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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Material from People's Park (Berkeley) was split to 1969 People's Park protest on 00:46, 11 February 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:People's Park (Berkeley). |
Feedback from New Page Review process
editI 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!
Speaking for "the public"
editAt 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)
- 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)
- 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)