Talk:Barry Goldwater/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Political views section mentions NOTHING but liberal views

No comments on Union Busting, nothing about making Social Security voluntary, nothing about attacking welfare programs. This article is extremely biased. PyroGamer (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because it said, "libertarian views" until someone changed it. There, back to normal. 129.61.46.16 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldwater and the 1960s

Back in the 1960s, did Goldwater ever attempt to filibuster a Senate Bill? 216.99.201.73 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater

Your information about Barry Goldwater as the founder of the Arizona Air National Guard would be incorrect.

Brig. General L.H. Bell was the fonder. Barry had the name and the money... Lawrence H. Bell was the true founder and patriot.

Mickey Grant ASU1950@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.216.61 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore???

The Al Gore fantasy is totally false about what Gore proposed in 2000--and Gore's personality and campaign in 2000 was as different as possible from Goldwater in 1964. So it's a very bad analogy and gives readers ridiculously false information. about Gore and zero information about Goldwater. Rjensen (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship challenge

Nothing about the claims by political opponents that Goldwater was ineligible to run for President because he was born in Arizona Territory? Bizzybody (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

nah, the birthers hadn't been born yet. People born in the territories are US citizens at birth, then and now. Rjensen (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldwater's mistress?

The article says Goldwater was not widowed until 1985, however Ben Bradlee contends that Goldwater was Bradlee's mother-in-law's "boyfriend" in the early 1970s this article. Should that be mentioned? Are there other sources that corroborate this? - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph titled "Controversy"

Although this paragraph gives four footnotes - which appear to give credibility to the allegations - they all come from a single source, published fifty years ago. Since Goldwater was about the run for President it is possible the author wrote his claims to hurt the senator's chances. Has any more recent sources on Goldwater mentioned these claims? The words "swinger," "gangland," "racketeers" all suggest Goldwater was involved in nefarious activities when he may have simply known these men, as politicians know thousands of other people. Since all the information comes from one source the paragraph should be shortened. Finally, the sentence on the alleged press conference has no citation at all. Asburyparker (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section-- old self-published supermarket journalism is not RS when we have multiple serious biographies. The issues were not raised against Goldwater in 1964 because they were not credible then. Rjensen (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Conservative white washing for you folks. Hitting too close to home? Delete it.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.168.55 (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

question about 1964 legal situation regarding election to SENATE

The infobox does have Goldwater serving in the Senate to Jan. 3, 1965. Notice that his U.S. Senate seat was up for election in 1964, when he ran as the Republican nominee for President. I see he did not seek re-election to the Senate then; WAS IT LEGAL OR NOT for him to do that [seek re-election to his Senate seat], given that he was running for President? In Texas just 4 years earlier, Lyndon Johnson ran for re-election to the Senate and was also the Democratic nominee for Vice President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It varies by state. It was legal for LBJ to run for the senate and the VP in 1960 in Texas. My recollection is that was not legal in Arizona for Goldwater in 1964. It's a matter of how many times your name can b e on the ballot. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

