that Johnson would stay on the ticket. [ref] Dallek 1998, pp 42-44; Sean J. Savage, JFK, LBJ, and the Democratic Party (2012) pp 196-97. [/ref]  Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have double-checked the Wikipedia guidelines and believe you are incorrect in how you are enforcing them. According to WP:RS, primary sources can be used in limited quantities if the information is factual and not interpretative.  The sentences I included are direct facts from Jackie Kennedy's recollections.  Furthermore, the article I have used as a citation is a secondary source, which would suggest that it even more closely follows WP:RS.  Innovatinghistory (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of the problem: She actually said: "Bobby told me that he'd had some discussions with him [JFK]. I forget exactly how they were planning or who they had in mind. It wasn't Bobby, but somebody. Do something to name someone else in '68." She could not remember very much, and she was repeating garbled stories that Bobby told her after the assassination. That is poorly recollected gossip heard secondhand from a very bitter hater of LBJ. Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, as editors, it is not our place to determine whether readers should be presented with this information. As long as we present Jackie Kennedy's remarks as mere recollections that could be inaccurate, it should be up to the readers to decide whether to believe the information or not.  Jackie Kennedy's memories, while possibly not credible, still add an important component to the story of LBJ's future (when Kennedy was still alive).  Innovatinghistory (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This material is not good enough for the JFK, RFK or the LBJ biographies. It's poor quality conjecture from somebody who was not close enough to the action. As Wikipedia editors we must gauge the material against the grand scheme of things. Should we include every little bit of recollection that can be found? Of course not. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to clarify your last question. On a digital platform such as Wikipedia, in which there is no discernible limit to the size of an article, why should we not include every recollection, as long as said information is properly sourced and presented in a factually correct manner? Innovatinghistory (talk) (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read Article size. There are critical concerns about reader attention span. I think we as editors must exercise some discernment in choosing what to tell the reader, and I choose not to relay Jackie's vague recollection. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Binksternet is correct; it has to do with the fact these are articles, not books or tomes. It should be noted that the ideal size for articles should be no more than 10,000 words. The loading time and bytes are part of the consideration made for articles content. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life
Where's the section on personal life, marriage, off-marriage relationships, children (legitimate and illegitimate)? The JFK write-up is graced with this information; why omit LBJ? Pzzp (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a good amount of article space addressing his life apart from his political life and the presidency. It seems, however, you are looking for more juicy content, scandalous stuff?  We don't do that here as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. We certainly do not give weight to people who get 15 minutes of fame by making s*** up. - Location (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I can't tell if you're using snark or you're serious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm serious. People who have only tenuous connections to high profile individuals do not need to be mentioned in the articles of those individuals. - Location (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree and thanks for the clarification. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2015
The second paragraph in the introduction states that Johnson was one of four people, among other things, to serve in "both offices of the executive branch . . ." The paragraph apparently intends the term "both offices of the executive branch" to mean the Presidency and Vice-Presidency -- the two executive offices that are specifically prescribed in the United States Constitution. However, the phrasing is inexact; the executive branch of the United States is composed of tens of thousands of "officers," as legally defined (for instance, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, etc.). A more exact term would be "... both constitutionally-prescribed offices of the executive branch . . . ." Thank you for your time and attention to this request.

207.106.149.170 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) If we mean the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, why don't we just say so ....? - Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO that is still unnecessarily convoluted. Many readers (especially non-US readers) will have little if any idea what "constitutionally-prescribed offices of the executive branch" means.
 * "Constitutionally-prescribed offices" appears to be correct, but I personally would have no clue what it meant, and judging from its frequency of use, I suspect many other readers wouldn't either. I agree with Arjayay, keep it simple, go for "Presidency and Vice-Presidency". -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Inomyabcs (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't Lyndon Johnson nominate someone to Vice President?
Why didn't Lyndon Johnson nominate someone to Vice President?

The article makes no mention of why the Vice President spot went vacant for two years during Lyndon Johnson's time as President.

Why didn't he nominate someone to fill the vacant spot?

