Talk:J. Neil Schulman

Untitled
Do we have permission to re-publish this?? -- April

YesJneil (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And even if we do, picking it off the guy's own page seems likely to be well off from NPOV. Vicki Rosenzweig


 * Neil is a staunch defender of "intellectual property" laws, and would not hesitate to cause us trouble if he found us copying work without permission. (I know him slightly, having worked with him back when Pulpless was Paperless.)  I recommend getting and including in the article an explicit statement of permission -- assuming that we consider him worthy of an article.  --the Epopt

I understand how Wikipedia works. I'm more concerned with accuracy than with nitpicking IP issues here.Jneil (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article from scratch, and warrant it to be original. Full disclosure: I am not entirely disinterested in Neil; I am the first name listed in the Author's Acknowledgements in Stopping Power. --the Epopt

Thank you. Jneil (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Official Version -- permission to republish granted
The version of this Wikipedia entry on me, as of February 14, 2005 contains my own corrections and additions. I found that the previous version was very narrow in its focus, concentrating on my politically-oriented writings. The most complete bio of me is still kept updated on my own website at http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/jnsbio.html but this entry hits the highlights.Jneil (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Still wish someone else would fact-check and verify the article's references so as to remove the problems of point of view and objectivity, so the caution at the top of the article could be removed. Jneil (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotional tone
While I welcome the recent well-sourced additions to the article by Mr. Schulman, it now reads somewhat like a promotional press release. The host of positive receptions of Schulman's writing on gun control, unattributed phrases such as "made the gesture of giving a…present" "one of the best-remembered episodes" "a pioneer in the electronic publishing field". There is no problem including this material per se, but it would be much preferable if it were presented in a more neutral tone. скоморохъ 13:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone else who has interest in the accuracy of the article correcting its "promotional tone." I do have a problem with being pigeonholed as a political essayist, or a science-fiction novelist -- which are professions I engaged in mostly early in my career -- and milestones relating to later work -- screenwriting for the Twilight Zone, pioneering commercial eBooks by bestselling authors including Harlan Ellison, Robert Silverberg, and Piers Anthony (and describing the function of the Amazon Kindle down to the display size and weight in an article I wrote in 1989), and current work as an award-winning feature filmmaker being ignored.Jneil (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a note regarding the firearms writing section that said it was unsourced. I looked up the rules for sources and it actively encouraged providing sources, which I did.  While I don't find it particularly strange that no one has more of an interest than I do in keeping this encyclopedia entry current and in good repair, I do find it middling strange that the only time anyone other than myself pays it any attention is when I respond to the inadequacies and repair them.  If you want this not to be autobiographical, then take over the job of writing the biography, yourself. -- J. Neil Schulman  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneil (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "middling strange" reason is this: you are not supposed to write articles about yourself. Not even slight edits.  You're not allowed to TOUCH your article.  If you find no one is interested but yourself, perhaps your own actions (like claiming "I Met God", considering online promotions "a gift", defending O.J. and voting for G.W.) have alienated the literate camp. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's discouraged, I think your claim ("You're not allowed to TOUCH your article.") is incorrectly overstated. If I'm wrong, please cite the page containing such an absolute rule.  (And please sign with something more specific than merely an IP address if you want to be considered credible in the first place.)  -- Davidkevin (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that people can't contribute to their own Wiki pages is a bit far-reaching, but not nearly as troubling as your suggestion that anonymous editors are somehow less 'credible' than those who have named accounts. 76.115.59.36's claim is overstatement.  Yours is counter to the entire goal of the project. 138.23.75.9 (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's counter to the goal of the project at all. I have no problem with accurate anonymous contributions to the project, nor do I think anonymous contributions are automatically without value -- but I think that someone who takes a high-and-mighty tone ("You're not allowed....") without a signature has a lot of nerve saying that to someone who does have the moral courage to identify himself explicitly, especially when the high-and-mightiness is based in inaccuracy or imprecision.


 * In essence, I think contributors should make their best efforts to get it right when they add information to the project. Getting an actual account, with an identifying name so you can take the heat if you get it wrong is responsible editing.  Getting it right and identifying yourself so you can get the credit for being right is the best of all worlds.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be conflating two entirely separate issues; whether a contribution on a talk page is accurate and whether it is signed. The phrase "so you can take the heat if you get it wrong" shows a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works.  If you believe a comment is wrong, you should correct it with a comment that is right.  You shouldn't apply "heat" to the one who made the comment.