KKK issue

it was Dem party ads that tied Goldwater to kkk : an LBJ ad, ”Confessions of a Republican”, tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan." Davies & Zelizer says One Dem ad shows a Klansman in regalia endorsing Goldwater. Davies & Zelizer America at the Ballot Box: Elections and Political History pp 190-91. Goldwater himself repudiated all Klan aid, says NYTIMES: "Goldwater Bars Klan Aid; Confers With Eisenhower: GOLDWATER BARS SUPPORT OF KLAN By CHARLES MOHR New York Times Aug 7, 1964; page 1 ProQuest Historical Newspapers: ""Mr. Goldwater firmly repudiated the Ku Klux Klan and said he did not want the support of organizations bearing that name." Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this text: "The New York Times reported that, ""Mr. Goldwater repudiated the Ku Klux Klan and said he did not want the support of organizations bearing that name."<ref>Charles Mohr, " "Goldwater Bars Klan Aid; Confers With Eisenhower," ''New York Times'' Aug 7, 1964; page 1</ref> However the Democrats devised a campaign commercial showing hows a Klansman in regalia endorsing Goldwater.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Gareth Davies|author2=Julian E. Zelizer|title=America at the Ballot Box: Elections and Political History|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6lpDCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA190|year=2015|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|pages=190–91}}</ref>.... also note the Southern strategy" was NOT used for Goldwater (it was a 1968 coinage re Nixon.) Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rjensen: - Sounds very reasonable. Feel free to add. There were other political attack advertising commercials mentioned throughout the article, as well, yet only "Daisy" had her own special, little section. I've consolidated what I found into one section, and relabeled it "Political Advertisements", to be more inclusive, and so that the other advertisements weren't strays. Going to check out that reference you've suggested right now. Knowledge Battle 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that more accurate? Knowledge Battle 00:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle:First, a technicality, please do not use an edit summary stating you are undoing my changes if you are also including many other changes. I certainly did not add much of the material you removed nor did I do anythign with the Daisy ad. Your inclusion of the KKK is better in that it at least starts with something of a disclaimer but it still has a picture that simply states the KKK was supporting the GOP Goldwater. That is an attempt to blackwash. This is now your 4RR of this same material today. Three editors have removed it. You didn't justify removal of the material you claimed was an "undo" of my edit. I would ask that you roll back your changes to my last edit and then DISCUSS before making more changes. That will put us back to where the article was not long ago and then we can get consensus for the changes. The alternative is we can ask for outside help. Springee (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Springee: - Okay, the image has been removed. Knowledge Battle 01:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: That wasn't what I asked. Please roll back the changes to my last revert (which is basically where the article was before you added the KKK section and undoes the 4RR's you did today). Then let's discuss the changes and why they should be made here before we edit the article. Springee (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barry Goldwater. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Goldwater's "extremism in defense of liberty" line famous?

We have an editor who challenges whether or not the line on extremism is "famous." He demanded cites and he promptly erased the cites. That is very bad form. I cited a journalist (Adams) who was there & who called it "bold," and a standard Columbia University compilation of famous quotations Robert Andrews, ed. (1997). Famous Lines: A Columbia Dictionary of Familiar Quotations. p. 159. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help). Google books shows citations to about 4000 different scholarly books to this quotation. That's famous enough....Michael Shermer (2005) says "Barry Goldwater gave voice to one of the most memorable one-liners in the history of politicking: 'Extremism in the defense of liberty...' Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean me? Or do you mean Simon8699? The word "famous" is given as an example of WP:PUFFERY, specifically given as an example at WP:WTW for words which should be avoided if possible. Calling it "famous" or "infamous" introduces bias. Let his quote speak for itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm kinda new here. But I also object to the use of the word "bold". Both seem to lack objectivity to me. I did not erase ANY citations. Like Muboshgu says, I think we should let his words, his actions, and their context speak for themselves. Simon8699 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
our job is to let the RS speak--and "bold" is a quote. As for "famous" it has its uses as the rule specifies. It's called famous by the experts. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The way the article was previously worded was not letting the RS speak - it was editorialising. Would it be possible to compromise with something roughly like: *give the quote*. Columbia University included this in a compilation of famous quotations, and Adams characterised the speech as bold?Simon8699 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
the RS are unanimous that the speech is famous. The compromise does not add any info--the Columbia book is a useful footnote--many books of quotations include it because it is so famous and bold. Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
That it's famous is why the quote should be included. But we shouldn't say that it's famous. That's bias. Journalists can say lots of things that are not appropriate to say on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
For Wikipedia to state that the quote is "famous" is a simple non- controversial statement of fact as supported by hundreds of reliable sources, and to my knowledge denied by no one. We're not saying that a rock band in Oklahoma is famous-- were talking about "one of the most memorable one-liners in the history of politicking" [Cited above].

U.S. presidential campaign, 1964: Results section

I have the following proposed edit. The following sentence:

[QUOTE] The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed by Johnson and the Northern Democrats, as well as the majority of Republicans in Congress, earlier that year.[48][49] [QUOTE]

is not generally factual. While it is true that the southern states had traditionally voted Democrat, they did not vote Republican in 1964, "primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed by Johnson and the Northern Democrats, as well as the majority of Republicans in Congress, earlier that year." In fact, that sentence doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Why would the people of the southern states vote Republican to oppose the Civil Rights Act when that act was passed almost exclusively by Republicans? That seems like a very strange act of defiance to support the people who's policies you oppose, doesn't it? That's because it didn't happen and is untrue. Also, Johnson,who had voted against similar legislation as a senator many times, only signed as an act of desperation to keep the cities from burning, which is not represented in the article.

I don't think I need to further challenge the veracity of sources 48 & 49, since the sentence is easily disproved by logic. Further, this is a much more reliable source for this information: [1].

