This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I find the statement "a Republican elected for the first time in twelve years" misleading. It gives the impression that the Republicans had been out of the Presidency for 12 years, when in fact it had been 8. Wording such as this is typically used to support political agendas rather than simply state facts. A statement such as "a Republican return after eight years" is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.195.197 ( talk) 03:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I question why the Johnson tapes are not seen as a credible source on Wikipedia, when they're good enough for the likes of BBC News and the New York. I also question why post-2008 (when the 1968 tapes were released) sources were replaced with sources from before 2008. Dallek is good, but he's not the be-all end-all, and convicted felon Conrad Black certainly isn't a saint by any means. Plumber ( talk) 06:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
*Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. (2008). *"In Tapes, Johnson Accused Nixon's Associates of Treason". The New York Times, December 4, 2008. Retrieved March 19, 2013. *Taylor, David (15 March 2013). "The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'". BBC News (London). Retrieved 2013-03-18. *Robert “KC” Johnson. “Did Nixon Commit Treason in 1968? What The New LBJ Tapes Reveal”. History News Network, January 26, 2009. *Clark M. Clifford. Counsel to the President: A Memoir (May 21, 1991 ed.). Random House. pp. 709. ISBN 0-394-56995-4. p. 582. *Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland *Thomas Powers. “The Man who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms & the CIA”. Alfred A. Knopf, 1979, p.198. *Mark Lisheron. “In tapes, LBJ accuses Nixon of treason”. Austin American-Statesman. December 05, 2008. *Jules Witcover. “The Making of an Ink-Stained Wretch: Half a Century Pounding the Political Beat”. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, p131.
In addition, I think its fairly clear that just because Lyndon Johnson thought something, it did not make it so. Primary sources, thus, have value. Plumber ( talk) 06:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The articles for Red states and blue states and United States presidential election, 1976 indicate that 1976 was the first year a TV network used a live light-up map to show results as they came in. However, there appears to be such a map in CBS's coverage of 1968. See [1] at 11:40, and [2] at 10:40. Are there any sources that discuss this map? Was there a color version of the broadcast, and if so, what colors were used? 174.240.35.66 ( talk) 07:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States presidential election, 1968. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not saying there can't be a case made for alternative views on Nixon's campaign strategies, but I see a number of problems with the new content (most recent restore):
This content should be removed until it can be 1) better written at least to take out the dubious claims; 2) add far better sources; 3) remove the feel that this article is being used for political purposes (which is currently the case). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure how to start a new topic, so I'll just use this one. I've never, ever heard Nixon described as a "new Yorker." Although the footnote points out the basis for this claim, it says that numerous works list him as a new Yorker for the first election and a Californian for the second, but without citing any. Is there a citation for this that can be added to the footnote? Thank you 16:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.90.176.55 ( talk)
Should this be made its own section? Seems like a turning point. - KaJunl ( talk) 03:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the only election in which it was a battle between two Vice Presidents to succeed the incumbent Presidents and I am getting tired of this very being removed from this article. It is an established fact and it is not a claim that needs to be a source just like no source was needed to state that this was last election in which a third party candidate (Wallace) had won electoral votes. 122.108.156.100 ( talk) 00:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC) The article began with: "The United States presidential election of 1968 was the 46th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 5, 1968. The Republican nominee, former Vice President Richard Nixon, won the election over the Democratic nominee, incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey." I mean can anyone find another example of a contest between an incumbent Vice President and a former Vice President to succeed the incumbent President who was not seeking reelection. The answer to that is of course no. 122.108.156.100 ( talk) 00:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said before one does not need a source to prove something that is very obvious like what is the answer 2 plus 2. You are deliberately being obtuse Stevietheman.
From the source I posted here: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/why-sitting-vice-presidents-dont-fare-well-as-presidential-candidates/
"Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon.....Nixon is also the only former Vice President who won the presidency after failing to win the White House as a sitting or former Vice President"
If one reads what the rest of this article says one can easily deduce that 1968 is the only time that it was a battle between two Vice Presidents, one incumbent and the other former to succeed the incumbent President. 122.108.156.100 ( talk) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The Presidential election results map in the lower half of the summary box at the top right of the page erroneously lists West Virginia as having 6 electoral votes. West Virginia, in fact, had 5 congressional districts [1] and thus 7 electoral votes for both the 1964 and 1968 elections [2] In addition to the source cited this can be checked by adding the Humphrey electoral votes indicated by the map and seeing that they sum to 190 rather than the correctly cited total of 191. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guns of Brixton ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
References
The section on the Nixon campaign's interference with October peace talks is outdated and overly convoluted to the point where it strains NPOV. Plumber ( talk) 11:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1968. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/GetItemDetailsHandler?iN=9780801882470&qty=1&source=2&viewMode=3&loggedIN=false&JavaScript=yWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I heard this from, but I do remember either reading or hearing something about Richard Nixon being the second choice for most George Wallace Voters second choice over Hubert Humphrey if Wallace wasn't running for president in 1968. Is this fact true or not? I'll try to find a source. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Quora and the forum for uselectionatlas.org count as reliable source, but people were disguising that a lot of Southern Democrats would have felt betrayed by the Johnson Administration's Civil Rights Act of 1964 being signed into law and it would have been unlikely that the Southern Democrats would've voted for Johnson's VP Humphrey in the 1968 election because of that. It's likely that the Southern Democrats would have just held their noses and voted for Nixon (a moderate Republican who had ties to both the liberal/moderate Rockefeller and Conservative wings of the party) out of protest. Nixon I'm pretty sure had a Southern strategy plan that could've worked, too. Had Nixon taken Wallace's votes, we would have carried all the states Wallace won in our history ( Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia) and likely would have won Texas (the only Southern state Humphrey won in 1968, but by a narrow margin) and a few other states in the north as well.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116002.0
-- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 20:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
New York had a primary. Here ( https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/19/issue.html) is an image of the Times the next morning telling how the McCarthy and Humphrey each won some of New York 123 delegates to the Chicago convention.