 * I think it's a matter of having enough courage of conviction and intent to take responsibility for what one writes. I don't think that in every case -- I myself accidentally was distracted for a moment and forgot to log in a couple of times.  But when someone is taking a partisan attitude about something as important as notability, self-naming is, I think -- Your Mileage May Vary -- more credible.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As for people contributing to their own Wiki pages, I refer both of you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLPEDIT, which says:


 * "Dealing with edits by the subject of the article


 * In some cases subjects may become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.


 * When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article.


 * The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material:


 * 'For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.' – Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)"


 * ...and to:


 * http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880


 * Where Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia writes:


 * Wired: While he said that Wikipedia generally frowns on people editing entries about themselves, there is no hard and fast rule against it.


 * JW: "People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it. It's in poor taste.... People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That's the trade-off in editing entries about yourself.... If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight."


 * Update on above: I just returned from a meeting of the Konkin-Rothbard Limited Club where I unexpectedly ran into J. Neil Schulman. (This, of course, make my own POW less neutral, but I will strive to keep a NPOV -- please call me on it if I don't.)  We had a nice conversation about his view that, as an expert on J. Neil Schulman and on Agorism, he should be allowed to freely edit both pages and I (imperfectly) tried to explain why Wikipedia discourages original research and primary sources while encouraging him to make contributions in order to correct errors he identifies -- but to do it within Wikipedia guidelines. To further that goal, I asked him to read some of the guidelines to understand the reasoning behind them.  Here are some links that may help:


 * Overview of Wikipedia Policies and guidelines:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PG


 * Wikipedia's five pillars:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5P


 * What Wikipedia is not:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT


 * Neutral point of view:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV


 * No original research:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR


 * Notability:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NN


 * Verifiability:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V


 * Citing sources:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CS


 * Conflict of interest:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI


 * Autobiography:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AB


 * Biographies of living persons:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP

Guy Macon 07:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Almost the whole article reads like a puff piece. The guy has some notability for novels he has written and other things, but too much of this article is non-notable material with self-published sources. Ashmoo (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editors decide my work does not qualify me as notable, delete the article on me entirely. But so long as its here I have a strong preference that it not distort the scope of my work.Jneil (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If things are deemed notable by 3rd parties they go in the article, if not notable they don't. Ashmoo (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My instinct is that the subject of this article is not remotely notable according to Wikipedia conventions, in which case simply deleting the article would have the benefit of not wasting our time as editors. On the other hand, if there is a sufficient amount of significant coverage of him and and his work then the article will have to stay and some of us editors will have to spend time turning it into something reasonable. I hope that he can be identified quickly as a nonentity (in encyclopedic terms) and we can stop wasting our time on him. But I may be wrong. (In which case I will leave it up to others to spend their time on him.) Ian Spackman (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you got my message before(your talk page is turned off?), but I saw you on the Lady Magdalene's talk page and you don't seem to have a stake in this(and you're an admin).
 * After repeatedly being called a liar, troll, sock etc by him I decided to take a look at Jneil and I noticed that Jneil only have edited/created articles he himself is personally invovled with. It looks like he's using Wikipedia for self-promoting.
 * I took a look at this article as well, but I didn't dare touch it cause he would scream bloody murder(my first and pretty much only edits so far have been on Lady Magdalene's, and he already thinks I'm a part of some internet conspiracy out to get him) and was going to ask you if you could take a look at it. At this point, I was clearly not objective after my dispute with him on the Lady Magdalene's article.
 * But I noticed that he wrote this article himself(I'm fairly certain he created it himself as well, since the first draft is straight from his promopage about him), he has already been in disputes about COI and the article lacks any reliable secondary sources, and from the little time I spent on Wikipedia editing I at least learned that original research isn't allowed.
 * Same thing goes with the article for agorism. He is inserting himself as a founder of the movement using himself as a source and has been in dispute with other editors there as well about COI. Should he be removed from that article as well? I don't know enough about the subject, but I think that at least the article should get the COI-label.
 * Add that most of Schulman's work is selfpublished. He owns both the internet publisher pulpless who sells his books, and the movie company Jesulu Production which made his movie which he never managed to find a buyer for. So the question regarding his notability is fair considering nobody else releases his work.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