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives the president the ability to nominate someone to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency, was ratified in 1967. Before that, there was no way to fill such a vacancy.  Calidum   04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As this happened during his presidency, it should be mentioned and discussed in this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015
Please change: "Historians argue that Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern liberalism in the United States after the New Deal era. Johnson is ranked favorably by some historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of several laws in his tenure, including civil rights, gun control, and social security." to "Historians argue that Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern liberalism in the United States after the New Deal era. Johnson is ranked favorably by some historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of several laws in his tenure, including civil rights, gun control, and an expansion of social security." Because he didn't create or pass social security. That was during FDR's term. He expanded it in the following way: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/lbjleg1.html That link should be the footnote after social security. Thank you.

Deniserobb (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ The actual text reads Historians argue that Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern liberalism in the United States after the New Deal era. Johnson is ranked favorably by some historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws, affecting civil rights, gun control, social security, and many other areas. That passage, especially given "...affecting...", doesn't imply that Johnson created social security and is correct otherwise, as far as I can tell (although the phrase "many other areas" is rather vague and might stand to be changed). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Lyndon B. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100108032454/http://goliath.ecnext.com:80/coms2/gi_0199-2286782/The-Week.html to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2286782/The-Week.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130314044909/http://quotes.dictionary.com:80/I_knew_from_the_start_that_I_was to http://quotes.dictionary.com/i_knew_from_the_start_that_i_was
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100724143741/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/pardonspres1.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All three links check out. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Reserve (1940-1964)
Robert Caro's biography - and he's an author unlikely to be over-generous to LBJ - gives complete credence to LBJ's claims to have come under fire in the aircraft in which he acted as observer. The account is supported by (apparently) eye-witness testimony from crew-members. I have therefore made a small change to this section.Thomas Peardew (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Full details of LBJ's medal were described in Naval History Magazine, April 2001. His plane turned back well short of the target due to generator trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.111.15 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Radio Fortune
Should there not be something about the large fortune which he allegedly made (radio licences?) by abusing his political position in the late 1940s? It's over twenty years since I read Vol2 of the Robert Caro biography, but he discusses it at length. Maybe other writers have said other things about it.Paulturtle (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just had a flick through the biog of his wife Lady Bird, and it attributes the business success to her. Which may or may not be true. But there ought to be something in this article, surely.Paulturtle (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

War on Poverty
The article contains the following verbiage:

" and his "War on Poverty". Assisted in part by a growing economy, the War on Poverty helped millions of Americans rise above the poverty line during Johnson's presidency."

Is this a biographical article or a hagiographical one? Reviewing Wikipedia's own "War on Poverty" article reveals much more controversy. For example, as this article partly concedes, critics point out that the WoP began during an economic recovery and that the poverty rate had already been falling for years before any measures were even announced. Some economists cited in the article argue that the WoP may have even hindered further reduction and that the growth in chronic welfare use in later decades may have mired millions more in poverty. Yet the success of LBJ's War on Poverty is given as an incontrovertible fact with a citation linking to a paper widely regarded as one that toes the progressive line. Wouldn't it be enough to simply point out that the War on Poverty was launched by LBJ and let Wikipedia's readers draw their own conclusions about its successes and/or failures? 2602:30A:2EF7:B80:9CA2:E3E6:44ED:7DEE (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wedding
Johnson's wedding was officiated by Rev. Arthur R. McKinstry at St. Mark's church in San Antonio. I think that should be mentioned in this article. A reference can be found at: http://www.enivation.com/SigmaPi/archive/Emerald/1964/SP_EMERALD_VOL_50_NO_4_WINTER_1964.pdf Pg. 182 Gooseneck41 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016
Brown8467 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC) The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty (AGTR-5), by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War. The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship. At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity, though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13(talk) 20:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Flawed Giant
The last paragraph of Johnson's introduction reads:

"Johnson is ranked favorably by some historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws [...]"