Believe what you like about this period of history, but there is no historical factual basis for the above quoted sentence and, as such, it should be removed, since I am not permitted to edit it to make it at at least somewhat correct. Anthonythegross (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the text is exactly correct and is supported by the RS. "Kevin D. Williamson" is a very poor source. For example of bad mistakes: 1) " Civil Rights Act when that act was passed almost exclusively by Republicans?" is false. 2) LBJ had NOT "voted against similar legislation as a senator many times". he voted zero times against similar legislation. 3) LBJ was indeed the leading supporter in 1964. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 22:16, April 12, 2016 (EST)
I agree with what Rjensen said. Regardless, the National Review article does not support the change you were trying to make to the article. You were trying to add this: "The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of support to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed by Republicans in Congress, earlier that year." I see nothing in Williamson's article that supports that (his article is discussing long term trends, not the 1964 election in specific). You also did not change the citation that was already in place. As a rule, changing information to the opposite conclusion but leaving the same citation in place is deceptive and unconstructive. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This civil rights act of 1964 WAS passed almost exclusively by republican efforts. If not for Everett Dirksen and Republican support, this would have never made it out of committee, much less to the senate floor, and this very site agrees with that conclusion [2] [3]

LBJ DID vote against similar legislation for TWO DECADES, even ploitifact and Barak Obama are willing to admit this [4]

There is no possible support for the sentence, "The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed by Johnson and the Northern Democrats, as well as the majority of Republicans in Congress, earlier that year,[48][49]" because it 1) doesn't make any sense (again, Why would the people of the southern states vote Republican to oppose the Civil Rights Act when that act was passed almost exclusively by Republicans?). 2) There is no tangible evidence that voting practices changed as a result of the passage of the civil rights act.

Please remove the sentence all together, since it does not add any credible information, and, in fact, adds non-credible information, to the article. Anthonythegross (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen
  4. ^ http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/

Born on January 1 or January 2?

The lede says that Goldwater was born on January 1, 1909, with a link to the following sole source: http://www.accuracyproject.org/cbe-Goldwater,Barry.html

However, that source states that Goldwater was born on January 2, 1909. (not January 1).

Which date is correct? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Goldwater's uncompromising promotion of freedom"

"Freedom" in this context is so vague as to be almost meaningless. The freedom to do what? And in what way was Goldwater uncompromising on this point? Was he asked to compromise on something specific, and refused to soften his position? Dratman (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Barry's wings and ribbons

Goldwater's "left side" military decorations can be seen at this link. http://veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=831 - knoodelhed (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Track - why "dismay"?

The article states:


Interests

Goldwater ran track and cross country in high school, where he specialized in the 880 yard run. His parents strongly encouraged him to compete in these sports, to his dismay. He often went by the nickname of "Rolling Thunder".[citation needed]


It says that his parents encouraged him to compete, to his dismay (I bolded "dismay" above). I find it a bit strange that he would be dismayed by his parents' support. Perhaps the writer meant something else?

--ZevFarkas (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Goldwater Lake

Is this lake named for Barry Goldwater? I am refering to the lake near Prescott, AZ, in the Bradshaw mountains. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. 24.117.132.109 (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer: The lake is named after longtime Prescott Mayor Morris Goldwater; he was Sen. Barry M. Goldwater's uncle (https://prescottlivingmag.com/goldwater-lake-national-forest-surrounds-fishing-birding-hiking/). 92.79.101.164 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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) 05:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Running Mate

Should there not be some reference to Goldwater's 1964 running mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:907C:2100:39D9:3C84:9ABE:4E06 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good point @2407:7000:907C:2100:39D9:3C84:9ABE:4E06:, while this is a biographical page and at times the personal wiki page of persons such as political figures omit information not proximate to the person him/herself, often reserving it for inclusion on a separate page devoted solely to that same figures tenure in office or political career in general-no other page for Barry Goldwater exists except this one. Therefore I agree/see of no reason why some mention of his 1964 running mate should be left out. OgamD218 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

one of his greatest regrets

'In the 1990s, Goldwater would call his vote on the Civil Rights Act, “one of his greatest regrets"'

What exactly is the source for this? 82.28.187.31 (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

In the section about Amateur Radio call signs. Goldwater also held the call sign of K3USS. The USS part was for United States Senate. When he was in DC he had a station and used his Call K3USS. Please correct this. 108.52.109.245 (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_Goldwater/Archive_2&oldid=1146389528"