Jump to content

Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLyndon B. Johnson was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
October 14, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2024.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Vandalism?

[edit]

Who would vandalize this article? Such a weird target. 2600:8801:2E83:A600:824:3568:AD45:A864 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Lyndon B. Johnson's penis?

[edit]

I'm pretty certain that Lyndon B. Johnson's penis, which he nicknamed "Jumbo", was a prominent part of his character and defined him to a greater degree than most other U.S. presidents. Here are sources:

At no point does this article ever mention his penis; this injustice ought to be rectified, Fellow Wikipedians. Zakawer (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leery of encouraging people to follow your links, as the second one loaded a lot of advertising onto my machine and it crashed. The Times article is behind a paywall. I didn't follow the others. What I saw is a rehash of what I have seen before. If you're really serious, there have been several discussions on the issue and the consensus was to not add any particular mention. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roe v. Wade

[edit]

The only reason I've been mentioning Roe v. Wade in the section about the passing is that most Americans remember the day of LBJ's passing as the day of the landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade by SCOTUS. I still want to continue to discussion in having it included here. The articles about the Reagan inauguration had the release of the hostages in Iran.

It's important to understand that the day that LBJ died was a day of twin moments of history with the passing the bigger of the two, but most Americans remember it for Roe, since overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been pushing this angle for 18 months, attempting to paint LBJ's death as the larger and more important event. You are trying to throw a non-neutral twist on the history. Thankfully, Wikipedia is based on the the way that the media balances their coverage of the two events, rather than on the whims of individual Wikipedia users. If you keep pushing this angle you will be moving into the tendentious editing arena, which is a blockable offense. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The release of the hostages being on the very day of Reagan's inauguration was most probably due to more than happenstance. It is almost certain that LBJ's death coinciding with Roe being handed down was no more than that – coincidence. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

When describing Johnson's previous occupations "a congressional aide" is mentioned. I personally think this should link towards the Wikipage about the congressional staff. (This is not very necessary.) RenoGamingTheResearch (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War criminals

[edit]

This category should be added due to the fact that Johnson used Agent Orange in Vietnam, making him a war criminal alongside his successor Richard Nixon.

There were other crimes but this is the simplest one to point out, since Johnson did not personally order My Lai nor was he personally covering it up. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources describe LBJ as a war criminal? Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources, not on editors discussing his actions here on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He began the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, which was a war crime, so he committed a war crime, ergo, he's a war criminal. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply point out here that this editor is engaging in the same WP:OR on Talk:Richard Nixon and should WP:DROPTHESTICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply point out that this 'editor' has either not read or is pretending not to have seen any of the several sources I gave him at Talk:Richard Nixon which demonstrate that it is not original research. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't provide them until after I posted my comments. They are op-eds. This is not constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Columns are not op eds and both are allowed. My original message had a source which you conveniently ignored. You left your message about me being this and that here after I had already provided you with three different sources. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should have some adjudication to classify someone as a war criminal, not just hyperbole bruited about in newspaper columns. Since criminality requires knowledge and intent, agent orange seems a poor example, as its deployment wasn't intended to make people sick. Category:War criminals seems rather haphazard in its organization (e.g. there is no subsection for the Vietnam War) and in who is included (I didn't find all the Nazis found guilty at Nuremberg, which must be in the running as the gold standard of war criminality). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listed numerous examples. Criminal negligence is not an excuse for war crimes. Who says there must be a conviction by a US or US-backed court? Johnson was American. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Columns are not op eds and both are allowed. The relevant guidance is WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. These two both discourage citation of opinion pieces for things like this.
If the Harvard Crimson, Jacobin, and the Irish Times are the best you can find, Wikipedia isn't ready for this. Wikipedia itself is not an authoritative source: we are anonymous, and so by definition we cannot be authoritative. To be credible, we can only quote from authoritative sources. Where is the New York Times on this? Is there a journal or a book that analyzes the laws and comes to the conclusion that you did? Bruce leverett (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who decided that the New York Times, the quintessential American newspaper, is a superior source to the ones I listed, particularly when it comes to judging whether or not an American president is a war criminal? Unsurprisingly, you asked for sources, I gave them, now the goalposts have been shifted to say that my sources aren't good enough. I could give you another 20 sources, half of them not in English, and you'd still reject them. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu, User:Binksternet, User:Dhtwiki, this editor was an obvious troll, of course, but now that I see that "war criminal" thing I remember I've seen them before. Did these edits ring any bells for you? Drmies (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user Maurnxiao comes immediately to mind, having accused other politicians of war crimes, even Jimmy Carter. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one! Thanks--well done! Drmies (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_B._Johnson&oldid=1266411359"