Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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://archive.is/20130217104130/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/archives.hom/FAQs/military/military.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/archives.hom/FAQs/military/military.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422143150/http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/lbjohnson to http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/lbjohnson

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) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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/20131113124726/http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/cottages/middleclass/johnson.html to http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/cottages/middleclass/johnson.html

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) 10:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Claim that the War on Poverty brought millions of Americans over the poverty line:
"the War on Poverty helped millions of Americans rise above the poverty line during his administration." Taking a look at the statistics of American poverty, this is wrong. There was a sharp decline in poverty before LBJ enacted his war on poverty. During LBJs presidency, this decline leveled out and has stayed constant since then, indicating that LBJ did not benefit the US poverty level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4ca0:2201:1:1a66:daff:fe2c:7052 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The cited source (Califano) confirms the claim, but there are lots of other analysts out there who have discussed the issue. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentence on Johnson's patrilineal descent should be removed
The source listed for the sentence "His patrilineal descent traces back to John Johnson, born in Dumfriesshire, Scotland in 1590." is the website Geneanet, which is a website for user-generated family trees similar to Rootsweb. This seems to be a violation of WP:NOR, so the sentence should be removed unless a better source is found.2601:184:4080:C94:FC7E:CBBE:2EF5:AE69 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Great Society
Be sure to add where the ideas came from. The ideas embedded in the Great Society were ideas from President Johnson's assassinated predecessor, President Kennedy When President Johnson was sworn in on Air Force One, he vowed to continued President Kennedy's the New Frontier. The New Frontier included: Medicare, federal support for education, and wilderness protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybetrywumbo (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Silver Star
In 2001 CNN ran a special on LBJ's Silver Star, going beyond the Caro biography to include newly found sources. This is the transcript, which demonstrates that LBJ's airplane got nowhere near the target on his Silver Star mission.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/06/lt.06.html

Disclosure: I helped research and wrote the original article in Naval History magazine and was among those interviewed by CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre. This year's History Channel series on presidents during WW II mostly relied on material from the 1960s.

BTillman, 26 February 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HB Tillman (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is significant and merits inclusion. Genetikbliss (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Active duty
It seems to me that some explanation is in order for Johnson's 'release' from active duty in 1942. The war had quite some way to go. Not saying there wasn't justification. I just think I and readers should know what it was.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Any information? Genetikbliss (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

used airbrush???
A photo caption has "President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Governor James Allred of Texas, and Johnson, 1937. Johnson later used an edited version of this photo, with Allred airbrushed out, in his 1941 senatorial campaign." I'd like to sound a warning about use of airbrushing photos. They may implicitly give wrong information. Stalin had at least one case of using that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.45.226 (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Lady Bird Johnson
Lady Bird Johnson's real name was Claudia Alta Taylor Johnson and her siblings were Thomas and Antonio and her children were Lynda Bird and Luci Baines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1700:14e:d8dc:f994:e1f5:e19e (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

