Talk:Governorship of Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

Bias
Bias of omission is glaring. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * More specific? Shadowjams (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How about every notable controversy that is missing from this encyclopedia entry? It's the same whitewash as the FA biography entry.  Bias by omission. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then add in some referenced material. The article's not locked and there's no edit warring or removal of information. Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And be aware that bias in this article cuts both ways. There is language such as referring to "days of indecision" Reagan supposedly underwent that needs to be adequately sourced, because in my humble opinion it is not. loupgarous (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the reference cited as "Cannon"?
No satisfactory bibliographic reference is made to a source known only as "Lou Cannon." Since Cannon is cited throughout the article, removal of every part of the article citing "Cannon" as required by Wikipedia's criteria for sourcing of information would turn this article into a stub. I'm appealing to the editor who made the Cannon reference to fully document the Cannon publication in a way that complies with Wikipedia standards. Otherwise, the only alternative is to systematically remove every statement attributed to "Cannon," and I will do that unless the Cannon reference is identified as every other Wikipedia article source must be. loupgarous (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted reference to "indecision" in Reagan's process of signing the California abortion bill for lack of a verifiable source.
As the first part of deleting unsourced statements in this article, I deleted "after many days of indecision" from the part of the article describing Ronald Reagan's signing of the California Therapeutic Abortion bill. The reason I did it is that the reference cited doesn't actually appear in the list of references in a way that other editors could verify statements in the article (like Reagan's "many days of indecision") based on it. Unless the reference allegedly attributable to "Ray Cannon" is produced by an editor, no alternative occurs but to delete EVERY statement in this article which cites "Cannon" as a reference. loupgarous (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced allegation that Ronald Reagan cited astrologer Carroll Righter on the date of his signing-in
I removed the following passage from the article:

"Professor Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan University who studied the Reagans' interest in astrology, regarded this explanation as "preposterous", as the decision to be sworn in at that odd time of day was made six weeks earlier, and was based on advice from Reagan's long-time friend, the astrologer Carroll Righter. "

The reference cited, "Not a Slave to the Zodiac, Reagan Says." By Steven V. Roberts, Special to the New York Times and published on May 18, 1988 which the original editor cited to support this allegation, made no reference at all to the statement allegedly made by Professor Marcello Truzzi. Instead, the article referred to an incident occurring after John Hinkley's unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Reagan during his first term as President. I invite anyone to access that article and confirm it for him or herself.

This is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules on sourcing of statements in Wikipedia articles. It's difficult to see this as an error made in good faith, given the absolute lack of any relevance of the reference to the event described in the statement. It looks more like the reference was used in hopes no one would look at it very closely.

A complete review of this article is indicated to verify that every statement in the article can be verified by a Wikipedia-compliant source. It may be that the article ought to be withdrawn and re-written entirely, because evidence is mounting that it is NOT NPOV, and that the references cited to support statements in the article don't actually even relate to the statements. loupgarous (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference #1, "Governor Ronald Reagan". California State Library. Retrieved March 21, 2007, is a dead link
Reference #1 of the article, ^ "Governor Ronald Reagan". California State Library. Retrieved March 21, 2007. (http://www.californiagovernors.ca.gov/h/biography/governor_33.html) is a dead link. It needs to be re-sourced. loupgarous (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statement in "First term" section.
In the section of the article "First Term," I removed the following statements:

"In his first term, he froze government hiring and approved tax hikes to balance the budget. "

"Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks in order to crack down on the protesters. "

"Early in 1967, the national debate on abortion was beginning. Democratic California state senator Anthony Beilenson introduced the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back-room abortions" performed in California. "

"The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan's desk. After many days of indecision, Reagan signed it. "

"About two million abortions would be performed as a result, mostly because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother. " and

"Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed. After he recognized what he called the "consequences" of the bill, he announced that he was pro-life. "

because no way at all exists to confirm the validity of the citations: we don't have a book title by the author identified only as "Cannon," in a citation reading "Cannon, (2001), p. 47" and no other way to determine what is being cited or whether it's being cited correctly.

These removals have nothing to do with NPOV issues; but the more pressing and actionable question of whether just citing an author's name and page numbers of an unnamed book provide a "verifiable source." loupgarous (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statements in "First term" section which are inadequately cited to "Klaus Fischer."
I removed the statements:

"as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement, hoping to cut into Nixon's Southern support "

and

"However, by the time of the convention Nixon had 692 delegate votes, 25 more than he needed to secure the nomination, followed by Rockefeller with Reagan in third place. "

which are only supported by the citation "Fischer, Klaus (2006), pp. 241–243."

As with the "Cannon" citations mentioned earlier, there's no way to verify either the source of the citation or its relevance to the statements which cite it for support. This citation just doesn't cut the mustard as a Wikipedia source and must be deleted. loupgarous (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statement in "First term" section relating to "FDR-like 'fireside chats' "
I removed the following statement:

"Reagan made addresses to people which were similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's fireside chats."

for lack of a supporting citation.

Another editor made this comment:

"" further explaining "Without citation or elaboration, this sounds subjective," which appears to support my action on NPOV grounds. I take no position on that question; it's a point on which we have to assume the original editor's good faith.

Regardless, WP guidelines on citations require the removal of statements not supported by verifiable sources or supported only by original research. loupgarous (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statement in "Second term" section regarding Reagan's tax policies
I removed the following statement:

"Reagan wrote that the tax increase, in combination with the spending cuts, had created revenue surpluses, so he gave four tax rebates to the people, which he claimed to have amounted to over $5 billion."

Another editor had previously flagged this statement. Given the potentially non-NPOV nature of the last part of the sentence, "so he gave four tax rebates to the people, which he claimed to have amounted to over $5 billion," I feel as though if a source existed for this statement when the original editor made it, it might well have been original research. Certainly the original editor was obliged to produce a verifiable source for the statement, and did not. So I removed it. loupgarous (talk)

Section title
The section title, "Reagan's only defeat: Proposition 1" in the current version of the page does not seem neutrally worded. I feel like "California Proposition 1" could be a good replacement - because California gets so much news coverage, even here in Texas I know what California Proposition 8 and California Proposition 187 are. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Historians emphasize for many politicians there was only one defeat--Reagan, Obama, etc. both Reagan's supporters and opponents use the term--it's the title of a scholarly article: Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." California History 72.4 (1993): . Readers immediately understand what is at issue. "Proposition 1" is totally meaningless to most readers and gives zero information. Rjensen (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)