Talk:Douglas Schoen

Untitled old thread
Almost surely the degree he has from Oxford is a D.Phil. rather than a "Ph.D." The way to phrase it is that he has the equivalent of an American Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A substantial amount of well-sourced uncontentious content has been removed from the article and replaced with very oddly expressed sentences like:

His opinions are carried by media covering the Barack Obama administration.[4]

I'm not even sure what that means. This article is being plunged into semi-literacy. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnnyturk888, please don't insult other user's contributions. Seek a compromise here, or discuss the issues. Remember to assume good faith. If after two days, the edit war continues, the article will be locked and you will be encouraged to seek dispute resolution. Now then: what's the problem? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem evident by comparing last two versions of the article. No serious issue has been raised about its content or sources. Perhaps the two editors deleting the material can explain themselves. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, a very serious issue has been raised. The sources do not comply with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Perhaps if the adding editor wished to demonstrate how they do by referring to actual policy, we wouldn't be here. Orderinchaos 16:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How so and please be specific this time, you have deleted a lot of material without justification. Please justify what you've done. That is why we're here. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is called wikilawyering. Biographies of living persons policy places an obligation upon editors and administrators to remove contentious information "immediately and without waiting for discussion". That is what I have done. Orderinchaos 16:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you've done defies belief. What is the contentious material? Please be specific. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please participate constructively. You have already been asked several times to explain your edits. Orderinchaos 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What edits are you concerned about? I'm happy to discuss them. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you - stop yelling at each other. At present, no-one has done anything wrong. Order: explain the contentious material and the sources which have problems, and why. Johnny: let him explain, then we can move on. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I already have, several times. (See my talk page where the discussion commenced) The sources are, variously, the webpage of an NGO being used as a self-published source and, not unlike other contentious edits by this user to other BLPs, is being used in a fashion incompatible with WP:SYN and therefore may constitute original research, and a forum which boasts it is "Home to the most opinionated contributors on FOX News Channel". I can't see how either of these can be used as sources, and the material being added utterly hinges on them. Orderinchaos 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the other editor has just been blocked for a month at AN/I for exactly this sort of tendentious behaviour at BLPs. Orderinchaos 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just got to this page looking for information on Schoen after reading this article Schoen warns W.H.: Don't back 'Occupy'


 * I am disappointed that this brief article merely summarizes bland biographical material and gives a list of his books without explaining what they're about.


 * Shoen is controversial and partisan, but there is *no* indication in this article about what his political philosophy is and no meaningful comments about what other people have said about him.


 * I compared the changes in Much of it was sourced to WP:RS such as the NYT, and the deletion seems to be inappropriate.


 * WP:BLP doesn't forbid criticism. Indeed,WP:NPOV requies criticism.


 * Schoen seems to be rather conservative. The entry needs balance on both sides. I'd like to see some of his good arguments supporting his positions, rather than a list of books I have to go to the library to read.


 * I would recommend that anybody editing this page use sources that are clearly WP:RS, such as the New York Times, The Nation, Politico, etc., so that there will be no question about their reliablility and we can avoid edit wars over sources. If Schoen was accused by the Venezuelan government of breaking their election law, that should definitely be in the entry. --Nbauman (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

portrait picture
A portrait picture is always a great benefit to readers. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC) It would greatly improve this article.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Douglas Schoen. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625205924/http://www.salon.com:80/politics/war_room/2008/04/16/schoen/print.html to http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/04/16/schoen/print.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019172239/http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/10/3790409/survey-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-unhappy-democrats-who- to http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/10/3790409/survey-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-unhappy-democrats-who-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)