Talk:1969 People's Park protest

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1969 People's Park protest article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

University of California Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics 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.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page is within the scope of the UC Berkeley task force. New members are always welcome!

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thank you for creating this article. I hope and encourage you to make more articles! Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for "the public"[edit]

At two points in this article, the authors offer the opinion of "the public" as if it were an easily defined and described entity. That's not really good form.

We see: "He had received popular support for his 1966 gubernatorial campaign promise to crack down on what the public perceived as a generally lax attitude at California's public universities."

What does "public perceived" mean here? Did UC Berkeley have a lax attitude or not? That's a matter of opinion. It's a weak trick to claim that the public agreed with one's opinion and that, moreover, this wasn't just an opinion but a "perception." (Yes, I appreciate that it's now common to use the word 'perceive' to blur the line between observation and opinion, but it's a bad practice regardless.)

The second point is similarly weak. We are expected to measure support for Reagan's action based on reporting of telegrams he received? That's hardly careful polling. A consideration of the details of the article cited show the problem: Reagan received 101 telegrams, of which 98 supported him while 3 didn't. Are we supposed to believe that Reagan's support for this controversial decision was at 98%? The extreme nature of this percentage shows the absurdity of using it as a reflection of anything.

Telegram communication was trending down many decades before 1969. By then, most people preferred using the telephone, even for long-distance communication. So, who was still using telegrams in 1969? It's fair to conclude a subset that's hardly representative of the public at large. RickDesper (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on the first one - neither of the cited sources attribute that view to the "public." I changed the wording to be more in line with what the sources say. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second point, that is a claim that the cited source makes. From the Desert Sun: "A sampling of Gov. Ronald Reagan’s telegram basket showed today Californians support his defense of armed force in handling the People’s Park demonstrations by a 33-to-l margin." Besides, the wording in the article already makes it pretty clear this is a sampling, not a complete representation of the public: "a small sampling of public input (101 telegrams received by the governor's office after the broadcast) suggests that the public was supportive of the governor's actions." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]