LBJ jewish ancestry

 * just a find that helps to explain LBJ to some extent - not sure how it could be placed in the Wiki - seems like wiki would help explore the unknown or little known details of our presidents SOMETHING YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW – A JEWISH U.S. PRESIDENTOur First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtobelieve (talk • contribs) 01:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly an interesting idea but a modern president's genealogy should be easy to find any of the several major full-length works on him, along with discussion of its significance, if any, to his policy decisions. We can't use the kind of sources you cite. EEng 01:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Election Fraud in 1948
I have created the page 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. I would like to get the Johnson experts on the case to give us a play-by-play, step-by-step account of exactly what happened in the primary election and runoff election. No need for sugar coating the facts- just let us know what happened according to the sources. If anyone is interested, please start working on it. I've known about the problems in this election (and the 1942 primary election) since childhood, and I am looking forward to getting the perspective of historical scholars on this election. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey- (I'm just going through the list of the people who have edited this page-) does anyone know who might be interested in the 1948 election who could give us a proper perspective on 1948's Democratic runoff and primary in Texas? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me recommend Baum, Dale, and James L. Hailey. "Lyndon Johnson's victory in the 1948 Texas Senate race: a reappraisal." Political Science Quarterly 109.4 (1994): 595-613. online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151840 Rjensen (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Geographyinitiatie, volume 2 of The Years of Lyndon Johnson The Means of Ascent by Robert Caro gives an exhaustive treatment of that bitterly fought election, running to several chapters and makes a very good case that Johnson did indeed engage in fraud to win the election. However, two caveats are in order. The first is that Caro gives a rather idealized picture of  Stevenson, conveniently not mentioning that Sevenson was a white supremacist. It is not clear if the fact that Stevenson did not get to represent Texas in the Senate was such a terrible loss as Caro makes out. The second is that Stevenson was a ruthless and unscrupulous politician that just had happened to face off against an even more ruthless and unscrupulous politician in the form of Johnson. Both men were Texas alpha males who liked to play dirty to get what they wanted; Johnson was just better at that than Stevenson. Hopefully, tomorrow, when I get access to Caro's book at the library, I should be to contribute something. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost as an aside, I'll note that extensive excerpts from the book, of material dealing with the 1948 primary election, were published in The New Yorker about the time of the book's publication. By extensive, I mean large parts of three or four issues, back when such extensive serializing was the norm for that magazine. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A.S. Brown: "a very good case that Johnson did indeed engage in fraud to win the election." The election was a fraud. Yeah, it's fine to mention context, but we need to make that CLEAR on this page- this man became president of the USA because he frauded his way to the US Senate. Add all the context you want, but don't dare try to bury the lead. There's no sugar coating that's gonna make this come right, and the people reading Wikipedia need to know this man was a fraud. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019
It is claimed in the 1968 section that Nixon delayed peace talks until after the election but this is not true 2A02:C7D:3240:8700:E5EF:EEE8:C9FC:5641 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019
In the "Early years", change "The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas, was named after LBJ's cousin, James Polk Johnson" to "The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas, was named after LBJ's uncle, James Polk Johnson." Until this edit, the page said "LBJ's father's cousin," which while a bit clunky, is accurate. That change removed "father's," making the sentence incorrect. 74.192.164.193 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. I put back "father's", which as you say is correct if clunky. Uncle wouldn't be correct. The name for the relationship is "first cousin once removed", but this wouldn't be helpful to most. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't Johnson have a series infobox?
Upon looking through the former Presidents, I noticed that Johnson does not have a series infobox like Nixon or Clinton do. Could someone try and create that? JohnMacTavish (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a hard time understanding what you mean because you're misusing the term "infobox". The series WP:Navigation templates are not "infoboxes" and are commonly referred to as sidebars. Would you like to try it, using Template:Richard Nixon series as a guide? The hardest part is, you have to know where all of the Johnson-related articles are. (Perhaps there is a dearth of such articles, which would help explain why there is no navbox?) JustinTime55 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Including the note about presidential succession
Hey all, I am somewhat in favor of adding the name of the person who was next in line to the presidency in a note next to the word 'None' in the LBJ infobox. I don't claim that this is a piece of information that absolutely needs to be added to the page, but I do think it would be interesting information for the readers. I did this on the Andrew Jackson, LBJ, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford pages. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In one of your reverts, you said adding this information was unwarranted. On what basis would you say that? From my current perspective, I'm thinking that adding the note tells us who is fulfilling one of the primary roles of the VP (to be ready to assume the Presidency) when there was no one who was VP. I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I would like to see what you are thinking specifically. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My Nixon edit has been removed too- my Andrew Jackson edit is the last one standing for now. I would like to restore all these notes and add them for all of times when there was no VP- sounds like a good idea to me at least. Thoughts? Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a similar note for Ulysses S. Grant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some discussion in some central place. I think that you're being a bit bold in continuing to add them and should await the outcome. Your edit to Grant ignores the uncertainty of whether there was even a president pro tempore during the recess of the Senate, which was one of the uncertainties that led to the 1886 act.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a point of view that I was not aware of. Would you be willing to tell me at what dates between November 22, 1875 - March 4, 1877 you would say that there may not have been a president pro tempore? If your perspective has some foundation in presidential succession theory, then United States presidential line of succession may need to be altered in some way to reflect this viewpoint. I added the Grant note based primarily on the representations provided at United States presidential line of succession. If that chart is presenting an unnuanced perspective on succession, then I would say it needs to be changed. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hid the note on Grant's page for now . Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#US_Presidential_succession Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I recall reading an article on this, or perhaps we had more detail in one of these articles, but I can't seem to find it right now. It is a question of whether the appointments of the president pro tempore and Speaker carried over while Congress had adjourned the session. Vice President Wilson, for example, died during the recess of the Senate between the special session and the first regular session; was Ferry considered to be PPT then, or did he have to be chosen again once Congress met in December 1875? This became more acute during the 1880s, with Garfield's death (1881) and Vice President Hendricks (1885), with the fact that Congress did not normally meet until early December of the year following the election, with the person who had been Speaker or PPT unlikely to be chosen again once Congress met, as there had been a change in party control; this led to the 1886 act making the Secretary of State second in line. But we were listing them as Speaker etc. until actually replaced. At this time, there were few or no off-session duties attaching to the Speaker or PPT.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RE:Ferry - Ferry was acknowledged as next in line to the (acting) presidency at the time of Henry Wilson's death. From Failing Hands: the Story of Presidential Succession, Feerick & Freund (1965) He was elected PPT on March 19, 1875 and was, according to Senate practice, still officially serving in that office between the special session and 1st regular session of the 44th Congress. Then, when the Senate reconvened in December 1875 with the vice presidency vacant, Ferry was re-elected PPT, and served through March 4, 1877. (Also, might this CRS report to Congress be the article you're thinking of: The President Pro Tempore of the Senate: History and Authority of the Office) Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What about including a note hyperlinking "none" to one of the appropriate sections in, e.g., list them all as (none) or else use the appropriate subsection as (none) or (none) or (none)? This way, the additional details can be added to our encyclopedia in just one place. YBG (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of hyperlinking "none", but would suggest Vice President of the United States as the target (across the board) because a concise explanation of what none means (the vice presidency is vacant) is given there.
 * Also, while I view adding an efn-note to the infobox stating that McCormack was next in line for the presidency while there was no VP as unwarranted (it's a tangential factoid given the narrow purpose of an infobox), the body of this article does lack (and should have) mention of the fact that . (BTW, in the infobox on McCormack's page an efn-note beside the years of his tenure as SotH noting his years as "next in line" would in my mind be apropos.) Drdpw (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Once you come to a consensus, give me an example case of exactly how we should add info about succession during LBJ's 'None' period and then I will go through all the President's pages where there were periods when there was no VP and add the relevant information according to the method you all use. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
The article states LBJ was formerly the 37th Vice President. It should say he was formerly the 35th Vice President as his VP status preceded his presidency. Please correct. 2600:1700:4970:7A20:B4D6:C29C:158B:9778 (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Presidents and VPs are not in one-to-one correspondence. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

nothing about Johnson's life-long racism or his long-time pro-segregation stance or when and why this changed
I'm very surprised there is so far nothing in the article about these issues though they are no doubt mentioned in some of the sources used. Here are some reliable online sources, but only one except the online forum sort of explains why he started supporting desegregation:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/

https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-lyndon-b-johnson

https://blog.chaddickerson.com/2019/02/17/was-lbj-a-racist/

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/reckoning-structural-racism-research-lbjs-legacy-and-urbans-next-50

