Jump to content

Talk:1968 Democratic National Convention

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

Article Incomplete

[edit]

The article contains virtually nothing about the proceedings of the convention.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of cleanup

[edit]

This article is awful. Weighted statements like "brought the promise of hope to a generation" and "America’s most reliable journalist" don't belong in an encyclopedia. "With events in the United States crashing against the American population faster and faster, 1968 quickly developed into a year of rage." is completely ambiguous that seems to have been written by someone who has just watched Forrest Gump. The heading says Richard J Daley while the non-wiki-linked text says Richard R Daley. Most of what's included in the LBJ paragraph is completely irrelevant. Worst of all, the article lacks any information on the Convention itself other than the Nomination process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.187.240 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go through articles and clean up punctuation, grammar, and occasionally syntax. This article is in need of a lot more than that- more than any article I’ve ever read. There is extraneous information and yet it is incomplete. It is also not neutral. I’ve never done that kind of fix up on Wikipedia, but I’m happy to help if an effort gets underway. LLothaire (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would like to add an external link to a lesson plan created by the Columbus Museum of Art that deals specifically with the 1968 Democratic National Convention. It surrounds a painting by Bernard Perlin called Mayor Daley and the lesson plan is geared towards teachers and students to learn more about the painting as well as the Convention itself. I would appreciate anyone's comments so that I could add this link. ArtandSocialIssues (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This entire article is ridiculously one sided. It reads like something Hoffman himself would have written. An article detailing the protestors demands, followed up by a factual timeline of the events, and concluding with an aftermath section would be sufficient. Now its nothing but Yippie Propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version of the Convention itself is neutral. 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleroger (talk • contribs)

Ribicoff

[edit]

The Ribicoff page claims that lip-readers and eyewitnesses said Daley said, quote, "Fuck you, you jew motherfucker!". here it says something about "kike". any clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

[edit]

I don't think this is so much a stub any more. Anyone else? The comparison between when it was tagged and now --The Human Spellchecker 23:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dates?

[edit]

This article needs specific dates for the beginning and end of both the convention and protests and riots in the streets of Chicago. Right now, it only has a tangential reference to August 27th as the birthday of LBJ. Would anyone be willing to find the required dates? --Sophitus 02:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The convention began on August 26 and ended on the 29. LBJ turned 60 on August 27, which was during the convention. The riots happened on that day as well. -- SNIyer12 20:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The significance of holding the convention in that week is that when the dates were reserved, it was expected that Lyndon Johnson would seek and obtain re-nomination, so they were planning to do it on or about his birthday. When Walter Cronkite and other members of the press scared him off from running, it became meaningless, but it was not practical to change the dates.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff a riot article

[edit]

I milk think them riots and the convention itself should be separate articles. I think their is enough info to cover each as separate articles. Some areas that should also be covered regarding the riot include:

  • The use of violence by police against protester. Their are all sorts of eyewitness accounts by the press and regular people that can be quoted.
  • The response by Mayor Daily, Chicago Police, Local Authorities, etc. to the charges of police brutality and violence incitement by police.
  • Describe what the those charged as part of the Chicago eight (later seven) where doing during the riots and what about it was claimed to justify the charges against them. Also the Chicago Seven trial should have a full paragraph included on it as part of a summery rather then just the two lines currently in the article.
  • The riots have been said to have swayed some undecided voters towards Nixon by giving the Democratic party a black eye. This should be discussed as their are notable historians and political commentators who have discussed this aspect of the '68 election.

If I find the time maybe I'll try to dig up some additional info on the riots and start a separate article on them. --Cab88 13:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBJ

[edit]

The following line seems POV, anyone mind if I remove it?

Of course, LBJ couldn't travel anywhere without facing any protests.

I would consider this line as POV as well as possibly inaccurate if taken litteraly:

Despite personally and professionally torturing his vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, President Johnson did make efforts to rally convention leaders behind him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdave (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Please source. This article as it stands is an original research piece. --Cerejota 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reasons

[edit]

Could there be a section on possible reasons why the protests occurred? Or am I to assume that all presidential conventions have protests of that size from their own party members?