More lies from Cassanova Frankenstein. See further down this page. Jneil (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More baseless accusations from Jneil. Where did I lie? I have used citations for every one of my edits. While you on the other hand almost never provide any sources and demand that people should take your word for it. This entire discussion is completely absurd, considering YOU ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE. Where are all the secondary reliable sources? Besides from Amazon(where you wrote the editorial), wikipedia(which you wrote yourself) and your own site, there are none. And why is it that you constantly get in COI arguments? Why aren't you editing any articles where you have nothing in stake? You only edit articles where you yourself is directly involved.
 * Does it matter that 'most' of Schulman's work is self-published? He's written at least one novel that is not self-published ("Alongside Night"), which has been quite successful. And of course, there are many successful self-published books. Hell, there are article on 646 individual Pokemon on WP. Comrade Schulman is surely more 'prominent' than these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroBalrog (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the writers of the Pokemon create those articles? Where are the sources regarding Schulman on the net besides wikipedia and his own site? Cause I can find plenty of secondary sources(hell, there are a bunch of wikis solely for pokemon on the net) for pokemon cause pokemon qualifies as notable. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to MicroBalrog.... It does matter that this biography has been written from scratch by the subject himself. The creation of this article was a straight copy/paste job from Jneils promo piece from his website, highly indicating he created the page himself. If there is no third party interested in creating a page for somebody, then he isn't notable enough to have an entry. Then we have Jneils history of only editing and creating articles he himself is involved in, making it even more dubious. Alongside Night is a notable book, but 90% of this article isn't. Not to mention, there are no reliable secondary sources. See NORCassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jneil talk had his first book, Alongside Night, published in 1979 by Crown in hardcover, and it underwent more than one printing in mass-market paperback. His second book, The Rainbow Cadenza, had multiple printings in mass-market form, all by legitimate publishers, not vanity presses or himself.  He is a winner of the Prometheus Award.  He wrote an episode of the first revival of the television series The Twilight Zone.  He is working with Kevin Sorbo as co-Executive Producers to make that episode into a first-run theatrical movie.  I think his notability is clear and obvious.

Correction: I'm working with Kevin Sorbo on the production of Alongside Night, not Profile in Silver.Jneil (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction? If you are going to call in the meatpuppets, Mr Schulman, you had better get your collective stories straight. As for your claim to be working with Kevin Sorbo on Alongside Night, there is no indication on his website the film is in the pipeline. You have no estimated filming date. You have no estimated release date. Kevin Sorbo is not listed on any website (apart from yours) to be associated with this project. Again, like 90% of what you claim, it is simply smoke and mirrors, lightly spiced with bullshit.

You SHOULD NOT be editing these pages, much less creating them. You are too close to the topics and you breach almost every Wikipedia convention by doing so and ESPECIALLY by doing so in the manner that you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthful Additions (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, Neil did not "call me in". I have been a Wikipedia editor off and on for several years.  I dropped out for a while because of vendettas and abuse such as this.  I came back of my own accord and changes of the article about User:Jneil were at that particular moment in time at the top of my Watchlist.  Notice that what I wrote about him and Samuel Edward Konkin III on the Agorism talk page was written in 2007, four years ago.
 * So you're a personal friend of Schulman since 30 years and a wikipedia editor for several years who have Schulman on your watch list. How is that NOT conflict of interest? Schulman constantly gets into COI fights on articles he shouldn't touch, and you constantly comes to his rescue. Is this how wikipedia is run? Gangs that controls certain articles they have personal interest in and defend it from being edited by people who have no stake what so ever in the article? No wonder you got involved in lot of vendettas when you are looking for them...CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also should note that Neil has been my personal friend for over thirty years -- but I wouldn't lie for him, and I am 100% certain he wouldn't want me to do so. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, DavidKevin pops up and defends Schulman, a personal friend of him. You were the first to accuse me of vandalizing his page when I in fact was prohibiting him from using Wikipedia for