perhaps some sources quoted on https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/42764/why-did-lbj-a-staunch-segregationist-champion-and-sign-the-1964-civil-rights-b --Espoo (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you think the article should say, based on the sources? Johnson is notable for getting Civil Rights legislation passed. So, "life-long racism" and "long-time pro-segregation[ist]" would most likely be misleading if unqualified. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The wider question is, "why nothing really negative about his character?" Which is most likely because this is Wikipedia which protects its own. Thus the notorious immorality that Johnson's biographer, Robert Dallek (who is quoted as such in the article) found in his research (described in "Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and his Times, 1961–1973: read online)  is nowhere found. And the opposition one can experience trying to supply documented balance often discourages it. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific about what you think the article says, doesn't say, or should say in this regard. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The article says nothing about his racism. The original comment provided 7 accurate and reliable sources describing him as racist. You asked what the article says, doesn’t say and should say. To answer those questions. 1. The article says nothing of his well known and well documented racism. 2. The article doesn’t say nothing about his well known and well documented racism. 3. The article should say something about his well known and well documented question. In the paragraphs directly below his header one more should be added. The man repeatedly used the n-word. The article says nothing about his racism. The original comment provided 7 accurate and reliable sources describing him as racist. You asked what the article says, doesn’t say and should say. To answer those questions. 1. The article says nothing of his well known and well documented racism. 2. The article doesn’t say nothing about his well known and well documented racism. 3. The article should say something about his well known and well documented question. In the below his header an extra paragraph or two should be added. It should read like this or something like this: LBJ was a racist very hypocritical. See it through (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We can have something on Johnson's use of racist language in the article, as we have done for his general vulgarity. None of the sources paint him as an out-and-out racist, though. His use of the n-word doesn't reveal much. He was a politician, and if using such language to gain the adherence of others, he would do that, without necessarily meaning anything. According to Woodward and Armstrong's The Brethren, Johnson sold Thurgood Marshall on becoming solicitor general by telling Marshall that he wanted people to see a "nigger" in a position of importance there (Marshall was reluctant to leave public-interest law). But I'm not going to do all the work, and I'm reluctant in the face of this apparent need to label him a racist without qualification. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Robert Caro's definitive biography series discusses LBJ's apparent casual racism but contrasts it with the huge contributions by LBJ toward righting the great wrongs of racism and inequality. "For these massive steps toward ending poverty and improving the lives of the most vulnerable, LBJ is often hailed as a civil rights hero." "Today, Lyndon Johnson is recognized as one of the greatest proponents of racial equality to ever occupy the Oval Office." LBJ presented himself in the 1940s and '50s as a Southern Democrat in every sense, which was a politically strategic stance, but he turned against that field immediately upon becoming president to promote his Great Society ideas. As president, LBJ sought to interpose government mechanisms between hostile white racist culture and the downtrodden people of all colors. He called upon white America to acknowledge its role in keeping the black people down. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Friendly political machines

 * Johnson won election to the United States Senate from Texas in 1948 after winning the Democratic Party's nomination by an extremely narrow margin with fraudulent votes that were manufactured by friendly political machines.

To me, "friendly political machines" is a weird phrase. I really do not know what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:288F:332A:51E6:31C9 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the phrase has to mean Johnson's allies in the state Democratic party (and perhaps elsewhere) who dominated various local party organizations. What would be a better way of saying it? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This line is unsupported by the source cited. Whoever added this has added their own "evidence" to the citation rather than providing an actual source. The link itself leads to 404.  Everything after "narrow margin" should be removed.  Box 13 could be referenced in another line, as long as it is acknowledged that it is mostly unsubstantiated. EllenBrody (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Caro's biography of LBJ describes the voting fraud that got LBJ into Congress in 1948, so there's no question of the validity of the story. So we're here discussing the wording in the lead section, our summary of LBJ. The Wikipedia article about Box 13 is poorly written and I don't think it merits a link in the lead section. A "political machine" is not accurate in describing LBJ's political workers and backers, and in any case the term "political machine" is not supported in the article body. I agree with the removal of the words following "narrow margin", though we could change "extremely" to "suspiciously". And we can remove the lengthy quote in the reference. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Typographical error
Second paragraph, "increbibly" should be "incredibly"

Cliffjames (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Nice catch, thanks.--agr (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020
Reference (Death and Funeral):

[His death meant that for the first time since 1933, when Calvin Coolidge died during Herbert Hoover's final months in office, there were no living former Presidents; Johnson had been the only living ex-President since December 26, 1972, following the death of Harry S. Truman.]

This is irrelevant data based in meaningless numerology and has zero relationship to Lyndon Johnson summarily amounting to mere trivia. The number of living past presidents at any point in time, the number of days, wekks, months, years, etc. (any amount of time) since the last numberical time a quantitative event has occured has nothing to do with any particular president. One could claim that, "The number of days since any other previous president was married for 17.4 years has been X days" Trivia, of the type portrayed on TV for the masses (likely the source). Please remove the line. Thanks Folks...I don't like trivia of a numerology kind mixed in with my search for facts and figures. 47.155.200.177 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree (somewhat; it's the sort of statistic that I wouldn't be surprised to find in such an article). But let others chime in before such a change is made. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that bad for an article of this size. It doesn't distract the reader that much, so I don't see why it couldn't stay. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 10:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The statement is unsourced trivia and likely WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. There is no significant contribution to understanding the article subject contained in the statement so it is also WP:UNDUE.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ A little late—I know, but excellent suggestion. Thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

grammatical error
In the 'Entry into Politics' section, Second paragraph, third sentence. It reads: "Kleberg had little interest in performing the day-to-day duties of a Congressman, instead of delegating them to Johnson". Should read "instead delegating them to Johnson". Take the word 'of' out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfarlin72 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "Works" section, with external link?
An editor added the following section/text to the article (several times, actually), insisting it be kept in order to "be nice to researchers". Others (including ) have objected to its inclusion as presented. In the spirit of WP:BRD, the original editor should have made this Talk page entry. For whatever reason, that didn't happen, so I'm doing it for him so we can start a discussion.

