Talk:Daisy (advertisement)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 14:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Nominator: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) at 18:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, this one looks quite good in most places. Comments coming soon. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Y Literally just quotes and place names, so no copyvio here.

Stability

• Y The page itself seems stable enough, with no recent edit wars or controversies. Same for the talk page.

Prose / MoS

• N Overall a lot of typos here a grammar issues here. These are the ones I picked out, but the page could really use some dedicated copy-editing to make things run smoother.
  • First para of lede, "referred as" -> "referred to as", "factor" -> "factors", "a limited support" -> "limited support"
  • Third para of lede, "various times, and" -> "various times and", "referring him by name" -> "referring to him by name"
  • First para of Background of creation, "indirectly, and" -> "indirectly and", "only a limited support" -> "only limited support", "the pledge of allegiance, until" -> "the pledge of allegiance until"
  • Second para of Background of creation, "Prior to" -> "Before", "mid June" -> "mid-June", "The nuclear weapons" -> "Nuclear weapons", "central issue" -> "central issues"
  • Synopsis, "she skips some numbers, and counts some twice" -> "she skips some number and counts some twice"
  • First para of Broadcast and impact, "this ad" -> "the ad", "striking images" -> "striking imagery", "sudden change" -> "sudden changes", "in increased" -> "is increased", "echoes W. H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939" in which line 88 reads, "We must love one another or die."" -> "echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939", which reads "We must love one another or die.""
  • Second para of Broadcast and impact, "Bill Moyers remembers" -> "Johnson's private assistant Bill Moyers remembers", "called him and said" -> "called him and asked,", "was objected by" -> "was objected to by", "and on conversation programs various times," -> "and conversation programs various times", "was replayed and analyzed endlessly" -> "was frequently replayed and analyzed", "was putting a "panic inspired falsehoods" on the television" -> "was putting "panic inspired falsehoods" on the television", "referred as" -> "referred to as", "commercial" -> "commercials", "The exact number of viewership of the commercial is unknown, but Robert Mann, the author of the book Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds estimates that about hundred million people saw it." -> "Whilst the exact viewership of the commercial is unknown, the author of the book Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds Robert Mann estimates that about a hundred million people saw it."
  • Third para of Broadcast and impact, "But just a few days later," -> "A few days later," (how many?), "related by a young girl eating ice-cream" -> "related by a young girl eating ice cream to the audience", "margins of popular vote" -> "margins of the popular vote"
    • @ExcellentWheatFarmer – For the point related to number of days, I am not able to find exact number of days or date of it's release. In that case, I guess "A few days later" should work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
      • @Kavyansh.Singh – I tried looking for it myself but I couldn't find anything either, so that should work just fine! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • First para of Later usage and impact, "multiple political broadcasts since" -> "multiple political broadcasts since being shown", "His advertisements" -> "Mondale's advertisements"
  • Second para of Later usage and impact, "until the 2000s, when" -> "until the 2000s when"
    •  Done @ExcellentWheatFarmer – I very much appreciate your review. I have tried to resolve all concerns about the prose listed here in this edit. Feel free to let me know of any other changes required. Thanks a lot. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

Y The page is heavily referenced and all of them seem to be reliable.

POV

Y The page isn't clearly biased towards Goldwater or Johnson, and sticks to coverage of the advertisement and its cultural impact.

Orginal Research

Y No original research to be found here.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

Y The page reads quite well and covers all the main details of the ad well, feeling pretty complete.

Media

Y Only three pieces of media are used here, and they are all available to use.

Conclusion

Overall, I'd say this article is GA standard, aside from the listed MOS and Grammar edits. However, as they've already been done, I'd be happy to pass this. Any further comments @Kavyansh.Singh? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Sure, I'd be delighted if you can pass this article today, as coincidentally, today is Lyndon B Johnson's 113th Birth anniversary! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

"Daisy"

• ... that although the "Daisy" advertisement (pictured) was aired only once, it is considered to be one of the most controversial and popular political advertisements ever? Source:The New York Times, The Library of Congress

• Reviewed: Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven), Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (extra)

Improved to Good Article status by Kavyansh.Singh (talk). Self-nominated at 03:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

Wasn't a similar DYK already promoted a month ago? by the same nominator? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is a recent GA, long enough and sourced. No copyvio on Earwig and qpq is done I agree with @A.C. Santacruz: I don't think we can run the same hook twice with a different page. This needs a different hook to be approved. Approving ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3b. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame because the hook is really interesting, but the other version was just too similar. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BuySomeApples A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples and A. C. Santacruz: Well, here is the thing. I definitely know that a very similar (not same) hook ran a month ago, as I was the nominator. But, I see no DYK rules or guidelines preventing this, except a supplementary guideline, which says "Items that have been on DYK before are ineligible.". Now what does an "item" mean. The hook, the article, the image/media file, or all? This is one aspect of DYK, which is unclear about what should be done. And if we were to add more rules regarding the same, "it would make the process more complicated" (which still has many rules). This is definitely worth discussion. I still favor the main hook, but still providing some addition hooks to be considered. Feel free to suggest more, or reword the following hooks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• • ALT 1 ... that Monique Corzilius did not realize that she was the girl featured in the famous "Daisy" advertisement (pictured) until the 2000s, when she searched for the commercial on the Internet? Source: Newsweek, The Arizona Republic
  • ALT 2 ... that immediately after broadcast of the "Daisy" advertisement (pictured), the White House switchboard "lit up with calls protesting it [advertisement]"? Source: "Lyndon B. Johnson : Portrait of a President. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515920-2. LCCN 2003011360. p.186"
  • ALT3 ... that the true authorship for the "Daisy" advertisement (pictured) is unclear, as both Doyle Dane Bernbach advertising agency and Tony Schwartz claim credit? Source:The Library of Congress, The Montreal Gazette
    • ALT3b:... that both Doyle Dane Bernbach advertising agency and Tony Schwartz claim credit for creating the "Daisy" advertisement (pictured)?

