This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon B. Johnson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Lyndon 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
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)[reply]
Tyler served in all four elected federally elected positions of the U.S. government - must be added[edit]
The introduction states that Lyndon Johnson is one of just three people to serve in all four federally elected positions of the U.S. government (President, Vice President, Senator and Representative) along with Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. But he is one of FOUR as John Tyler also did so (President 1841-45, Vice President 1841, Senator 1827-1836 & Representative 1816-21). Can this please be changed to reflect that. I don't have editing permission and think it is hugely important. Thank you. 2A02:C7C:392C:1A00:85BC:4A0B:DDD4:DB76 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we counting people who were elected to the presidency? Neither Tyler nor A. Johnson were elected. So, either add Tyler or remove the earlier Johnson. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence currently reads: 'Johnson is one of only three, along with Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson, to have served in all four federally elected positions of the U.S. government.'
Tyler needs to be added. Four people have served in all four federally elected positions of the U.S. government , NOT THREE.
We can always change the wording, as I think whether a person is elected to the office on their own merits, and not just succeeding by the accident of the previous president dying in office, is relevant, especially in Nixon's case, where he didn't have the advantage of incumbency, as LBJ did. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True - but either way needs to be changed. Thank you very much for your help. Personally I think it makes most sense simply to add Tyler and make it four (given that A Johnson, like Tyler, ascended to the presidency due to the death of the incumbent is already there). 2A02:C7C:392C:1A00:4471:3FB9:D477:7F0E (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is uncited in the lead, and I don't see it supported in the body of the article. I now suggest removing it altogether. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from article: »A seven-year-old Johnson, wearing his trademark cowbout hat, at his childhood farmouse near Stonewall, Texas, in 1915«
Excuse me, but as a non-native speaker, I wonder what a "cowbout hat" and a "farmouse" may be. Unfortunately, two online dictionaries for English do not know those two words either. So could it be these are typos? -- 2A01:75C2:BF16:EE0:9293:37E:8E23:4EAA (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Caro's often quoted remarks about LBJ's Silver Star[edit]
I have included the remarks (with reference) that Robert Caro famously said about LBJ's SS decoration: "The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star, is that surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history because if you accept everything that he said, he would still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star." This quote has been removed, and I have re-inserted them, because few people have studied and written more about LBJ than Caro. rogerd (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relation to President Andrew Johnson (or lack thereof)[edit]
Just a suggestion, but a brief mentioning that Presidents Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Baines Johnson were unrelated (or a description of how they are related if they are), would be a worthwhile addition to the introductory section. Since every other presidential pair with shared last names are in fact related, it might perhaps lead many to make an incorrect assumption. If anyone is able to edit this article, please consider this addition. I was unable to find any sources explicitly stating the two are unrelated aside from IMDB, which I would not exactly hail as an unimpeachable source with regard to presidential historicity. Thank you.66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox should not have House seat listed under the 'Additional Offices' dropbox[edit]
Johnson's Infobox should have his time as Texas Senator be present on his Infobox with all additional Senatorial roles (i.e. Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Whip, etc.) being under the "Additional Offices" dropbox banner associated with his time as a Senator. Additionally, this "Additional Offices" banner includes his time as a U.S. Representative which is of a separate office altogether from his role as a Senator. I had corrected this mistake as it is not in line with how other Federal Office Holders such as Jim Jeffords have their infoboxes formated. This correction was then reverted and I was told to mention this further for consensus on this talk page. Is there opposition to this infobox correction? LosPajaros (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We could move Majority Leader into the collapse, but moving it in while also moving Senator/Representative out doesn't make a lot of sense - it's the most notable positions that should be presented. The Jeffords case doesn't seem comparable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Representative is a notable position in the Federal government in and of itself. Aside from being in a completely different chamber of the legislature it has a completely different structure and input on Legislation and the U.S. Government. The