Here is the text that was inserted:


 * ==Works==


 * * National aeronautics and space act; a study of the development of public policy by Alison Griffith, introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1962)

Personally, I'm leaning toward agreeing that the ref is minor and should not be included (but I don't yet feel strongly about it).

Note: Aboudaqn has added many refs citing books published by this company, so I've asked the obligatory "Do you have any connection to them?" question on his Talk page. I'll post any relevant answers here (unless he beats me to it). Thanks, everyone! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 21:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Certainly it's a problem if Aboudaqn is only here to insert books from one publisher. WP:REFSPAM and WP:NOTHERE would apply.
 * But the only thing I was looking at was this one LBJ reference. To me, it was inappropriate to stick it there as the sole entry in a section called "Works" as if one book introduction was the only work LBJ ever completed. Such a section would need to list, at a minimum, the book A Time for Action: A Selection from the Speeches and Writings of Lyndon B. Johnson, 1953-64, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969, The Johnson Presidential Press Conferences, Public Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1969, and perhaps David Barrett's edited book, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam Papers: A Documentary Collection. If someone was interested in listing LBJ's works, they would be looking up all of the works and listing them. But Aboudaqn did not do this: the listing was only one entry. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. This page is in my watchlist, and I saw what looked like a bunch of reverts. Then I looked at the log and noticed he's added ~25 links to mentioning the same publisher (PublicAffairs) within the last 24 hours or so. I'm sure there's a reason (at least I hope so)... &mdash; Uncle<b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 21:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * UncleBubba, Binksternet: Why link to Public Affairs Press (or any other new entry)?  Because it's new, because it relates to many other entries (important to Wikipedia – like the "What links here" link on every entry), and the beauty of Wikipedia is wiki-links to evermore information!  In short, I'm being thorough in making those links, which enable fascinating wiki-linked reading for any number of future visitors...  You guys approve, right?  ;)  - Aboudaqn (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * UncleBubba, Binksternet: As for why add "Work" and then only one work, well:  did either of you know about those books – because some people, who are interested in those presidents, may very well be very, very glad to discover such facts, yes?  Maybe, just maybe, someone else will think, "hey, did they write more" and go on and add more books (as there very likely are).  That's not my interest at the moment, but feel free to do so yourselves.  In fact, why doesn't one of you go check?  I recommend starting with the Library of Congress catalog- Aboudaqn (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be happier to hear that you were interested in serving the reader than in fleshing out the "what links here" list. Our readers are ill-served by a "Works" list that implies only one publication in total. Others should not have to clean up after to you, to repair the encyclopedia for the readers after you pass by. You, too, can go check the LOC catalog and make a fairly complete list of works which also includes the book people might not have known about. Or do this: A very good way to introduce a book to an article is to add a relevant fact from it and cite the book.
 * The essay WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS covers the idea that some segment of knowledge is under-represented, and users exist who want to counter that lack. But in our necessarily short encyclopedia articles, the information we present to the reader should be a summary of everything relevant that has been published. If a work is little known, I don't see that it's Wikipedia's job to correct the poor public response to a minor piece of the literature. If books from Public Affairs Press have not received a lot of notice, then they stay on the periphery when we balance sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * UncleBubba, Binksternet:  And you would wasted all this time and effort to make that point?  Keep the book off, while I chalk your action up to yet another Wikipedian who prefers to play police than to use the same time and energy to make further improvements.  You are most disappointing, Binksternet. - Aboudaqn (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You would have had some leverage on that disappointment if you had indicated the slightest interest in helping the reader. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet (cc: UncleBubba):  Here is the work you could have done, rather than take up time and energy attacking me -- please cut-and-paste into the entry:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * National Aeronautics and Space Act (1962)
 * Choices We Face (1969)
 * The Vantage Point (1971)

Photo in infobox
Should the image in the infobox be the official black and white portrait used in the article about the 1964 US presidential election? Geminin667 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any reason to give for why the B&W photo is superior? I don't see it as a better photo, even leaving aside the fact that available color photos are apt to be the better choice. For one thing, the B&W shows distracting shadowing on Johnson's shoulder and collar; for another, Johnson is not looking at the camera. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that using the official White House portrait would be better, as is the case with other articles on US presidents. Geminin667 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It might matter if our copyright were in doubt. Since the color image was taken by a White House photographer, who should be a government employee and thus the image free for our use (to the best of my understanding), that should not be a problem. Neither the Kennedy nor Nixon bios use their black and white photos of the presidential election articles for 1960 and 1968, although the B&W images aren't listed as "official". My opinion that the LBJ B&W is an inferior image still stands (inferior certainly to the JFK B&W, and even to Nixon's election image). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Official White House portraits" are not unique. One "official" portrait isn't any more "official" than any other. The black and white photos in the election articles were chosen to match the photos of the opponents. Using a B&W in the Presidency articles would be a noticeable downgrade in quality. There is no good reason to do this. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
The order of the offices he held is makes no sense. It should in my opinion be structured this way President then VP then Majority and Minority Leader, majority Whip and then Senator and Congressman. UpstairsSignificance (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably, party leader and whip are not offices he was elected to, so much as positions he held while serving the office of senator. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a precedent to be made for the first suggestion. Please see Mitch McConnell.  It lists these by the dates he assumed the positions, with the most current at the top. — Maile  (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021
We should put a different photo of Lyndon B. Johnson on the top of this page because we have pictures of him taken after the date of the current one.

I suggest the file I attached.

