Talk:Ralph Schoenman

Cleanup
The cleanup tags are really not appropriate. The only thing that could ever be "cleaned up" is adding section headers, which would make it look more like other articles, but is not necessary and could be meaningless. References other than the New York Times would be good, but there is probably not too much problem with the Times articles. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I considered section headings but decided not to add any because the way the text is constructed, I thought it would disrupt the connections across paragraphs more than it would add helpful information. I only used the New York Times because for articles that old, it's all I had access to for the time being. Naturally I'd be happy to see more sources, and maybe this would help fill out the article in such a way that section headings would come more naturally. I would add that I will be insisting on reputable sources, and anything added without providing a source should be summarily reverted. --Michael Snow 00:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why???
Ralph has given permission to use his offical bio from Taking Aim. Yet, this bio was taken down for two months, then this article, which is simply terrible and totally focuses on only one aspect of his life, all of sudden appears! What is going on. Schoenman is demanding that this be taken down immediatly. Why is this being protected???

DavidMIA 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA


 * We don't simply reprint self-serving official biographies. You're welcome to point out additional reputable sources that can be used to better cover other aspects of Schoenman's career. --Michael Snow 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be useful if you could point out one self-serving aspect of the biogrphary you object to. It is totally factual and, it covers the whole of his political life, not just te few sections you chose. The piece that is up there is now is totally useless. Even the old piece that was slanderous of Schoenman at least covered his whole life!

216.203.27.99 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA


 * If it's factual, please provide reliable independent sources to confirm those facts. --Michael Snow 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about Schoenman's activities after 1979? Has he done nothing of consequence? - Marshall46 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly he's done nothing as consequential as his activities before then. I don't know whether there's anything newer worth mentioning, but it seems to have been too marginal for the professional media to pay much attention. So that mostly leaves, if anything is left at all, potential sources that are either blatantly self-serving or hit pieces. The information in such sources is commonly impossible to independently verify and sometimes difficult to recast in a neutral perspective. That makes it flatly unacceptable here for a controversial subject where high standards of referencing apply. --Michael Snow 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he is one of the two hosts of a weekly afternoon radio program on WBAI in New York City. That's certainly 'notable.' Perhaps that should be mentioned. As far as I can tell, this program is the most likely reason that anyone would have heard of him these days. 24.47.151.201 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally!
Ralph Schoenman has some hyserical apologists out there, and it's nice to see that, finally, a real bio of the man has been posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.116.205 (talk • contribs).

1979 and after
Somebody added some material about this period, albeit with poor spelling. Unfortunately, no references were provided to support the statements whatsoever. This biography has seen enough controversy for that kind of addition to be removed on sight. I would still welcome anybody that can provide additional reputable sources on Schoenman besides what is already in the article. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He and Mya have some interesting shows and archives. I read the Russell "Private Memorandun...". Really rambling - maybe a Russell trait. It seems he was skirting the real reason - megamaniac personalities must have been familar to Russell( he probably saw an indespensible man every morning in the mirror). Schoenman's overeagerness on some sensitive subject seems likely. 159.105.81.44 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Went and read the wiki Russell article - appears the first dispute was probably a disagreement over Zionism, enough to break up most friendships. Oddly just before his death, Russell, seemed to have a change of heart about Israel. But he seemed to have died the next day or two. Maybe the two would have been buddies again if he had lived. 159.105.81.44 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether reporting Schoenman's successful 1999 libel action brought against the philosopher Bryan Magee would be acceptable? There's some detail in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article here, and a newspaper report of the agreed settlement here. The result of the case was the pulping of the UK edition of Magee's book, and a reported payment of some £100,000 to Schoenman: there was a second court case in 2001 in California, with the report here. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bertrand Russell leads anti-nuclear march in London, Feb 1961.jpg

Death
This seems to remain a very controversial biography, but surely it should be updated to reflect the fact that Schoenman died on July 3, 2023? (Source: https://aarclibrary.org/an-important-announcement-from-professor-joan-mellen/) 80.44.191.139 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)