office of Representative is notable enough to not be included in the drop-box and instead as its own position within the infobox as seen with George H. W. Bush. Perhaps the drop-box should be renamed to "Senatorial Positions" to clarify that specifically those Senatorial Roles are related to his office of Senator as all Senatorial positions from Whip to Chair to Leader are all in relation to his service as a Senator. Johnson's time as a Representative is a distinct period of his political career and has no relation to his time as a Senator. It should not be lumped in with those Senatorial positions. If not, then it might be best to remove the dropbox altogether as no other Senate Majority Leader has one to begin with. LosPajaros (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the positions are non-notable, but the most notable are the presidency and the vice-presidency. That goes for the Bush article as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. all the positions are notable. but the drop-box is the point of contention correct? Bush does not have a drop-box and no Senate Majority leader has a drop box with additional positions as well. If such a drop box includes not just all senatorial positions, but includes non-senatorial positions as well isn't that an uneccessary addition? The positions should still be mentioned in the infobox but the drop-box shouldn't be as it includes unrelated federal offices under the banner of 'Senate Majority Leader'. LosPajaros (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose isn't to combine related positions, but to hide less notable ones. It doesn't matter whether those are related to each other or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the infoboxes are applied in any other Federal officeholder though. In Patty Murray's page for example, the drop-boxes are reserved for specific related positions such as her committee assignments and Senatorial roles. The use of a drop Box on a page to "hide" a federal office position that is perceived to not be notable is a position that I've not seen practiced on any other page. Dropboxes are typically used for grouping related titles together under their main associated office position; Such as a Senators Committee Chairmanships underneath a "Comittee Positions" drop box associated with their Senator title. Not for the "hiding" of them. Can you provide an example where this broad grouping is the case? What's been done is to not only "hide" mention of his service as a Representative, but as a Senator as well. There is only currently mention of his Presidency and Vice Presidency without having to click on this "Additional Offices" dropbox. This is simply not how any other Presidential Article is formatted nor how the dropboxes are used regarding political offices. LosPajaros (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only U.S. Governmental Official Listed was Washington and the offices that were put into that dropbox were of Military offices not Federal. This practice of applying drop-boxes to executive and legislative offices is not in use on any American President and, again, the practice of utilizing drop boxes in this manner to "hide" office positions - of which there is no reason given for why "hiding" is necessary - is not utilized on any Federal American Governmental Official. LosPajaros (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are positions which were Military offices, educational, and existed prior to the formation of the U.S. as a country. The positions in the "Additional Offices" dropbox are not Federal office positions. There is simply no precedent on any American Governmental Official regarding their service as Senator or Representative as being included in this sort of drop box. The purpose of drop-boxes is not to "hide less notable offices" it is to group subsidiary positions within an office underneath that office. Again, there is no Article relating to a U.S. Governmental Officer which takes this position you're claiming. LosPajaros (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of drop-boxes is not to "hide less notable offices" it is to group subsidiary positions within an office underneath that office Do you have a citation for this claim? It's clear that there are multiple examples of articles that do the former rather than the latter, even if you don't feel that Washington is among them. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for your claim as it relates to U.S. Federal Office Holders? My claim is merely describing how drop boxes are used on the Infoboxes of U.S. Government Officials. Other countries treat Governmental infoboxes differently I am not denying that. But how Brazilian or Indian Officers Infoboxes are formatted is irrelevant to the American formatting system. Liz Truss and British office holders use dropboxes and infoboxes in their own way specific and with relation to how their Government is structured and and do not self-impose upon the Federal Officer pages of other countries. Again, you have provided no example where an American Officer's service as a Senator or Representative is relegated to being "hidden" in a drop box, let alone any other U.S. President. LosPajaros (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how Brazilian or Indian Officers Infoboxes are formatted is irrelevant to the American formatting system...and do not self-impose upon the Federal Officer pages of other countries. I don't agree with this reasoning, but let's see if anyone else would care to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