However I don't feel this adequately sums up the mixed feelings from historians and political scholars regarding Johnson's legacy. He is widely regarded - especially by the eminent and ultimate Johnson expert, Pultizer-prize winner Robert Caro, who, at the age of 80, is currently working on the fifth volume covering Johnson's life - as having an extremely mixed legacy. Should this not be reflect in the last paragraph of the introduction? The introduction is incredibly important for setting the tone of the article. Crazy Eddy (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Caro is only up to 1964--He has not weighed in on the major controversy or issues, such as the Vietnam War. Has big problem is that he does not engage with the dozens of other historians working on specialized topics. Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the mixed legacy can be supported by other sources.  Montanabw (talk)  20:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"He was allowed to observe Cabinet and National Security Council meetings."
"He was allowed to observe Cabinet and National Security Council meetings." The vice president is a statuary member of the National Security Council and there for does not need permission to attend.Simmons123456 (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're right, assuming that the source supports that and that the Kennedy administration had no informal way of keeping him out, then the text could be changed to "He attended Cabinet...." Dhtwiki (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Without objection, I've gone ahead and made the change. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

LBJ's Penis
Sorry if this is too inappropriate for Wikipedia (and please feel free to remove this if that is so) but I read about how proud LBJ was of his own Johnson, going so far as to nickname it "Jumbo" and telling tailor Joe Haggar that Johnson's pants were not big enough for it. I looked up some research to cite these facts and found this clip from the Colbert Report where Robert Caro (Johnson's biographer) talks about the nickname "Jumbo". See here: If you want to skip to the part about Jumbo, go 5 minutes into the clip.

And here's where there's reference to the tailor making the pants too small in the crotch: In pertinent part it reads (my emphasis below): "LBJ: Now the pockets, when you sit down, everything falls out, your money, your knife, everything, so I need at least another inch in the pockets. And another thing - the crotch, down where your nuts hang - is always a little too tight, so when you make them up, give me an inch that I can let out there, uh because they cut me, it's just like riding a wire fence. These are almost, these are the best I've had anywhere in the United States, JH: Fine"

So, if we do put this into the article, where exactly should it go? Personal life? I guess at this point I want to know where we draw the line on what gets into Wikipedia (because it's factual information that illuminates more about a public figure who was, after all, just a human being) and what doesn't because it doesn't add anything of "real value" about his place in American history. RedDarling (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's anything we need to mention. Did his penis size figure in his ability to pass legislation? Maybe it did, but where is that verified? Caro and Colbert couldn't stop laughing, so that mention was completely comic or prurient. The Johnson tape transcript of a call made to not his tailor, but the son of the pants company boss ("Haggar" as in Haggar Slacks), had much to do with Johnson wanting greater room in the crotch because of weight gain. No support there for his having a giant cock. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this information should remain because it is factual and well-referenced. BaronBifford (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there's no other mention in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. I'd put in the Personality and public image section. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it should not be in the lede and second it seems to be getting into legend and fringe territory; although the part as to conducting interviews and talking to aides while sitting on the toilet, is known. Although good RS sourcing to it with page numbers should then be done, if put back in by consensus. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Granted, not in the lead, and this particular anecdote about pants might not be pertinent. However, given LBJ's nature and personality, I think that in order to judge the issue's historical perspective, we probably need to go to Caro's book and see if any sort of "locker-room talk" or action was used as an intimidation tactic with legislators. Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Caro is one of our most respected and authoritative biographers, and if he writes about this in a serous context as something emblematic of LBJ's political style and personality that helped influence legislation, I would tend not to second-guess him. I would also phrase any mention of such tactics in the most tasteful and encyclopedic tone possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The origin of the story of Douglas Dillon being summoned to the bathroom is in Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest, with the following pages describing further antics and putting them into context. However, Dillon evidently denied the import of the story relating to him, that he was forced from the cabinet by such tactics, which hints at how open to misinterpretation such anecdotes are. I also came across at least one other version of the "rattlesnake" story, with different context, which shows the difficulty of verifying such stories. I agree that there could be some mention of Johnson's vulgarities, being a simple addition to the effect that they were well-known, and that it would need only involve a few words to that effect, with references to authors such as Halberstam and Caro. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016
Please add the following lines to the end of the section on the "The Six-Day War and Israel". The link to verify this information goes to another wiki page:

On June 8, 1967, Lyndon Johnson betrayed his fellow Americans by allowing the Israeli Defense Force to carry out a purposeful and lethal attack against American sailors on the USS Liberty. He ordered the recall of American planes that could have defended the USS Liberty. See USS Liberty incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

192.35.35.35 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: aside from the clearly inflammatory language of your request, there is nothing in that article that mentions Johnson "recall of American planes that could have defended the USS Liberty" Cannolis (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

