Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hubert Humphrey presidential campaign, 1968/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:15, 12 August 2010.

Hubert Humphrey presidential campaign, 1968

 * Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria. The article is a comprehensive look at the 1968 presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey and has been well researched and written for a complete neutral understanding of both the private and public aspects of the campaign. All images are free use, with the exception of the campaign logos, which are fair use under WP:LOGO. I thank all reviewers in advance for taking the time to read and examine the article.William S. Saturn (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;No dab links, Checklinks states that Ref 56 has a connection issue although appears to work fine, and Checklinks states that there is something wrong with Ref 92 although it also appears to work fine.  WackyWace  converse 08:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly the Tet Offensive part is a bit misleading as it stands, just mentioning US losses. US+SV beat the communists very badly and it was the media/political victory of the Vietcong due to a handful running into the embassy garden etc... More importantly the article seems rather short. I actually found 30 pages on the 1967 SV election by two different professors, so I'm expecting there is a lot more that can be found in books on Nixon, Wallace etc, of which there are many. You don't seem to have used scholarly references much. Why not? Particularly as some things related to war issues or cabinet issues are censored and not available except to mordern authors. The analysis of HH's performance in various demographics is also very short. It is shorter than his post-1968 summary. As for LBJ's withdrawal, w hy not just give the date of his announcement (March 31 I think). Leaning oppose quite solidly  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will add scholarly references shortly, and will expand the Results section. I do not want to go into too much detail about the Vietnam War, just how it affected the Humphrey campaign. I also do not want to go into too much detail about Nixon, since an article chronicling his campaign already exists. While the article is set during the 1968 election, I do not want for the article to be too focused on the election, but rather the inner workings of the Humphrey campaign. I have added the date for the Johnson withdrawal and inserted "and Vietnamese" intentionally ambiguous to North and South to the Tet Offensive sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read any VN War literature carefully, as it seems to be a big part of the campaign...because your changes make the Tet Offensive more misleading by just saying more about communist attacks and anti-communist losses out of context, which will make people thing that it was a military defeat for Johnson, which it wasn't. The Tet Offensive also wasn't a day-long affair either, which is a very basic fact. And "insurmountable" is a hyperbole, who says that it is objectively/mathematically impossible for Johnson to win? Secondly, I see hardly anything about his policy and mostly only lists of opinion poll and primary results. I see nothing about economy, or health, and only one sentence about housing and education, which doesn't say anything except that he rubbished Nixon. Even in a costly war, the economy is still always important; it's not as though the US got invaded and everyone is directly in a life/death situation and warfare is the only issue. Next, running mate....he considered a whole pile. What were the weaknesses that made him not choose the others? In every election analysts always analyse the pro/cons of each VP possibility, as the choice is all relative. And for the demographic breakdowns, are you serious that there are no political scientists explaining or conjecturing why different groups voted in different ways? More generally, there is almost nothing about policy in any case, but it needs to be there so that it can be linked to the reality of appealing to various sections of society. Sorry, no, this article is missing stuff everywhere. Strong object  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, but they appear misguided. It would be ill-advised to go into excessive detail about the Vietnam War, because this is an article about the presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey, not a campaign of the Vietnam War. I have fixed the two mistakes you mentioned regarding the Tet Offensive. However, in no way does the article suggest a military defeat, but rather a political one, since again, this article is about a political campaign. The comment: "I see hardly anything about his policy and mostly only lists of opinion poll and primary results" causes me to question whether you fully read the article, since policy is ingrained throughout the article, and the only "list" of results is found in the appropriately named "Results" section. You must remember that the economy was not a vital issue during this election, as the economy was generally good in the 1960s. As for the running mates, it was not 100% sure that Humphrey would win the nomination until the Democratic National Convention. The names listed there were last minute suggestions behind closed doors, I doubt there is extensive research on this that is notable enough to include. Finally, the comment "are you serious that there are no political scientists explaining or conjecturing why different groups voted in different ways?" also leads me to question whether you fully read the article since that is listed in the "Results" section. I hope you can reconsider your objections and understand that the focus of the article is the 1968 presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey, rather than the 1968 presidential election or the Vietnam War.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * HH was LBJ's No 2, and thus the succession is obviously important. If you think that because the economy is strong there is no need to say anything at all, then I don't have anything more to say. I'd fall over if the newspapers didn't speculate on possible tickets or analyse them at all. I'm sure the FAC coords know what to do. I'm not interested in a limbo dance on FA standards  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The economy was not a major (if at all) campaign issue in 1968. The main issues were Vietnam, Law & Order and Civil Rights. All of these are sufficiently covered in the article, while maintaining that the focus of the article is the campaign of Hubert Humphrey.