Jump to content

Talk:Dan Lungren

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

"Vandalism"

[edit]

The "congress IP" I guess has removed this statement (and one other, on Lungren's vote in the recall election), which has been reverted several times as vandalism. I don't think it's vandalism:

During his first tenure in Congress, Lungren was a harbinger of the "angry young man" style of conservative politics that has now become common among Republicans.

This kind of thing needs to be backed up by and credited to notable observers, and is also poorly stated. I don't know what '"angry young man" style of conservative politics' even means (Is it policies? A rhetorical style?), nor whether it is common among Republicans or not, or in what way Lungren was a "harbinger" of them. Demi T/C 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be a good thing, but the credibility of the (unknown to me because I didn't look) wikipedian who entered the text significantly surpasses that of the almost certainly biased editor from the Congresscritter IP. It is not wikipedia policy to remove every statement on wikipedia that lacks a reference. In addition, the term 'angry young man' sounded familiar. Feel free to do the work you think warrants doing; google <"angry young man" conservative politics>... Elvey
It's certainly true; IMO whoever's seeking to remove it is just whitewashing. I'll see if I can't find a specific citation (that I didn't write, that is ;) ). I'm the one who inserted the information in the first place. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on the question of the "style" -- this is the sort of thing Newt Gingrich rode in on; Contract with America and all that. The firey, righteous, "anti-corruption" diatribes they'd have on the House floor during morning hour. He was sort of the precursor to that whole wave of new, young Republican members who made a big splash by promising to clean house with the changing of the guard from the old Democratic domination of Congress. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-confirmation as State Treasurer?

[edit]

Why was Dan Lungren not confirmed as State Treasurer? --Degrassifan 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Democrat-controlled state Legislature (actually, I think it is just the state Senate that votes on such matters) was unhappy that Governor Deukmeijian had nominated a conservative Republican to replace the late Jesse Unruh, a liberal Democrat. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has GOT to hunt down a source on this, it is over the line POV without it. DFS (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat and Video Game Violence

[edit]

I am curious to know why his extensive involvement with the discussion about violence in video games is not mentioned in this article. It is a highly notable point of one of the biggest moments in video game history, and he was helping to lead the charge.

This article seems to have NPOV issues, where every fact that may not be positive appears to have been censored over the years. I see many, many questionable removals of facts that needed to be cleaned up to a neutral point of view rather than removed outright.

This notable incident should be in the article, with an obvious neutral tone, but to leave it out completely brings this article's neutrality into question. SashaNein (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute added

[edit]

I previously removed the voting history because it was a POV subset of the voting history. I noted my reasoning in my edit, then the anonymous editor simply added them back with no explanation for the selection. The anonymous editor seems to have an ax to grind against Dan Lungren--I have no other explanation for why only some major votes are included in the history (and most of those are votes where he voted against the majority, which is common for a member of congress in the minority). I suppose it is possible the editor likes Lungren and choses these votes for similarly POV reasons, but either way, it's not POV to post a subset of votes that support your own viewpoint. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mr. Quinlan: The anonymous editor who was the first to return the notable votes section to Congressman Dan Lungren's Wikipedia entry, after it was removed by Mr. Quinlan, did give a reason for returning the votes section (at this moment-- Saturday, August 16, 2008-- the editing history of the past month has disappeared, and there are now only two entries for the whole year, whereas there have been hundreds of edits this year). The voting record, which Mr. Quinlan was the first to take out, was removed a second and at least a third time, with no supporting comments from the editor. As Mr. Quinlan suggests, viewing the voting section might confirn the support of someone inclined to back Congressman Lungren, while at the same time arousing the opposite response from someone inclined to oppose someone with Congressman Lungren's voting record. That is, the section is neutral and that is what the person who returned it after it was first removed wrote: it's a selection of Lungren's most important votes on issues familiar to the public that suggest, to an important degree, where Congressman Lungren sits on the political spectrum and with regard to particular issues. It is not a partisan entry and it is of great interest to voters of all persuasion during this election year. As for Congressman Lungren voting against Democratic bills: I agree with Mr. Quinlan that that's what someone in the Republican House minority will often do (just as the former Democratic House minority tended to oppose bills introduced by the Republican majority), so that a congressman's vote on a bill should not be automatically viewed as equivalent to opposition or support of a particular policy approach. I agree with Mr. Quinlan that it isn't always simple interpreting the meaning of a congressman's vote or determining a congressman's actual position on an issue from votes. So, do we then not bother posting and examining a congressman's significant votes, and limit our consideration to what he or she did before going to congress? I don't think so. We can't avoid examining a congressman's important votes, and seeing if we can make sense of them. I believe it is possible to undersand most of a congressman's votes, though probably not all. What do you think of this response, Mr. Quinlan?