Conflict Of Interest, Meatpuppetry And Cronyism
I find it interesting that when the validity of the information Neil Schulman has entered onto Wikipedia is questioned by an editor in an administrative capacity, out of the woodwork come two individuals lauding his achievements. One individual labels him "comrade Schulman" the other admits to a 30 year relationship. Neither offer any information that can be substantiated or confirmed. In the case of Davidkevin, (who often appears from nowhere to offer "assistance" to Mr Schulman), many of the notable achievements he claims for Neil Schulman are just flat out lies or exaggerations.
 * I do not, by the way, appear from "nowhere". I appear from my home, well over a thousand miles from Jneil's residence.  For me to be a puppet would require a hell of a long string. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Calling me a liar is a violation of the rules. Why don't you look up the references before deleting, and improve the article instead of erasing pieces of it?  I described my relationship with Neil out of honesty, not puppetry.  I didn't have to say that truth, but I did out of a sense of making sure what I said be could be judged in its proper context, just as honest magazine, newspaper, television, and radio journalists include a statement of their connection to the subject of what they're reporting.


 * I find it amazing (but not unusual, this being Wikipedia) that I am being yelled at and called a Wiki-rules violating impolite name for voluntarily telling the truth.


 * I did report you and the other person (note that I haven't used the word "crony") to an admin page for someone more objective to investigate for what appears to be vendettas, because their actions look to me like a vendetta. YMMV and all that.


 * And I made an honest mistake, for which I would thank anyone more knowledgeable than I for correction. I don't claim perfection, but I do claim that I'm trying to do the best I can in writing here.  There is no "getting the stories straight" because I said what I thought was the (mistaken) truth.  But I didn't have a reference, so I put it here, not in the article, so it could be checked.  And it was corrected above.  You do wish to look up a reference yourself and improve the article by not leaving something relevant out, don't you?  Here's your chance.


 * One other thing: I'll be 56 years old in three days and I've never addressed anyone in writing seriously as "Comrade" in my life, although I have a couple of times used it in a teasing, ironic way in personal conversation, and I haven't even done that since at least my late 20s.  That's another guy, take it up with him if it offends you so much.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You calling me a vandal or sock puppet isn't against the rules? Jneil CONSTANTLY calling me a liar(despite that I always had sources and he NEVER had) isn't against the rule? When he does it, it's ok cause he's your buddy? A vendetta? So it's everybody else fault on Wikipedia and not Jneil? I'm not the one constantly getting in fights. He is. He even been in a conflict on THIS VERY PAGE before I came here.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cronyism is effectively the same level of conflict as Mr Schulman and his "puff" pieces and shallow self-promotion.

It is to be kept in mind that Neil Schulman and his Libertarian "comrades" are as thick as thieves, doing the bidding of the other at a moments notice. It is meatpuppetry in every sense of the definition


 * How many make a "thick"? -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The VAST majority of the article on J Neil Schulman is either false, embellished or speculative. This is fact and acknowledged by many contributors over many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthful Additions (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * State, please, how many "many contributors" is as there aren't many people listed as having worked on the the bio article of Jneil, although there are more in Agorism. And I could hope you could know the difference between fact, opinion, and speculation, as you are, in my opinion, having a problem with the differences.  I am not speculating  why you appear to act in a way that forms in me that opinion.  I do not claim that is a fact, as I don't know if it's a fact.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And this typed by Davidkevin in 2007 on the "Agorism" discussion page, when the validity of Mr Schulman's varying "Agorism" claims were questioned by numerous contributors:

"I can personally verify that J. Neil Schulman, Jneil, who I have known since 1978, is telling the truth about his relationship to the late Samuel Edward Konkin III, who I knew personally from 1978 until his death in 2004, and the original publishing dates of Neil's book Alongside Night, as I was living in the same apartment complex for some of that time. I read Alongside Night in manuscript prior to its publication, and it was as Neil describes in that form as well as in the published hardcover edition. -- Davidkevin 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)"

Again, does this sound balanced and impartial? No proof. Nothing concrete. Just blind support no matter the circumstance. Meatpuppetry

I have been labeled a "vandal" and a "sockpuppet" already by Davidkevin, (without justification) so forgive me if I pay his input and assertions scant respect and little heed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthful Additions (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated the truth about my relationship with Neil because I was there. I wrote in a fashion phrased as factually and honestly as I could.  I know that isn't a valid Wikipedia source, but I wanted to establish how serious I was so other people more skilled in looking than I had the information to look up in whatever appropriate reference works verified what I said.  What do you want, a sworn affidavit with the same wording?  Don't be a Wiki-ass, it ill becomes you.  If you don't believe the truth is being told, look up the references to the parts of the article that you are able rather than simply deleting repeatedly.  Improve the article, don't erase it.