We should put Johnson in 1969 for the description. Lukasl34612 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I personally think the close up version we have now is a better photo, but lets see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021
He died in Johnson Texas in his house his wife was LBJ who died in 2007 47.138.36.205 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information?
Why does it say Johnson serves as Senate Majority Leader from 1955 to 1956 and then a second time from 1957 to 1961? The Dems had the Senate from 1955 to 1961? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpstairsSignificance (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

His tendency to hold staff meetings in the bathroom while pooping and pulling out his penis in the Oval Office
Why aren't his quirks on this page? 2601:1C0:6D00:8D:84F3:C4CC:DC11:31F9 (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If you can find reliable sources saying he did so, please link them in this thread. Otherwise we can't include it. Hope this helps :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this at least once before (see this). We have, I believe, a brief mention of LBJ's known tendency to be vulgar, but going into more detail has to serve a purpose other than to tittilate. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022
OPERATION TEXAS - context of use is vey misleading. This is a VERY important event in LBJs early political career and helps make sense of his apparent liberal conversion as president.

LBJ was a real-politik Texan democrat with extraordinary internal drive. But he was also driven by a deep humanity from his early religious background. He was a mass of contradictions and you can only make sense of these by including the details of what he accomplished at every point in his career. At least give a full sentence to the big things he accomplished earlier in his career.

LBJ was the most complicated president during a very complicated time. Accurately describe his history, don't create misunderstandings simply for the sake of brevity. 155.186.210.4 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Peak of Modern Liberalism?
I think we should replace this with something like "Some historians consider LBJ's presidency to be the peak of modern liberalism." Was LBJ's presidency really the peak of modern liberalism in the United States? What does peak mean in this context? When Liberalism's goals were most fully realized? Isn't this highly subjective and untestable? Island Pelican (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all "liberalism" in the United States carries a different meaning in American political culture. While in Europe and most of the world "liberalism" refers to small government, free markets, and governments recognizing inalienable human rights, in the United States it means government intervention in the economy and social life. Political scientists call this philosophy modern liberalism to differentiate it from classical liberalism. Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern liberalism because most of the laws and precedents in modern liberalism were established by or during the Johnson administration. Some examples of this is Johnson signing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 or Medicare and Medicaid that same year. Furthermore the US Supreme Court undertook several landmark cases such as Gideon v. Wrainwright which can also be classified as a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. Since Johnson left office in 1969 no president or Congress has enacted so many liberal policies during their administration, especially no Democrat. All the Democratic presidents and I think this is especially mentioned in the Clinton article start out liberal but overtime become more conservative. Johnson remained consistently liberal throughout his entire presidency. So that is why the term "peak" is used. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 15:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
User:FictiousLibrarian is determined to continually restore unnecessary WP:SYNTH content, such as the National Archives and Records Administration's "Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics," to the lede summary of this article, specifically the sentence regarding the evaluation of Johnson's presidency by professional historians, despite such content being objected to by User:Karsdorp85 and myself. For context, FictiousLibrarian almost exclusively edits ledes, edit wars, and evades scrutiny by rarely leaving edit summaries and falsely marking major edits as "minor." This behavior has been noticed by many other contributors (here is a small sample): FictiousLibrarian also attempted to nominate this article for GA despite not being a major contributor nor seeking input from any major contributors beforehand. To be blunt, while this message may seem unusual, in the face of chronic disruptive editing and a near-total refusal to communicate, Wikipedia cannot function as a collaborative project. As such, previously-reverted lede changes to high-profile articles by FictiousLibrarian—particularly those lacking edit summaries or falsely marked as minor—are at the point where they should be closely scrutinized and probably reverted on sight simply to enforce WP:BRD (in addition to the likelihood that they may contain errors or violations of Wikipedia's content policies). FictiousLibrarian's conduct here is not even especially egregious, relatively speaking, but I implore page watchers to remain vigilant and to not allow him to force his preferred revision through by means of attrition, as that is not how the sausage of Wikipedia is supposed to be made. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "I have deleted some rather unencyclopedic new passages that you recently contributed to the lead of (United States). They were altogether intemperate remarks (often written in a kind of 'Euro-English' one might hear in Munich). At any rate, they are inappropriate for a country article's lead and were removed."—Mason.Jones; cf. "I have edited and removed more tendentious language. You seem a bit overeager to impose some rather partisan prose, all of it unsourced. Many editors review this article, and one editor (you) cannot rewrite U.S. history according to one ideological viewpoint."; cf. "If you persist in restoring your tendentious, unsourced, and oddly worded edits to the lead of 'United States,' you will be blocked. At least four editors have reverted your text there, but you continue to reinstate it. You have also been asked to adhere to English Wikipedia style rules for U.S.-related articles, including capitalization, hyphenation, and other basic protocols. Yet you stubbornly revert the correct style and substitute your own eccentric rules."
 * "Little or no interest in working collaboratively?....pls review Process."—Moxy.
 * "Please be more careful in your editing in the future."—Beyond My Ken.
 * "Hi FictiousLibrarian! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. 'Minor edit' has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information."—ParticipantObserver.
 * "You are still marking edits, as minor edit when they are not. Please read the above linked help page for when you should or should not use this."—Corn Kernel.
 * "I have access to the source on JSTOR (it's brief, totaling eight pages, including one page of citations) and it does not substantiate FictiousLibrarian's summary that 'Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA.' Instead, the Social Justice article states (accurately, as far as I know) that: 'Osama bin Laden had been brought to Afghanistan by his friend Prince Turki, the head of Saudi intelligence. The young bin Laden—tall, handsome, devout, and rich—was the next best thing to the real Saudi prince that the ISI had long requested. In Afghanistan, bin Laden's tasks included building infrastructure, coordinating logistics for the mujahedeen, dishing out funds, and, later, fighting. As one of the leaders of the international volunteers, bin Laden kept track of the other recruits, registering their identities and contact information. From this roster, it is said, emerged al Qaeda.' Assuming good faith, it is possible that FictiousLibrarian could have misread that (or similar passages) and thought that the author was stating (or perhaps implying) that 'Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA.' However, in wiki-parlance I would have to say that the edit fails verification."—TheTimesAreAChanging.
 * "Your restoration removed the errors but in the meantime User:FictiousLibrarian reintroduced some errors again."—Jo1971.