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that the supposed Humphrey logo in the infobox has a web address included in it. It is my understanding that Humphrey would have been well in advance of his times in having a web site in 1968.  Second, I find the whole (brief) discussion of the supposed Nixon interference in the peace process unbalanced and as it is placed in the passive voice, somewhat obfuscated.  I realize that it is a position of the loony left that Nixon won the election by interfering in the peace process (notably the efforts of the Johnson Administration to push the election Humphrey's way by desperately trying to make a deal before Election Day are not stressed), but how about a little balance here?  I'm sure you can find appropriate secondary sources in that area.  I agree with YM, the article seems short and does not give appropriate space to important points.  Some detail on the disastrous Democratic Convention and Humphrey's reaction to it, after all that wrong-footed the campaign with a vengeance.  I've only just glanced over this article, but I'm inclined to agree with YM.  I have got a shelfful of bios on Nixon in preparation for my upcoming effort to raise him to FA, there was a lot going on in the 68 campaign that doesn't seem to show up here.  Suggest going to the local library and looking at a few.  And perhaps some mention of how Murray Chotiner got a spy on the Humphrey press plane would be in order (just steal it from the Chotiner article, it's a FA, it's all sourced).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple more comments. There were multiple Kennedy/Nixon debates, though people really only remember the first.  You have it in the singular.  I will let the image hawks advise you further, but as the Humphrey/Muskie bumper sticker (again with the web address!) consists entirely of lettering, it is probably PD.  That should be moved to the infobox, as having a PD logo kinda destroys the rationale for the one in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And still more. You might want to review Jonathan Aitken's bio of Nixon, which contains an account of him going to Humphrey's funeral.  Somewhere on the web, you should be able to find a great photo of Nixon in a campaign parade in an open car with crowds on either side and signs "Nixon's the One" which I believe is PD,   This is a worthy start to the article, but I believe it probably needs more work than can be done during the limited time of a FAC.  Nice effort to a tough subject though, but just a bit superficial.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have pluralized debates per your suggestion. I do not want to give too much weight to Nixon in this article, since there is a campaign article on Nixon where an in-depth account would be appropriate. Let me know how I can rephrase the sentence on the peace talks disruption to be more neutral.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the logo issue, the first logo was used for the primary campaign and the second was used for the general election campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe I have expanded and better explained all the important aspects you mentioned above, with the exception of Murray Chotiner. I agree that it is necessary to include in the article but I am having trouble on where to place it. Any suggestions?--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you added a line or two about media coverage of the campaign, then mention the Chotiner spy thingy (which he repeated in 1972 btw), it would be good. See Ealgyth's comments below.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://uselectionatlas.org/ a reliable source?
 * The data in that particular website is valid, I have checked numerous times. It is used for ease of access, and is used in numerous wikipedia articles including the FA Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Whether it's been used in other FACs isn't really going to show reliablity in this case (I'll also note I didn't weigh in on that FAC, nor was the site shown to be reliable there). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of books that use the website as a source. And here is an explanation of how the data is compiled.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll also note the lack of scholarly articles being consulted. A very superficial Google Scholar search shows a good number of possible articles, including a number on how the television coverage shaped the election. While not all of these will necessarily be relevant, the total lack of journal articles is a concern. This is mainly a pointer to other reviewers, as I don't honestly have the time to plunge into a long research project on this.
 * This will be addressed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving both of these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per criterion three:
 * File:StephenMYoung.jpg - What is the basis for claiming federal authorship? Per the source, "Not all images are in the public domain".   PD-USGov-Congress-Bio template was deleted for this reason.
 * File:Edmund Muskie.jpg - Same as above.
 * File:George smathers.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
 * File:Humphrey Muskie.jpg - Mere text, regardless of color and ornamentation, is not eligible for copyright. Re-license accordingly.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment re Tet offensive. I think the article could stand another couple of sentences on the Tet offensive and, specifically, its effect on public morale in the United States.  It might be wise to consult the appropriate pages in Robert Caro's vio of LBJ or another reputable source, and read how he sees the sequence of events leading to LBJ's withdrawal.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not use that source, but added what you suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw I will possibly renominate in the future, but at this time I feel it is best to withdraw. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.