JFK assassination?
Sorry, a supposedly serious discussion about the LBJ penis (see above) but no one wants to include anything about the JFK assassination, if only to dismiss the theory? Even a link to other material would be better than nothing. See the relevant Wikipedia section here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.192.157 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How would such a mention not violate WP:FRINGE, especially when someone like Caro, whom we accept as a reliable source, is quoted, at your linked article, to the effect that nothing in his research pointed to Johnson's involvement. Additionally, all the material at your article purporting to involve Johnson is circumstantial, and the History Channel had to retract the documentary that they broadcast. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

deliberate conjunction?
With the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the country's immigration system was reformed and all racial origin quotas were removed (replaced by national origin quotas). Johnson was renowned for his domineering, sometimes abrasive, personality and the "Johnson treatment"—his aggressive coercion of powerful politicians to advance legislation.

This paragraph reads as if there is a colon rather than a full stop between the two sentences, and verges on innuendo. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The second sentence doesn't seem to belong there, at the end of the third lead paragraph, which otherwise deals with domestic accomplishments. It perhaps would be better at the end of the second lead paragraph, after a sentence that tells of another bit of incidental information, that of his being one of a select few that served in both houses of Congress, as well as being both vice president and president. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, and have moved the sentence per your suggestion. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above move. Kierzek (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnson's Civil Rights record in the Senate
An excellent reference if anyone wants to do research: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * . Here is a gloss/review of the book:

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016
Mr. Omniscent (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC) It is becoming common knowledge now that LBJ was indeed the one who authorized the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald had no involvement in it at all. Johnson had these groups and people involved: the CIA, the Mafia, the KKK, and Malcom Wallace. It is time that the great Americans will be able to finally know what really happened that tragic day.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dallek cited OVER 100 times
The author Dallek appears in the reflist 103 times by my count. Seriously? Are sources that hard to find?96.127.242.152 (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the scholarly reviews emphasize that Dallek gets it right. There is more detail in Caro but he is so long-winded and opinionated that his 3000 pages in 4 fat volumes are hard to use and anyway they stop before LBJ gets to the White House. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Caro has got up to the 1964 election now. Dallek remains an authoritative source until proven otherwise, i.e. unless you can point to another historian who can demonstrate that he is in error about some specific point of detail.Paulturtle (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

here are the incomplete short citations (name year combinations without full bibliographical details anywhere to be found): Caro 1982, Caro 2002, Caro 2012, Reeves 1993. There is also a "Oxford University Press" with no title.

I've split off cited works from Further reading to a new section called Works cited, as this is not what a Further reading section is for (WP:FURTHER). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Caro has only 4 books -- see the article The Years of Lyndon Johnson so they are easy to match. Reeves may be President Kennedy: Profile of Power. 1993

by RICHARD REEVES Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * if you are confident with that assesment, please go ahead and make the edits. I don't want to get involved in guesswork when it comes to sources I'm not familiar with. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Caro books, I've got two of them on my desk in front of me now. I put in the cites. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added the Reeves (Kennedy) book already to cited works. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Humanism vs the Humanities
The section on education closes with a declaration that the National Endowment for the Humanities supports "humanists." This conflates Humanism, the philosophy with the humanities, a set of academic disciplines. I'm going to revise the reference adding a citation to the text of the act defining what "humanities" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egbokalaka (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017
In the section headed "Federal Support for Education," the first sentence of the last paragraph states "he set up the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, to support humanists and artists..." Due to the conflation of "Humanism" and "the humanities, I propose this alternative text:

