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:
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]
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]
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
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]
There has continued to be no American Federal Official's infobox which follows the formatting standard you are proposing. The derogation of Federal Offices such as those as Senator and Representative in an "additional offices" tab has no standard use among any American Governmental Official. This formatting change you are providing is not in line with how American Governmental Officials are formatted. The Drop-Boxes used among Federal Governmental Officials such as those of Bob Menendez, Tim Scott, Jim Jeffords, etc. are all utilized regarding party and Chamber committee positions. Not regarding official challenges. The burden of proof for the changing of this formatting to this purposes falls to you as it is outside the standard perview of how American Federal Officials infoboxes are typically formatted. LosPajaros (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing formatting is consistent with the articles of comparable world leaders; I see no reason to preference the examples you proffer over those. And in the absence of additional support or policy-based reasoning for your viewpoint, the existing formatting should remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting you are providing is the abnormal formatting. This is a formatting which is not present across any American Official. Senator, Representative, President, or any other Official I can think of. The existing formatting is not consistent with any other American Federal Official. Please provide a single Article of an American Governmental Official in which a Federal Office is relegated to a drop box. The absence of additional support or policy-based reasoning for your viewpoint - that being that it alone should be the sole deviation from how every other American Federal Official's infobox is formatted - should result in the standard format remaining. LosPajaros (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to provide a single American Governmental Leader. Whether President, Senator, Representative, etc. that follows this formatting. See examples above for how formatting is typical across American Federal Officials. Please provide an American Federal Official which follows this formatting style you are suggesting. LosPajaros (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided examples of comparable world leaders who use the status-quo formatting. I have not seen any rationale as to why we should prefer the examples you've provided over those ones. There's no rule that I'm aware of that would require doing so. And there's really no justification for the edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a formatting which is inconsistent with how every single American Federal Officials infobox formatting is presented. The relegating of Federal Offices like Representative and Senator into a drop box is not done on any single American Official as can be seen by the fact you have provided no example of the such. The status-quo formatting is following the standard formatting used for American officials as the examples you have provided are inconsistent with the offices they apply under such dropboxes. For example, under Ferdinand Marcos the drop box does not include Ministerial/Secretarial Positions while Dilma Rousseff does. This is not a standard formatting position taken across world leaders. Those examples each use different formatting styles consistent with the notability of their offices in their respective countries. The same standard applies to American Federal Offices. This is not the institution of a consistent formatting style, rather the institution of drop-boxes to "declutter". LosPajaros (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples each use different formatting styles consistent with the notability of their offices in their respective countries. The same standard applies to American Federal Offices.[citation needed] I have not claimed that the status-quo version represents "institution of a consistent formatting style", but that it reflects a formatting style that is acceptable and accepted among comparable world leaders. I still don't see a reason to discount that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a formatting style which is inconsistent in its breadth and its use. It is also a formatting style which is not used on any other Article for a national U.S. Leader. I am not discounting how other nations apply formatting to their national figures but they are obviously using different formatting styles respective to the notability of said offices and positions within their Governmental apparatus. i.e. the offices which are under drop boxes differ in the American (Bob Menendez), the British (Liz Truss), the Filipino (Ferdinand Marcos), and Brazilian (Dilma Rousseff) contexts. The British and Brazilians have ministerial offices under such considerations. The American and Filipinos do not. The American and British do not have their elected offices under such considerations but the Argentinians and French do. All nationalities utilize drop-boxes in accordance with the relevance of offices to their respective Governments. The American System does too as seen by the fact that both the Americans and Filipinos have Party positions under drop boxes while the British don't. LosPajaros (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are obviously using different formatting styles respective to the notability of said offices and positions within their Governmental apparatus...All nationalities utilize drop-boxes in accordance with the relevance of offices to their respective Governments. Still not seeing any citations for these claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing any citations for your claim that this is a formatting style "acceptable and accepted among comparable world leaders". There are no citations for either of us. We're merely expressing how formatting is utilized across different nationalities. LosPajaros (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing any citations for your claim that this is a formatting style "acceptable and accepted among comparable world leaders". See examples provided above. We're merely expressing how formatting is utilized across different nationalities. No, we're not - you're proposing making a distinction on that basis and I don't agree that it is reasonable as proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, See the examples provided above of how offices under drop-boxes differ across nationalities if that's the citation you want. That proves that there's differences across nationalities in how they format the infoboxes of Governmental Officials. You are proposing an alternate formatting style that is already inconsistent in it's formatting on an American Federal Official who already follows the formatting style typical with American Officials. LosPajaros (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the examples provided above of how offices under drop-boxes differ across nationalities if that's the citation you want. That proves that there's differences across nationalities in how they format the infoboxes of Governmental Officials. No it doesn't, and it doesn't support your proposal. Please stop reverting until you can get consensus for your position. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that different nationalities apply drop-boxes differently with respect to the offices of their specific Government. There is variation in how this formatting is utilized regarding the offices in such drop boxes which you have not acknowledged despite me quite clearly having made note of them. Instead, stating that such an inconsistent formatting is "acceptable and accepted among comparable world leaders", despite the fact that those very countries format drop-boxes in ways that are different from each other. You have not provided evidence that your proposal is "accepted among world leaders" when your proposal is not standard. Drop-boxes are utilized across all National Federal Officials I am not denying that. But they are utilized in different formats as seen from the examples I have shown, From American to Argentinian, and you have not denied that. Please stop reverting until you can get consensus for your position. LosPajaros (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is variation in how this formatting is utilized - examples have been presented of use of both your preferred formatting and mine. But given this, there is a lack of evidence that your preferred formatting must be the one used. And in the absence of a policy/guideline or consensus supportive of a change here, no change to the pre-existing style should be made. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that the formatting you are suggesting must be used? There is again, no consistency to the use of this formatting you are proposing. The formatting style you are suggesting is that of the Argentinian style. Where the Presidency and Vice Presidency are the only offices not relegated to the "Additional Offices" drop box. Why is this? Why not follow the French example, where only the main executive position is shown and get rid of the Vice Presidency altogether? Why not follow the British and Keep the Presidency, but also keep all the Party positions like Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and Senate Whip? You are not suggesting a specific formatting style. You are suggesting a conglomeration of varied styles and suppositing that a single formatting style utilized by a single Nationality is for some reason the format that *only Lyndon Johnson's* infobox should follow despite the fact that the Argentinian formatting itself is not widespread among the very examples you provided. There is a lack of evidence that the arbitrarily preferred formatting style of the Argentinians is somehow the style that should be utilized on an American Executive Official despite the fact it is a format not used on any American Federal Official at all. LosPajaros (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've brought this up three times in the recent past, the earliest being in February of last year. You received zero support then. You've added no compelling rationale now. You've given no source for the media always tying LBJ's death to Roe. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notable coincidence but it doesn't seem to have any relationship at all to Lyndon Johnson himself who is the subject of the Article. It appears to be simply notable trivia rather than a substantive connection between the two. LosPajaros (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the news of LBJ's death overshadowed the news of Roe v. Wade. Still people remember the day LBJ died as the day of Roe v. Wade, not for the passing. We need to remember the day of a passing of a POTUS for the PASSING, not for something else. This was the case when LBJ died; people remember that day for Roe v. Wade, not for the passing of LBJ. But with Roe gone, people will remember that day for the passing. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