@Kavyansh.Singh: I totally get where you're coming from. I still think it's probably best to go with one of the alts since we just had a really similar hook. (Ironically, something similar to ALT also ran in 2016 but that's so long ago that it doesn't matter). ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3 all look good to me, so I'm approving this nom. ALT3 fudges the details a little bit though. The obituary states that it's undisputed that Schwartz came up with the audio concept and that it was based on an earlier commercial of his, and the LOC says that "produced primarily by [Schwartz]". The authorship isn't exactly unknown, its just disputed what (if anything) DDB did to help come up with it. I rephrased it as ALT3b let me know if that's OK with you. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

BuySomeApples – I'm fine with ALT 1, 2 and 3b. When a similar hook ran a month, this page (Daisy advertisement) received almost 16,000 views, while the bolded article hardly received 4000 views.... That inspired me to improve this article to GA standards. Feel free to approve the nomination. If possible, suggest some points for a FAC nomination on its peer review page.– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P2

need to discuss insincerity

The Johnson administration maintained 15,000 nuclear warheads in the US arsenal - the falsehood of this political ad is apparent. I have read political science tracts on this, but don't have the references off the top of my head. 50.111.29.1 (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and supply references from reliable sources to back up any assertion. Thanks a lot for approaching the talk page! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You obviously did not read my post. 50.111.29.1 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Nearly direct quote of an Auden poem

The last lines of the advertisement quoted in the initial section appears to be a restatement of lines from the poem "September 1st, 1939", which contains the line: "We must love one another, or die."

Written as the poem was in the shadow of WW2, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Might be worth linking or mentioning on the phrase. I would, but article is locked. 142.154.162.62 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022

Please remove

Following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson

and add

Following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson

Since the context is his assumption of office, it would help to specify why he (and not someone else) replaced Kennedy. 120.21.4.98 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done; did both of the requested changes in the same edit. Mignof (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022 (2)

Please remove this:

As of the 2020 presidential election, Johnson has gained the highest share of the popular vote in a presidential election since it first became widespread in the 1824 election. The "Daisy" ad is considered one of the most important factors in Johnson's landslide victory over Goldwater.

and add this:

As of the 2020 presidential election, Johnson has gained the highest share of the popular vote in a presidential election since it first became widespread in the 1824 election, and the "Daisy" ad is considered one of the most important factors in his victory.

The removed text is simply redundant, since "landslide victory" is referenced two sentences earlier, and by this point in the article, everyone knows that Goldwater was his opponent. 120.21.4.98 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done; did both of the requested changes in the same edit. Mignof (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Daisy (1964).webm, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 23, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-01-23. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Daisy" is an American political advertisement that aired on television as part of Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater. Though officially aired only once, on September 7, 1964, it is considered a turning point in political and advertising history. It was designed to broadcast Johnson's anti-nuclear positions, contrary to Goldwater's stance. The commercial begins with Monique Corzilius, a three-year-old girl, picking the petals of a daisy while counting from one to ten incorrectly. After she reaches "nine", a booming male voice is heard counting the numbers backward from "ten", similar to the start of a missile-launch countdown. The scene is replaced by a nuclear explosion, with Johnson's voice-over stating: "We must either love each other, or we must die." Although the Johnson campaign was criticized for frightening voters by implying that Goldwater would wage a nuclear war, various other campaigns since have adopted and used the "Daisy" advertisement.

Advertisement credit: Lyndon B. Johnson 1964 presidential campaign

Recently featured:

• Along the River During the Qingming Festival
• Rega
• Persicaria maculosa

Serious factual error

This article says that the Daisy Campaign had a major influence on the outcome of the election. However, the source it cites does not say that, and there are other sources that contradict it. While the cited source's title is '“Daisy”: The Most Effective Political Commercial Ever?' nowhere does it say that it impacted the election result. Rather, it seems to be talking about how much of an impact it made on future political ads. Furthermore, the claim that it was decisive is at least somewhat contradicted by sources like this one: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/07/daisy-girl-political-ad-still-haunting-50-years-later/15246667/ Himajin5 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

And here's another source that contradicts the assertion even more strongly: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2011/11/26/point-person-our-qa-with-author-robert-mann-on-lbj-daisy-girl-ads-impact/

"Did this ad really work? Goldwater was far behind and he lost by a huge margin.

Legend is that the spot destroyed Goldwater’s candidacy, but I don’t believe it did. Anyone who suggests that the spot destroyed Goldwater would have to prove he was ever in the campaign with a chance to win. He wasn’t. From beginning to end, his poll numbers were always hovering around the mid-20s to low 30s.

That said, it’s interesting that after a monthlong barrage of [other] Johnson ads portraying Goldwater as a dangerous man who might blow up the world, Goldwater’s numbers in the Gallup polls actually edged up 3 points and Johnson’s numbers dropped by 4.

But polls did show the ad and other spots raised fears that a nuclear war was more likely under a President Goldwater. Fears dramatically increased that he was likely to get the United States into a war." Himajin5 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)