He set up the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, to support academic subjects such as literature, history and law, and arts such as music painting and sculpture. Egbokalaka (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording could stand improvement. I've made changes to the section that include your text. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lyndon B. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118090054/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714005531/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913094418/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6883 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6883
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803124531/http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/conscientiousobjection/OverviewVietnamWar.htm to http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/conscientiousobjection/OverviewVietnamWar.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sanchez16mar16%2C0%2C4039194.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lyndon B. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326175845/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html
 * Added tag to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/FAQs/Religion/religion_hm.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/president-lbj.html?c=y&page=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam War section
The Vietnam War section of this article, though quite important, is also quite long. Given that the section is duplicated in presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, would anyone object to shortening the Vietnam War section of this article? I'd also like to remove the international trips, cabinet, and perhaps the judicial nominees sections (or perhaps just the non-SC appointments), all of which are covered in the presidency article. Orser67 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a sufficient overview of the above points herein; except for the non-SC appointments, I would say. The fact is many more readers come to the presidential bio articles than any sub-articles and so we want to make sure all the bases are reasonably covered, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point about "covering the bases," but the current Vietnam War section still seems excessively lengthy to me. Orser67 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, give it a go. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor. Duplicate information is bad because fixes get applied in one place and not in the other. I wouldn't necessarily remove those sections completely. They could be cut way back with a "Main" template pointing to the corresponding subsection in the Presidency article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I support making it more brief. For one thing, the yearly subsections invite too much detail. Another is the astonishing wealth of detail given some events that don't merit it. For example, the last paragraph of the 1967 subsection has a description of a June 23, 1967, protest that is equal in detail to an equivalent paragraph at the Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War article, where even at that article the amount of detail is unjustifiably excessive (e.g. it's the longest paragraph in the "timeline" section). I cite this instance because I made an attempt at summarizing the text when it was added at the end of last year, to no avail. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everybody. The section is excessively detailed. It should be trimmed, but it should also cover all the major events. I dont want to overuse see also either lol. — usernamekiran (talk)  10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I significantly shortened the section, though there are likely details that could be cut and possibly some details that should be restored. Orser67 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree--much too detailed and most of it works better in Presidency article. and too much is not about LBJ himself but rather about anti-war elements. The war is much better covered in other articles. what is missing is a table on poll data on LBJ & Vietnam--something he followed closely. Rjensen (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017
Hello Wikipedians!

At present, in the "Early Years" section it reads: "In the months following his graduation, Johnson moved to California amid pressure by his parents to go to college. Johnson supported himself by picking grapes.[18][full citation needed]"

In the Caro account, which I am ploughing through at the moment, it says that the grape picking was a romantic invention of Johnson. Though other boys who went with him on this trip did indeed do agricultural work Johnson ended up working for his cousin Tom Martin in San Bernadino in his law office. At this point he was interested and considering going into law himself and had planned to qualify in Nevada where a college degree was not required but for (exhaustively detailed) reasons he didn't.

Rather than go into the detail I would suggest something like "In the months following his graduation, Johnson moved to California amid pressure by his parents to go to college. Robert Caro writes that though Johnson later claimed he tramped up and down the coast and supported himself picking grapes and washing dishes,  he actually "worked in his cousin's paneled office and live in his cousins comfortable home [18]".

[18] Caro, Robert. The Path to Power, Chapter 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennynicely (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would reduce it to In the months following his graduation, Johnson moved to California amid pressure by his parents to go to college. Although Johnson claimed to have supported himself by picking grapes and washing dishes, he actually worked in his cousin's law office and lived in his cousin's comfortable home. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

JFK files
Now that the JFK files are out, any info gleaned ought to be be updated into this entry on LBJ in my humble opinion.

Rob Okray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:46c1:f600:5846:6126:4dcf:9049 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lyndon B. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624190806/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/OBrienL/OBRIEN13.PDF to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/OBrienL/OBRIEN13.PDF
 * Added tag to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/McNamaraR/McNamara-SP1.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Some restructiring
I did a bit of work on this article today, and hopefully the modifications will meet with approval. They're pretty much described in the edit summaries.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Lyndon B. Johnson
I believe the first sentence needs attention. I do not think Johnson was the 37th Vice President after he was the 36th President. The dates seem reversed also.198.199.190.140 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
 * No one is saying he was Vice President after he was President; that sentence says exactly the opposite of what you said (President after Vice President) and is correct as it stands.
 * The offices are listed in the infobox in decreasing order of importance; Presidency is listed first simply because it outranks the office of Vice President. And the numbers are correct: he was indeed the 36th president (using the common style of counting Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms twice), and also the 37th vice president. Even though several presidents had more than one vice president, the Constitution used to allow the office to be vacant (as it was in Johnson's first fractional term) which is why on net there was only one more VP than P in 1963. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017
The pane on the right hand side that lists his BIO needs a line that states his political party

it needs to read "Political Party: Democratic" Thedonkeypunch (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The info box already lists his political party RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)