You will see the (D-MN) or whatever designation in every US paper or magazine referring to senators, governors, etc., indicating party and state. The publications don't clarify for international distribution, as far as I know. All states have a standard 2-letter postal abbreviation used for mail and other official purposes. If you don't know the state abbreviations I'm afraid you will have to look them up, because the party-state postal abbreviation designation is standard across the board when referring to politicians. The state abbreviation designations are readily available online or in many publications if you aren't in the US. On the local level it will say (D-4th) or something to indicate democrat-4th district or ward or whatever the case may be.98.206.102.76 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation may be needed

[edit]

the intro contains the following text: Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY)

I'm assuming it means democratic senator for New York, but this should be cleared up for anyone (like me) who is not from the USA. Could someone who actually is 100% sure what this means rephrase the sentence to be internationally accessible? Steevm 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that "D-MN" also appears in the text; It may be democrat - Maine, but again I don't know. Please also fix this so non USA residents know what is being referred to! Steevm 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think MN is Minnesota and Maine is ME but I'm not from the US either so I'm not 100% sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.87.108 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. MN is the post office abbreviation for Minnesota, and ME is the post office abbreviation for Maine. The traditional abbreviations, however, are Minn. and Me., respectively, and they should be used in formal writing.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Cong Flag on Equestrian statue

[edit]

in Tom Brokaw's 1968 he did a segment on the convention and riots. Before night Hippies were flying a VC flag on a statue in the park. The police removed the Hippies and flag. Just thought maybe some reference to that may have incited the police even more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feickus (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying a Vietcong flag at that time (we were at war in Vietnam) would have, for patriotic Americans, about the same effect as flying a swastika banner in Skokie, Illinois.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This page contains severe problems of POV and nuetrality, whole paragraphs of what must be seen as clearly partisan opinion about the events, media reaction, police response, etc, are without references of footnotes of any kind. I refuse to believe an event of this significance lacks the ability to reference these views, if true, so until this is done the page must be tagged as such. also, paragraphs are your friends... use some?JJJ999 (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reaching the same conclusion and, judging by past comments, others agree. Nothing has been done about it though. The area that really is too long and most problemic seems to be the section on the protests. I can't fix it, but am going to move it to its own article with the hopes that some else will take the time to cut it down to a more encyclopedic article. PerlKnitter (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Issues

[edit]

The Nomination section has no references, and they could be used elsewhere as well. Rather than tag it with refimprove, I've combined them into article issues. Darthveda (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

I am currenly working on a proper clean up of this article for grammar and neutrality. I will be using an array of books to properly document what happnened at the convention as best as I can. I'm using Todd Gitlin's book, as well as a Kennedy biography by Schlesinger to improve the quality of the article. I will also make an effort to correct and include proper references. For information that I cannot find references for or seem to be neutral I will erase. Elfkin70 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.94.191 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've noticed that the External Links section of this article has been tagged. Since removal of these links might be contentious I have listed the changes that I feel should be made here. I have only deleted links that clearly don't belong. See: WP:EL and WP:NOT.

Deleted

Personal Pages / Unreliable

Unavailable

Copyright Violation

Less Content than Article

Product Promtion Websites

Same source

Direct Media Links

  • "Yippie-produced documentary on the Convention" (RealMedia).
  • "Video clips of confrontations between demonstrators and police" (RealMedia).
Questionable

Editorials

If you have any concerns regarding these removals please leave a note here (not on my talk page), thank you.→(Speak•MorgothX•Havoc) 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are links to lengthy excerpts from books called product promotions? They have more content than the article and are longer than newspaper and newsmagazine articles that are regularly linked from Wikipedia--not to mention Youtube videos and whatnot . . . . Dblobaum (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LBJ priorities How can we say that LBJ wasn't interested in foreign policy?? read a book... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.108.245 (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really Strange

[edit]

The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protestors was so great that it eventually made it’s way to the Hilton Hotel where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower. What is the point of this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.94.10 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Numbers & Vote Results

[edit]

While the article has extensive info on the city selection process, the Dan Rather Incident, the protests and the Chicago Seven; it really needs delegate numbers and the results of the votes.

Specifically, the article should have: The number of delegates pledged to each candidate (and who the Kennedy delegates supported/voted for - reasonably speaking, these delegates would have been released). The results of the Presidential nominating vote(s). The results of the Vice-Presidential nominating vote(s). Etc.

Many other nominating convention articles have this kind of info. This article should, also.