 * I kept some of your changes and criticized some of my own work as well. This is how articles are improved and built upon, through compromise. You make good points and I am more than willing to compromise, however it seems that you are not. I hope you can see the changes as a net positive especially where this article was before I began the process of editing. I disagree that you could call my work "disruptive" since I cite my sources and elaborate on content. Disruptive editing is unproductively harming a page which I have never done. That said, I have taken the feedback of the other editors. Everything I write you revert and repeal without question, I am beginning to feel that you do this simply because I am the author. Wikipedians have taken the lead on growing articles through expansion and many of them have links to the pages they expanded. Granted not everything I have written holds water and yes I do make mistakes but you arbitrarily remove my content without understanding why I put it there in the first place.     FictiousLibrarian (talk). 03:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nixon defeated Johnson’s VP Hubert Humphrey in a landslide?
His electoral vote margin was solid, bolstered in part by the presence of George Wallace as a protest candidate. But Nixon only won the popular vote by 0.7%. By any logical definition this is a very narrow victory, and certainly not a landslide. 2601:4A:8204:7E60:0:0:0:DEA8 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that it certainly wasn't a popular vote landslide, nor an electoral vote one, especially compared to Nixon's win in 1972 and Reagan's electoral vote counts. I have removed the contested phrase from the article (it was in the lead). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022
At the bottom of the article in the political party succession box, for the first entry with senate nominees, please change the links for the year so that they link to the specific articles for the state, as shown below.

2601:241:300:B610:EC7D:B577:B3CA:F6F9 (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

USS LIBERTY
Learn the truth about real history. 97.120.177.122 (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
In the second paragraph of the lede, we have this sentence:

During the convention he came into conflict with the Democratic front-runner, fellow senator John F. Kennedy.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what the purpose of this sentence is. Conflict at the convention? Over what? They were competitors for the nomination, for Pete's sake. What is more of a conflict over that? Johnson had announced his candidacy weeks earlier, they had held a private debate with party leaders, so what is this talking about? Without even a link supporting the claim to help decipher its meaning, it makes no sense, and I'm going to take it out. <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 22:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Johnson
Why is there no mention of LBJ's penis. Jack Upland (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There have been discussions on it that are now in the talk archives. In short, the mere mention of LBJ's apparent flaunting of this appendage seems useless here, other than to tittilate. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * OK. But I think a contemporary bio would mention it, just as it would mention his height etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There was a version that mentioned, in general, Johnson's ability to be quite vulgar, but I can't find it now. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022
In the "Vice-presidential nomination" section, please remove "(known as Bobby)", as "Bobby" is not used again for the remainder of the section or several sections after, while "Robert" is used about 15 times. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:19A9:2869:25BA:E844 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this context, I think WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:LASTNAME, and it makes more sense to consistently refer to him as "Bobby" in this section. People who lived in the Kennedy years universally recognize the name of the President's oldest younger brother. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam
He was said to refer to it as his Bitch Mistress. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lyndon_Baines_Johnson Jokem (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The Lyndon Johnson football player leads to a Redlink
I don’t have permissions to edit it myself but at the top where it says “Lyndon Johnson May also refer to the American Football player” it leads to a nonexistent link, I was wondering if it could be changed to lead to the football players wiki, or just be removed. Thank you Jason Ingtonn (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

True Birthdate: 8/26/1909
This is an inaccurate birthdate. Not the 27th. It is the 26th. 2600:6C5A:4C7F:E0C7:6C4B:AD0F:7A04:296B (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