 * Meatpuppetry? Neil now lives in Nevada, I now live in Missouri.  Check the IP addresses if you wish.  And I said you appeared to be a vandal and sockpuppet because, to me, you appear to act like a vandal and sockpuppet -- and on a vendetta, as well.  You are violating neutral PoV in your continued attempts to make real achievements and history disappear from Wikipedia.


 * Because of your actions I would never want your respect and heed. They appear to be as false as your actions.  As for my PoV, I admit your apparent lack of neutrality makes me somewhat annoyed, as you appear to be untruthfully trying to hurt one of my best friends -- but I would not lie for him here, and am absolutely certain he would not want me to.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He is one of your best friends and you STILL don't see the COI here? And you didn't just accuse TruthfullAdditions of sock puppetry and vandalism, you accused me as well. And since you have constantly popped up and defended Jneil on various boards, are you in contacts with each other or do you monitor "his" articles? How is that not POV or COI?
 * I just wanted to edit an article that was blatantly written as a promotional puff piece for a movie with incorrect or lacking source(not to mention bad layout) and you IMMEDIATELY accused me of vandalism and sock puppetry without even looking at the article. How can you defend Jneil when he CREATED the article for Lady Magdalene's? He is the PRODUCER, WRITER AND DIRECTOR of the movie for crying out loud! Now my wiki-experience have been mired with looking up all the self-promotion and COI Jneil has been doing all over the place. I'm appalled by it, but how is it a personal vendetta? I don't even know the man, UNLIKE you. Jneil is blatantly misusing wikipedia for self-promotion and a personal platform. It's supposed to be a referential source. Not original research or linked to the subjects personal website or blog. Where are all the secondary reliable sources about Schulman? All I find is wiki-entries without citations or references to his own site. Why do you think he CONSTANTLY gets involved in COI arguments with other editors? You must have noticed, since you jump in and defend him constantly as well.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd. Alongside Night was published by Crown Publishers in hardcover in 1979; Ace Books in 1982; Avon Books in 1987. It was reviewed in Publishers Weekly, the Los Angeles Times Book Review, the Detroit Sunday News, and by F. Paul Wilson in Reason Magazine. It won the Prometheus Hall of Fame award from the Libertarian Futurist Society in 1989 at a ceremony at the Boston Worldcon. It carries endorsements from Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Anthony Burgess, Thomas S. Szasz, MD, Jerry Pournelle, Michael Medved, Tom Woods, and Congressman Ron Paul, among others. All this is checkable. None of this is self-publishing.

And that's just my first novel.

My second novel, The Rainbow Cadenza, was published by Simon & Schuster in 1983. Is that self-publishing, too? What about the large format British paperback edition from New English Library in 1984? Or the Avon mass-market 1986 paperback, which carries afterwords by Ivan Dryer of Laserium Fame (The Rainbow Cadenza show based on my novel was the Laserium classical music show at Griffith Observatory and elsewhere for several years beginning in 1986), Ronald J. Ericsson, Ph.D., Sharon Presley, PhD (published author), Wendy McElroy (published author), Paul Jacobs (now a Newsmax writer) Brad Linaweaver (three-time Prometheus award winner, Nebula finalist, Ronald Reagan once devoted a radio show to an article he wrote) and Libertarian Futurist Society founder, Michael Grossberg? Not to mention it won the 1984 Prometheus Award, which I picked up at halftime during the masquerade at the Anaheim Worldcon with 1500 audience members as witnesses. Oh, yeah. Robert A. Heinlein raved about the novel in front of a dozen witnesses at the 1983 L5 Society meeting. Colin Wilson, Nathaniel Branden (if you don't know who he is, see the movie The Passion of Ayn Rand, where he's played by Eric Stoltz), Gregory Benford, once again Michael Medved, and Poul Anderson's review in Reason Magazine, which brings up reviews in the Los Angeles Times again (the reviewer said my book sucked because it was too much like Heinlein -- which Heinlein and I had a good laugh over), but better reviews from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal -- enough.

If I'd never done anything else in my life, these two books make me "notable."

But then I wrote one of the most popular episodes of The Twilight Zone when CBS brought it back in 1985.

