Talk:Robert D. Putnam

Untitled
I changed the heading "'Bowling Alone' and Its Critics" to simply "Bowling Alone." The addition of "and Its Critics" is highly unusual for this type of heading. It makes it seem like the book is much more controversial than it actually is, as if it is known primarily as a result of the controversy it has created, which would be highly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.135.226 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

this article is quite small

The link to the Saguaro Seminar is dead.

NPOV Run Amok
"In 1995 he published "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital" in the Journal of Democracy. The article was widely read and garnered much attention for Putnam, including an invitation to meet with then-President Bill Clinton. Some critics argued that Putnam was ignoring new organizations and forms of social capital; others argued that many of the included organizations were responsible for the suppression of civil rights movements and the reinforcement of anti-egalitarian social norms. Over the last decade and a half, the United States had seen an increase in bowlers but a decrease in bowling leagues."

Now I'd accept the article devolving into this kind of point counter point bickering about the book in its own article, or the section of this article dedicated to his ideas, but this is his biography. It brings the article to a screaming, grinding halt to throw around weasel words ("some critics") and argue about completely irrelevant information. Can we please do some editing? --168.105.113.205 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Research
Since this was last edited, his most recent diversity research has come out. here is an article on it, i', still trying to find more information on that though, can someone help me? here is the article i started with http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity?mode=PF thanks for any help, i was also trying to find a copy of the study, maybe that will help with adding to this section as well?Killemall22 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would revel if a studious educated mind would correlate Putnam's work with what I believe is a decades-long class war. I believe many of Putnam's conclusions would best be explained by the tactics of divide-and-conquer I believe the USA's elite class are using in the ongoing class war.70.242.166.192 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I'm going to be VERY diplomatic and simply say that your argument is pure opinion with no real basis in sound logic or any sort of credible research. I would imagine that wikipedia would be ok with said argument if it had any sort of credible basis and reputable citation- reputable to most people, not simply to you. TomTominrochester (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Critique for Diversity and trust within communities
Not sure if the biography page is the correct place for critique for the study, but in 2008 there has been a study indicating that Putnam's findings aren't applicable in European countries:

http://ics.uda.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/Articles/2009/GesthuizenM-Ethnic/GesthuizenM-Ethnic-2009.pdf

88.115.199.63 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Girlfriend?
This article needs more biographical information. Does this dude have a girlfriend or something that we can put on the wiki?!?! I think that if we could find his girlfriend, it would make the entry "richer." "The richer the better," I always say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You dudes can forget about this. I figured it out [verified it, too, like you people love!].  He is hitched to a chick named Rosemary.  She doesn't got a page on the wiki because she ain't notable.  She is just a teacher in Massechusettes or something.  We don't need to worry about her--except in relation to her hubbie!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert D. Putnam. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2001%2F03%2F01%2FMNW204918.DTL
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714080329/http://www.bettertogether.org/ to http://www.bettertogether.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714080329/http://www.bettertogether.org/ to http://www.bettertogether.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dedicated social capital section
I think social capital is significant enough to Putnam's work to deserve its own section, I propose moving the list included in ethnic tensions to its own section as the effects mentioned are not exclusively due to ethnic mistrust

Misrepresentation of Putnam's study
An IP number keeps deleting any mention that Putnam concluded that diversity had adverse effects in the short-term but likely positive effects in the long-term. After initially lying that Putnam had said anything about "short-term" effects, the IP number rambled about predictions vs findings as the editor edit-warred to exclude Putnam's findings. This is what Putnam himself writes in the very first lines of the abstract to his study:


 * Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital.

The IP number is arguing that Putnam's own description of his findings published in a peer-reviewed journal should be omitted, which is both absurd and a BLP violation. I'd also like to note that Putnam's research is commonly misrepresented by bigots and far-right figures to suggest that immigration and diversity is worse than Putnam actually says it is. I don't know what's in the IP number's heart, but given that Putnam's research is heavily misrepresented by bigots, it is extremely worrisome and a BLP violation that this Wikipedia article inconveniently misrepresents Putnam's research and views in the exact same way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the text needs to faithfully reflect the actual study. Putnam's article explicitly states "Increased immigration and diversity are not only inevitable, but over the long run they are also desirable. Ethnic diversity is, on balance, an important social asset, as the history of my own country demonstrates. In the short to medium run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital." Neutralitytalk 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess if 2 editors support it that's that, I concede. 155.254.48.193 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ilana Mercer citation
Regarding this edit: Ilana Mercer doesn't appear to be an expert in the relevant field, and a newspaper editorial shouldn't be presented as on par with academic research. Mercer herself is something of a fringe figure, and I don't know how it could possibly be compliant with WP:DUE to cite her here. could you offer a little more explanation for why you think this is reliable and notable? [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 18:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)