72.82.201.213 (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still missing that information many months later. As a result I have downgraded this article to "Stub" class. (The fact that Eugene McCarthy & Hubert Humphrey were in fierce competition for the nomination, & neither had a clear majority on the first day of the convention, is important.) Add the information the anon above requested, & this rating can be reversed. -- llywrch (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Class Project Page

[edit]

This page has been selected by one of my students as a class project. Please be polite and constructive when editing or giving advice and be aware that the students involved in this project are learning Wikipedia along with learning research and writing skills. If you have any questions, please contact me.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1968 Democratic National Convention. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1968 Democratic National Convention. 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:

When 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ribicoff's nominating speech

[edit]

The article currently says (emphasis added):

Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff used his nominating speech for George McGovern to report the violence going on outside the convention hall. He reportedly said that "With George McGovern as President of the United States, we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago!" Mayor Daley responded to his remark with something unintelligible through the television sound, although lip-readers throughout America claimed to have observed him shouting, "Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch."

Why is Ribicoff's quote described as what he "reportedly" said? Presumably his speech would have been filmed by the television networks covering the convention. In fact, it must have been broadcast -- else how could television viewers been able to see Daley's reaction to that comment? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Ballot heading

[edit]

Every source I've read says there was only one ballot, so it's misleading to name it "Final Ballot", which implies several.

As others have said this is a very weak article, particularly on the mechanics of the voting. Pledged delegates, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violation, "rioting" should be deleted in favor of neutral language

[edit]

If there is a mob of persons marching on public streets, obstructing traffic, with no parade permit, impeding movement of citizens, blocking commerce, & preventing stores from selling, that itself is not a mere protest; that is a riot. If the police put it down & clear the streets, that is not a riot. It is a decisive demonstration of governmental authority. For a mob to take over streets on its own initiative, is a violation of Republic or what is commonly called democracy. The people never voted for such riots. I suggest that this article be edited for NPOV and objectivity, avoiding such terms as ALL & EVERYBODY when such is not in evidence and is an exaggeration. Labeling police action as "riot," is a perjorative opinion, not worthy of an encyclopedia, in this case. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

PeacePeaceThe scenario you allude to in your first sentence is civil disobedience or civil disorder, not a riot. The term "police riot" comes from the Walker Report on precisely these events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, describing the "unrestrained and indiscriminate" violence that the police "inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat."[1] Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Summary of the Walker Report, http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_chicago7_doc_13.html

Kennedys

[edit]

Robert Kennedy was standing, not Edward M. Kennedy, yet the table (and its source) state votes cast for Edward M. Kennedy. The convention was in late August 1968; Robert Kennedy had been assassinated in early June. There shouldn't be any votes for any Kennedys! Captainllama (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most tense and confrontational political convention?

[edit]

More so than the 1860 Democratic National Convention, which began in Charleston, South Carolina and had to be adjourned and reconvened in Baltimore, Maryland? Or the 1924 Democratic National Convention, known as the Klanbake, which required 103 ballots to select a nominee?174.17.137.81 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says "one of the most tense". And I think it certainly would qualify. (Especially in the modern era where the conventions are now pretty much infomercials.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overly biased hook

[edit]

@Randy Kryn

The new changes to the page are pretty blatantly editorialized. The addition of the primary victories is only designed to improve the image of McCarthy, which is combined with obvious fabrications (McCarthy did not "see through" the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and DID vote for the Resolution. This isn't contestable). The new edit also adds an odd set of single quotation marks around 'chosen' for Humphrey's candidacy, which again, isn't a contestable fact. And then it goes on to add details about how fewer votes the campaign got and how it 'demoralized a generation.' All in all almost the entire edit is befitting of an encyclopedia.

I do thank you for removing the Phil Ochs lyrics. Love the guy, but you have to admit that was bizarre, right? Hephaestion00 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please return the styling and accuracy edits. The Ochs lyric was a later addition when he sung the song, not in the original 1966 version as was detailed on the page (and not lead worthy in any case). Please note that the Civil Rights Movement did not end upon King's death but went ahead with the planned Poor People's Campaign (and the passage of the Fair Housing Law which can be included in the CRM timeline). Thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I went ahead and edited out a decent bit from the second half of the paragraph. Definitely agree about removing the part of the Civil Rights movements not ending, maybe have been too hasty in the nuclear revert there. Hephaestion00 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1968_Democratic_National_Convention&oldid=1242622150"