I wrote a book on gun rights, Stopping Power, published by Synapse-Centurion Press in Santa Monica, endorsed by Charlton Heston when he was President of the NRA -- it sold out its first hardcover printing of 8500 copies, and material in it is drawn from LA Times Op-Eds I wrote, a speech I gave to a Santa Monica synagogue which the Village Voice called a "tough Jew manifesto," and other articles of mine that have been used in court cases and testimony before Congress.

Yes, all three of these books have been put into reprint editions by a publishing company I founded, Pulpless.com. Is it still self publishing if the book publishing company I founded also published books by Piers Anthony, Robert Silverberg, and two dozen other famous authors? Maybe there should be a Wikipedia article on my doing this, considering that the Wall Street Journal called me a pioneer of paperless book publishing in a 1989 article.

Then I make a movie starring Nichelle Nichols. Who stood with me at one of the three film festivals that have given this movie prizes.

Never mind what I'm doing next. Or what else I've done over a four-decade career.

All this is checkable if anyone wants to. I don't care. You let trolls, hackers, spammers, and congenital liars vandalize articles about me and my work.

You don't think I'm notable? Fine. Let the divorce commence.Jneil (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, Mr Schulman, almost everything you just typed regarding ALL your achievements need to be backed up by citations. by FACTS! I could claim I won the Olympic 100m gold medal, but without verifiable PROOF, I cannot expect it to be featured on an encyclopedic website for very long. Is it so hard for you to grasp that concept? Encyclopedia = VERIFIABLE information.
 * Have you ever considered checking with a library for his books? Or looking up the ISBNs at your local bookstore -- or on Amazon.com or the B&N website?  Is it so hard for you to grasp that concept?  -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it that hard for you to grasp that whoever writes the article have to provide that info? I can't write a wikipedia-article without sources. The burden of proof is on the author of the article, not the people who dispute it. Which library has his books? Are you saying that every author any library have picked up has a wikipedia page or should have one? All of them are notable enough? And a quick search on City of London libraries(both Canada and UK) gave me nothing on J Neil Schulman. The question here was notability. The creator of this article was clearly somebody closely involved with Schulman or it was himself since it's a copy/paste job of the promopage of his own site. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any editor may add appropriate information to any article. Since you don't accept statements which are not sourced as you see it (and this is true of any page, any subject), please, by all means feel free to take the mental exercise to look them up for yourself.  Quite frankly, I am beginning to believe that you wouldn't accept a sourcing from anyone else but yourself.  I would hope that isn't true.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it would be ok for me to write my own biography here on Wikipedia, make it lengthy and include all kinds of achievements and not give a single citation, and it's then the responsibility of the next poor editor who stumbles across the article to prove my claims? I truly question your objectivity in this matter if you actually think that. You are supposed to be an editor with years of experience and haven't heard of WP:Burden or do you just chose to overlook it cause you're a friend of Schulman? Have you even read the top of this page? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"
 * And why would you suspect that I wouldn't follow any sourcing than myself? Is it cause you consider me an enemy who is vandalizing "your" article that you keep an hawk eye on? I would accept any sources that follow WP:3PARTY AND WP:IRS. I'm into the fourth page on a google search and so far I've found a single source that fall into the previous wiki-guidelines. That should give a hint about his notability. And did you miss the fact that the public libraries in BOTH Londons(checked the one in Canada as well by mistake) didn't have any works by Schulman?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

PERIOD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthful Additions (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jneil......... Again, you don't provide with a single source. And you are making a farce of wikipedia with your constant conflict of interests, you get into fights in every article you are involved with, that should tell you that you shouldn't touch articles you have a personal stake in. Especially not CREATE them like you did with this entry. If no third party created an article for you in the first place, then you're not notable enough to have your own entry on wikipedia. Not to mention, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH which 90% of this article is without any secondary reliable soruces. All the sources lead back to your own site. If you're notable, where are the secondary sources about you? You are clearly too close to this subject(goes without saying when you ARE the subject). And you having DavidKevin constantly popping up defending you makes it even more COI, a man you have known for thirty years! Does he monitor all your articles or do you mail him every time you need back up? And the man that threw the vandalism accusation at me as well. I'm well tired of you and him calling me a vandal, liar, troll, sock etc. I've ALWAYS backed up my edits with sources, will you constantly DON'T. I've even been advised to report you to the admins board for abuse. If you continue, I will.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I neglected to note earlier that there is a specific difference in using a vandalism notice page asking for an admin to step in and calling someone names on a talk page. If you cannot see the difference (and there is a difference), then you don't understand the nature of the rules under which we are supposed to play.