Morris ( talk) 01:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
A paragraph says Nixon won California by three points or less, but he won by 3.08 as shown in the table for each state and the close states list. EvanJ35 ( talk) 15:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
[3] is how the Congressional Record records it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.74.26 ( talk) 17:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
List of George Wallace endorsements |
---|
Wallace had received endorsements from:
|
References
There seems to be too much content and cites devoted to when Johnson heard Cronkite's speech, and what he said at the time. It would be better summarized than go into the quotes years later by various journalists and historians. Given this overall article, the important element seems to be a consensus (except for sources noting the "myth", which could be acknowledged) that Johnson found it significant, and it may have contributed to his decision. This section should be reduced by summary. Parkwells ( talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There was some recent vandalism to the page that saw RFK added to the infobox in place of Humphrey and it was edited to show RFK winning. This was reversed but for a couple of hours it still had Humphrey ahead of Nixon. Could it be worth putting in a request for semi-protection? Just a though. TDK1881 ( talk) 12:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a struggle for which portrait of Nixon to use in the infobox. Which of these would fit better?
File:Nixon Foundation Richard Nixon 1967 Portrait Cropped.jpg
PJRoRo ( talk) 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't Wallace's strategy of being a "kingmaker" in a hypothetical, inconclusive Electoral College outcome fail the smell test? Doesn't the Twentieth Amendment clarify that in such an instance the House and Senate would make the determination, not the third party candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.176.122 ( talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The black and white ones were perfectly fine, while the new color ones are far too zoomed in (And Wallace isn't even from 1968.) I have no clue what's up with this new wave of so many people changing presidential photos to be awful color ones with no regard for actual guidelines when black and white ones are fine. I'm opening a topic on this since I don't want an edit war with whoever uploaded these photos Codename Jenny V ( talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The constant replacement of the candidates' portraits with AI colorizations needs to stop. These portraits are very obviously AI-colorized, look worse, and lower the quality of the overall article. If you want to use color images, find contemporary color photographs, don't run the current portraits through palette.fm and upload them instead. Modern colorizations, especially poorly-made AI ones, don't belong on pages for historical events. Original photographs do.
The colorizations are all screwed up, too. The American flag behind Humphrey is completely black and white except for a hint of tan on the white stripe, and the blue of his suit bleeds onto the background behind his left (our right) shoulder. Wallace's photo is tinged a sickly blue, hardly even colorized, except for his skin. Nixon's portrait is from a decade earlier, during his term as Vice President, and does not accurately reflect how he looked during the 1968 campaign. The colorization is okay, that's because I AI-colorized it and went in and did some slight color correcting, but I never intended for it to be used in such a wildly inappropriate situation as here. These colorizations do not belong here, and they need to stop being put on this page. GI Brown 1970 ( talk) 16:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Users of Wikipedia, please vote on the sets of portraits that you wish to be used in the infobox. I believe that both options are good, but I believe the B&W images in this election are better in this case, as there is not a good colored image of either Humphrey or Wallace. That is why I vote for Black and White.
B&W:
Color:
~ HistorianL ( talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The Vote has ended and it has been decided that the B&W images have won in a 4-0 vote ~ HistorianL ( talk) 15:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
With all the talk about the wikibox's portraits, there is an actual upgrade that could be made: Wallace's photo is unofficial. There is his official governor's portrait on Wikipedia, though it is from 1970, while the current photo is from 1968, so I could go either way. Posting here for consensus before any change.
Steve From The Financial Department ( talk) 18:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
While I understand that by a 4-0 vote, the B&W photos were established by consensus, and I respect this. While this is very shrotly after, and I appreciate that; I want to attempt to replace the long-standing black & white photos. They do not have the same shape, their crops do not match well, and while they are higher resolution, the images I present are also very high resolution. I vote for the Color option.
B&W:
Color:
Mycranthebigalt ( talk) 11:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I have found 10 presidents (6 two termers, 4 one termers) that do not use their Presidential Portraits for their first successful campaign as President, those being
Late to the party, but the color ones look terrible. Wallace's portrait is from 1962, six years before the actual election, and Humphrey's image is just terrible. He's looking down and to the left, his blurry hand is in the way, and all the crops are mismatched. Color images aren't inherently better because they're color images. GI Brown 1970 ( talk) 13:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Black and White. Seriously, the colored ones look terrible except for Nixon's. Wallace's one looks so bad, and the one with Humphrey has his hand in the middle of it. River10000 ( talk) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It is Interesting how people will continue to use and defend the terrible, ugly Black & White photos, instead of the better Colored photos, and while yes, the Photos are Established by Consensus, they look god awful, Nixon’s smile makes him look like a creep, Humphrey looks like he’s going crazy, and Wallace looks like an old, angry man (although I would expect Racists to be Angry people).
And the images for Humphrey and Wallace have been used ten plus years, and so newer, better images could have been found and used. So while people can Argue “Consensus”, these image’s honestly look terrible, the color ones (By I mean the most recently used ones) look way better. Qutlooker ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)