LBJ birthdate:08/26/1908
Correction in bio. 2600:6C5A:4C7F:E0C7:6C4B:AD0F:7A04:296B (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade
Most people remember the day that LBJ died as the day that SCOTUS handed down the landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade. That's the only reason for the section about the impact his passing had on the news of the ruling. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023
It states that Johnson served as Majority Leader from 1955-1956 and again from 1957 to 1961. This isn't correct. The Democrats held the majority in the U.S. Senate from 1955 to 1961. Should also say that he served as Minority Leader only once from 1953 to 1955, not twice. UpstairsSignificance (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the dates, but I can't find which part of the article has erroneous information. The infobox is correct as of the current revision, and I can't see any errors in the body text. Would appreciate your help in pointing out the specific issue. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade News
Most people remember the day LBJ died as the day that SCOTUS handed down the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, legalizing abortions. The only reason there's a section about Roe v. Wade is because the passing was big news the day of the ruling. I try to make evident that the news of the passing was big news on the day of Roe v. Wade. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What you've added as a hidden comment at the article, where people less likely to see it, is too extensive. In any case, it should be placed here, where others can comment on its suitability. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, it's necessary, as I believe that people need to know that two historic events took place on the same day, one of which has been debated over the years. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the news of Johnson's death would have superseded just about any other story, and that the Roe decision, coming as it did from a Republican court, written by a justice appointed by a Republican president, would not be seen as the earth-shattering event it later came to be, once the opposition to it had materialized. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's trivial coincidence, nothing more. Not worthy of mention. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a trivial coincidence. It was a day of two moments of history happening on the same day, the passing of an American president and a landmark SCOTUS ruling. That's why Roe v. Wade is worthy of mention and that the passing was the bigger of the two. I want to make evident that the news of the passing relegated the news of the ruling to just a section of the front pages. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like you are trying to push mud into the eye of Roe v Wade. That kind of thing is inappropriate at this article, especially since the analysis is all your invention. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should just mention that LBJ died on the very same day as Roe v. Wade. When you do Google searches about January 22, 1973, you'll see more of Roe v. Wade and how much it divided the country. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's just mention that LBJ died on the very same day that Roe v. Wade was handed down. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No fucking way. We are not carrying out your pro-life agenda. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that the death of LBJ happening on the same day as the that Roe v. Wade was handed down is a trivial coincidence and not worthy of mention. The two were in no way connected. Drdpw (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree. The two were in no way connected, but most Americans remember the day LBJ died as the day Roe v. Wade was handed down. The only thing I would mention is that the passing of LBJ was banner headlines and pushed Roe v. Wade to just a section on the front pages. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown any reliable third-party evidence that this connection is notable, and there is clearly no consensus to do anything you're suggesting, no matter how many times you re-word it. You may want to read WP:LISTEN to understand what's happening here. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Length
At over 17k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is probably the most pointless application of one of the most pointless templates on Wikipedia. Like, Robert Caro still hasn't finished his multi-volume biography of LBJ. So the subject has a lot of content to cover. Is there an actual proposal for splitting the article or are we just going to mindlessly leave user-visible spam at the top of the article? What do we expect this template to actually achieve? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We're not here to write a multi-volume biography; an encyclopedic article should cover its content much more concisely. That's what this template is meant to achieve. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that it's the template's stated purpose, but based on experience, I strongly doubt the template will achieve any positive outcome and will just clutter the top part of our readers' screens for eternity. And I don't mean to make this personal or about this article; I've started a topic on the guideline's talk page. Although, based on the history of that guideline and the relatively arbitrary defenses of it, I don't expect any change. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though I have been here for a good bit of time I am still misinformed as to go about fundamental Wikipedia processes. If you could help me create a new article on his civil rights position and legacy I believe that would significantly decrease the length. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 21:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're offering to provide the content for such an article, then the right approach would be to create a draft article, which gives you considerably more flexibility in developing an article without having to worry about procedural details until the article is ready to move into mainspace. If this is what you mean, I can create the draft article, you can write it, and when you think you're ready, I can make sure that the article meets the Manual of Style and shepherd it into mainspace. The biggest technical thing you'd have to learn about is how to cite references, which becomes easier with practice. After that, editors can identify the right things to remove from this article. The one challenge I foresee are objections to moving civil rights stuff out of this article; it's arguably his greatest presidential achievement, so care would be needed to ensure the main article still has enough detail. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I re-read the entire article and identified some areas that could be trimmed without removing essential context. For example, the Six-Day War and Israel section doesn't have any analysis of Johnson's actions at all, and can be safely removed IMO. The section about the 1960 vice-presidential nomination is largely speculation by historians and it feels like that can be moved into JFK-space, perhaps maybe into John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential campaign. And there are a lot of direct quotes in all the sections which can be paraphrased without losing any accuracy or context. Thoughts? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the Six-Day war section, and I moved most of the 1960 VP nomination section to 1960 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, which I wasn't even aware of until today, and for which I added a  tag in that section here. I haven't run a word count check, but that chopped off 8,557 bytes from the article.  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved some more content out of the article; some less biographical content found a new home at Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I identified some exact redundancies with 1968 United States presidential election and removed the redundant content from here. As of this comment, the article is at ≈16K words and I feel that any further reductions that I can personally achieve would only be accomplished with detailed copyediting, which would not satisfy the general intent of WP:LENGTH. There are surely other opportunities, but at this point I feel that enough good-faith work has been done to acknowledge that nobody is trying to bloat this article beyond encyclopedic standards. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

African Americans started moving towards Democrats in the 1930s not the 1960s
https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=pell_theses

https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-632;jsessionid=0F676B216B505B8327CB5398BC293E08 2600:8805:C980:9400:7CF6:7484:BB93:9AB9 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can help me find exactly where in the article the 1960s claim is made, I can take a look at the sources and suggest next steps. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is addressed in the intro and in the section on the voting rights act. And I don't believe it's incorrect, because the section on the voting rights act makes clear that the act enabled Black men and women living in Southern states to vote for the first time. I agree that Black voters moving to the Democratic Party began in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but I think the trend gathered momentum in the 1960s. Billmckern (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Regarding the lead, I think the problem is that the lead states that black voters began moving to the Democratic party during LBJ's presidency, which is not supported by either of the provided sources-- one covers a period too early for that, and the other gives several counter-examples of black Democratic political activity prior to Johnson. As for the Voting Rights Act section, that does point out that millions of new voters entered the scene but there is no statement about how they voted, and that's OK. If it were left to me, I would concentrate on making the lead more accurate and leaving the VRA section as is. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For me it wouldbe
 * Under Johnson's administration the movement of Africans Americans towards the democratic party a process which started in the 1930s with the New Deal coalition accelerated.Or something like that
 * Republicans did not start winning the south till Regan in the 1980s even Clinton won the south. 2600:8805:C980:9400:68C4:AB57:1CDB:D108 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FDR started the process. However the white south was still a Democratic stronghold. FDR had to commit to blocking anti-lynching legislation early in his presidency or else the southern Democrats would kill the New Deal in Congress. Democrats were paralyzed and polarized as the segregationist south refused to move an inch on segregation. For several presidencies, no progress was made. Lyndon Johnson's signature on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused a mass exodus of white, southern Democrats as they joined the Republican Party. African Americans who were already mostly voting Democratic, began to shift into the party's rank and file en masse. Richard Nixon exploited this schism within the Democratic party with his 1968 Southern Strategy and ever since the Solid South has been reliably Republican. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 00:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first priority is correcting the statement in the lead, black voters began moving to the Democratic Party, which is clearly inaccurate. Since you have familiarity with the topic, my hope is that you can adjust that with more accurate language. It doesn't have to be wild; maybe something like "black voters accelerated their shift to the Democratic Party" would suffice. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I will make that change in the language. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Southern Strategy doesn't exist considering the south remained firmly in Dem hands till the late 90s hell even Clinton won it. Also look at the map George Wallace won the South 2600:8805:C980:9400:D4EF:BAA4:31AD:3C70 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition if Nixon implement a Southern Strategy why did he fail to win the South with the exception of 72 except he won every state in the union?
 * This type of stuff is easily debunked 2600:8805:C980:9400:D4EF:BAA4:31AD:3C70 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Many thanks to for taking care of the lead. If there are further issues with the VRA section, I hope that everyone feels empowered to fix them directly.  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Descriptions of LBJ's legacy
I want to be transparent about a recent change I made to the public image and legacy sections; I removed one Kent Germany quote that was largely redundant with another historian's evaluation immediately preceding, and I adjusted the summary of Germany's assessment from "poor" to "evolving" as I believe that better matches the spirit of the quote as well as better aligning with the summary of such in the lead. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Death place
I am trying to determine what should be in the "death place" section in the infobox. This is a relatively minor matter but it actually is something I stumbled upon a while ago and I don't think has been fully resolved. The understanding of events is that Johnson had a heart attack at his ranch on January 22, 1973, and was airlifted to San Antonio where he was pronounced DOA. Right now, the IB says that he died in Johnson City, Texas, pointing to this source, which begins: "Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th President of the United States, died today of an apparent heart attack suffered at his ranch in Johnson City, Tex."