First, please sign your posts by typing four tildes. You are clearly very passionate about Lungren which makes sense since you are posting anonymously from California State University, Sacramento -- near his district. I think you are picking specific bills because they are significant to the POV you have, not because they have great significance for him as a politician. I think it makes more sense to simply link to the voting history and only list bills where Lungren was the author or a sponsor of the bill. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive database of voting history on each politician. Other people seem to agree that the voting list should not be part of the article, so I think it is time to trim it down to either (a) a link to the voting history at a non-partisan site or (b) a list of bills that he sponsored or authored. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Quinlan: I will look into how to sign my posts, as you suggest. The votes section is assembled in a neutral manner, suggesting nothing about the writer's political views (other than that access to pertinent information is important). As I said in my previous entry, the significant votes section (a selection from a larger list of votes), enables a reader to determine where Congressman Lungren sits on the political spectrum and on issues of particular interest. I believe that a conservative/Republican voter will find these votes attractive, while a liberal/Democrat will react with considerably less enthusiasm. Either way, the votes list is very instructive. People other than yourself have removed the votes, but you are the only one to provide an argument for taking them out, so I am not sure what you mean in suggesting that other people agree with you that the votes shouldn't be in the article. What are the others' reasons for removing the votes? We have no idea and cannot surmise that they do so with the same motivation as you have. Maybe you would disagree with their reasons if we knew them. The site from which these votes were taken identifies itself as non-partisan. If we remove the significant votes section, I am concerned that very few people will proceed to a votes section via a link. When I read a Wikipedia article, I usually don't bother with links or even notice them. So, I am concerned that if we bury the votes in a link, this important information (particularly during this election season) will be seen by a much smaller portion of those who look at this article. I like your idea of also adding "a list of bills that he sponsored or authored," but think that this is significantly less important than listing Congressman Lungren's actual votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.27.93 (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the main page to this section, though it's as much a WP:NOT#CENSOR issue as an NPOV issue. The anon users have a point. Removing all references to a vote history, as was done most recently here seems more like censorship than POV removal, IMO.--Elvey (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Did Lungren Resign from Congress?

[edit]

The article states he resigned in 1989, due to his nomination for State Treasurer, by then-Gov. George Deukmeijian (the state Senate refused to confirm Lungren). However, Democratic State Treasurer Jesse Unruh died in office back in August of 1987. How long did it take for Deukmeijian to nominated Lungren, anyway? My own memory tells me that 1989 was not the year Lungren resigned from Congress. I think it was more like 1987, which frankly makes a lot more sense. I don't have the data, unfortunately, but I'm pretty sure that 1989 resignation date is incorrect. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Whitney served as "acting Treasurer" from 87-89. DFS (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Newt Gingrich's Chief Lieutenants?

[edit]

I'm not sure why such a claim is made in the article. He left the House in 1989. Newt wasn't elected to be Speaker until 1995. He only became Minority Whip in 1989, so if Congressman Lungren was a "chief lieutenant" to Congressmen Gingrich, who doesn't appear to have yet been elected to a leadership position, then the article makes a grandiose claim that Congressman was a chief lieutenant to another Congressman. Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.210.13 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dan Lungren. 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) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dan Lungren. 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) 18:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dan Lungren. 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) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Lungren. 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) 06:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Lungren&oldid=1256152239"