Talk:Steven Schwartz (psychologist)

Untitled

Needs to be written in a more encyclopaedic format Dankru 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that the neutrality of the 'controversies' section is disputed and accused of containing 'weasel words', while the academic career section has lines like 'Steven Schwartz has a reputation as an efficent and effective manager, leader and communicator' and no flags on it. The last paragraph of the 'academic career' is more biased. Just say he likes vouchers and be done with it.

Sources

This article is a reworded ripoff from [1]. I'm not going to copyvio it though. --Brad101 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Murdoch?

I'm not sure of the exact reasons, but he was hated at Murdoch during his tenure in the mid-late 1990s (while I was a student there). Are there any reliable sources that document his time at Murdoch and how it ended? (I would personally argue that he isn't really notable enough to have an article about and the lack of reliable independent coverage of him points to this - however, I get the impression we've decided a VC is notable) Orderinchaos78 15:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Murdoch

At Murdoch he was hated because he had proposed sweeping course cuts in order to ensure economic viability of the organisation. Most of the academics and students at Murdoch did not share his view that the University should be run as a business, and did not appreciate his attempts at restructuring or refocussing the University's research strengths. I was a student at the time. This actions and suggestions triggered student protests, and a student occupation of the Senate meeting room which went on for several weeks.

After the vote of no confidence (which I think happened in 2001), he left for Brunel. I believe Prof John Yovich took over after that. People saw Yovich as a more palatable alternative to Schwartz who had come to be seen as an 'evil figure' in the debate about the reasons for the University's existience. Jetpowered 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jetpowered (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steven Schwartz (psychologist). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article54549.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301080518/http://www.admissions-review.org.uk/downloads/finalreport.pdf to http://www.admissions-review.org.uk/downloads/finalreport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031020205/http://mupra.com/node/288 to http://www.mupra.com/node/288
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323231620/http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/page/about-us/uni-nominees-to-external-bodies/usp-council/?member_id=119 to http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/page/about-us/uni-nominees-to-external-bodies/usp-council/?member_id=119

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) 18:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steven Schwartz (psychologist). 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/20100916004852/http://www.cis.org.au/about-cis to http://www.cis.org.au/about-cis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513231724/http://www.globalfoundation.org.au/en/about-us/advisory-council.html to http://www.globalfoundation.org.au/en/about-us/advisory-council.html

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) 23:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steven Schwartz (psychologist). 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/20070705121223/http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/ges/ to http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/ges
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327002837/http://wpmu.innovation.cfl.mq.edu.au/stevenschwartz to http://wpmu.innovation.cfl.mq.edu.au/stevenschwartz/

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) 02:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Not without controversy"

I'm not sure what the above phrase means. Either something is controversial or it is not. As I understand it, compliance with encyclopedic style means that we should strive to be as factual as possible. Therefore I'm flagging a change in this phrase to simply "controversial". Certainly the detail in the article seems to support this. I'll wait to see what other Wikipedia Editors think before actioning this change. Research17 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To date there have been no objections, and thus I'll proceed with the change. Research17 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've also tried to make the introductory paragraph more succinct. I've also tried hard to make the intro paragraph even-handed, mentioning the controversy and opposition, but also noting his rationale and the fact that he did have some success. Hope that fellow-editors find this reasonable. Research17 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)