However, I do not think this should be the correct assessment of the information based on what we know, and the claim in that source appears to conflict with a more detailed description of the area where Johnson lived. He resided at a ranch in Texas, which is part of the Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park. According to the National Park Service website, the ranch itself "is located 14 miles west of Johnson City near Stonewall, Texas". The Johnson City segment of the park is a geographically distinct area which covers his boyhood home and a visitors center. The ranch where he lived is not in Johnson City and not connected to that segment of the park, but rather near Stonewall, which would indicate Gillespie County, Texas as the "place" of death, as much as it is the place of birth; the Park website says that "The LBJ Ranch was where he was born, lived, died, and was buried". The article was arranged to have Gillespie County as the birth and death place for a while (I might have done this but I can't recall).

A third option would just be to list his death place as San Antonio, since this is where he was legally pronounced dead. But that is probably a bit too legalistic.

Pinging as the editor who set the current configuration in the IB.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It is quite confusing. I searched a lot of sources from then and based my final decision based newspaper accounts from then and books which say Johnson became unresponsive en route to San Antonio. That I understood from it was that they airlifted him from Johnson City which was where he became completely unresponsive. What is clear is he was not in Stonewall (certainly not the LBJ Ranch) or in San Antonio when it happened.
 * If you think there credible sources which say otherwise then go ahead and change it but make sure to add it to the "Death and funeral" section as a reference. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As of now, I'd be more inclined to switch it back to Gillespie County, as I assumed the existing sourcing was stronger to support him dying at the ranch and that ranch being in Gillespie County (not Johnson City, which is in a different county). There are passages in the NYT article that seem to strongly imply that Johnson had in all probability died at the ranch before he was even transported (and the existing sourcing supports the notion that the NYT erred in saying the ranch was in Johnson City proper), but it's hard to go with that alone because the only fact it can directly confirm is just when he was pronounced DOA at San Antonio.
 * However, I was unaware of reporting that confirmed he was airlifted from Johnson City specifically. If there are sources that could be added to that effect, then that could help verify it as a plausible death place. In the end it's a very peculiar situation, where the answer depends on how we're phrasing the question (since the location where his heart stopped was not where he was pronounced dead), considering all of the transportation through rural areas and municipalities and eventually by air. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think, until solid proof that says otherwise, it is better to revert back to Gillespie County, Texas. I went back and found accounts contradicting each other, including the NY Times article I added.
 * I would also be okay with San Antonio IF we get a general consensus from others here whether or not the location of the legal declaration of death is allowed (I'm not entirely sure). As far as I can tell, it's the only confirmed fact we know of. The rest is, as you say, a very peculiar situation given where it started and ended. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will revert it back to Gillespie County and clarify its use with the existing sources. I think there have been articles where the location of legal declaration of death have been used, but often it was less ambiguous than this case, where at least the slight plurality of sources I've looked at seem to suggest he died at the ranch but it is not in any way unanimous. Regardless, I think Gillespie County is supported by multiple sources that are available and so it makes sense to use at least for now. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the Gillespie County approach. The preponderance of sources support this, and even one of the sources quoted above ("airlifted to San Antonio where he was pronounced DOA") indicates that he was dead before reaching San Antonio; that is what DOA literally means. There are established accounts of his Secret Service detail finding him dead in his bedroom at the ranch and I'm not aware of any convincing evidence to the contrary. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Heart attacks
It is believed Johnson had five heart attacks, although only three are confirmed. (Aardi18 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC))


 * Can you improve the article by adding a reliable source for the believed/confirmed numbers? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is one source that could be used: https://www.drmirkin.com/histories-and-mysteries/lyndon-baines-johnson-1908-1973.html (Aardi18 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC))

Roe v. Wade
There's only one reason that Roe v. wade should mentioned in the section on the death and funeral: most Americans remember the day that LBJ died as the day that SCOTUS handed down the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. January 22, 1973 is mentioned almost every year as it was also the day of the ruling and the news of LBJ's passing overshadowed the ruling. No mention of Roe v. Wade (since overturned) will be mentioned until we reach a consensus. Please mention if it should be mentioned that both the passing and ruling happened on the same day. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop it. Your idea didn't get any traction the last time you suggested it, and nothing has changed since then. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)