 * What? I'm new on Wikipedia so please enlighten me. But have in mind that I've been called a vandal, sock puppet, troll and liar on both a talk page(just scroll up a couple of lines and you'll se Jneil call me a liar).CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter, the difference is that one way follows the Wiki-rules and one does not. Going to an admin notice page is asking for an investigation and/or arbitration, not name-calling.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for for the clarification.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Neil should not have called you a liar. That too is a violation of the rules, you are correct.  As I am not a puppet, I am not apologizing to you for that as I didn't write it.  I hope he will see his way to give you a proper apology.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But Jneil just called me a liar again. On this very talk page. Are you suggesting that I should bring that up on the admin notice page, since he clearly refuses to stop?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with communication such as this is the possibility of incorrectly inferring attitude without seeing the other person's expression or hearing her or his tone of voice. However, even without those, two particular individuals (if in fact they are two, of which I have uncertain knowledge) are becoming -- apparently (not that I couldn't be wrong but it seems to be happening) increasingly shrill, using adjectives and adverbs best not used here.  If my inference is correct, please stop this.  There is no need for the verbal equivalent of a hockey-game fight.


 * Did you just very carefully call me a sock? And I am becoming increasingly shrill? Have you read a single one of your friends contributions to this and other talk pages? I'm not the one calling him a liar, sock, troll and vandal. But oh no, you are not biased at all towards your best friends of 30 years... CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you admit you are becoming shrill, then you need to calm down. None of this is worth raising one's blood pressure.  Life is too short for screamfests, a lesson I admit I had problems learning long ago and far away, but I'm better now.


 * I would bet (and this is not meant to be derogatory) that you are much younger than I, and haven't yet learned that lesson. I really don't mean you ill.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm certain that I'm younger than you, and I don't take it as an insult. What amuses me is that you still insists on that I'm the shrill and hostile one when it's you who accused me for being a vandal or sock the moment you spotted me without even looking at my edits and Schulman's original citation-free article. Schulman who has called me a liar, sock, troll, vandal etc on the talk pages from the first day and I shouldn't be upset, I'm the one who is shrill and should calm down? How on earth do you still consider yourself to be objective in this case?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And there is no conflict of interest whatsoever in having any page one wants on a Watchlist. Not one iota.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? We have a person who exclusively edits articles he is personally involved with. He constantly gets in fights with other editors cause he try to make himself look more important or are promoting his work. Then you, his best friend for 30 years, jump in and take his side, every time, without even looking at the edits or your friend's lack of citations. You blindly take his side. And you say there is no conflict of interest? Are you joking? CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And then you are talking about personal vendettas. Most likely, none of the editors you and Jneil have fought with over the years had an iota of personal stake in the articles they edited. Until Jneil and you show up and make a fight out of it. Both of you are clearly to close to the subjects. Yet he continues to edit articles he is involved in, and you continue to defend him blindly without even looking at the edits or lacking citations. And you don't see anything wrong with it. It's just remarkable. And both have done this for years. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't know me at all, nor anything about me beyond this page. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to know you beyond this page? Would the fact that you're an avid stamp collector and run a soup kitchen for homeless every weekend or a serial killer be relevant for your conduct on this page? I don't need to know anything about you beyond this page. I know that Jneil exclusively edits articles he has a personal stake in. I know that Jneil constantly gets in conflicts with other editors over COI. I know that you constantly over the years have blindly run to his defence not even looking at the evidence at hand. I know you have known him for 30 years and that you monitor any article that is related to him. What more do I need to know to see that there is a COI here as well?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its relevant that anybody knows you, Davidkevin. What IS relevant is that you know J Neil Schulman and you know him very well. So well, in fact, that you feel duty bound to race, (within hours it seems), to the wikipedia pages relevant to Mr Schulman and undo or revert any changes you (and Mr Schulman), deem unfair or incorrect or unflattering, (even though they are factual). You do this without discussion (up until this point) and you do this without fail.
 * Oh, stuff and nonsense. I have never edited the biographical article, and I double-checked all the way back to 2005 to be sure.  You evidently forget that a record is kept.  I don't race to anything, I came upon your campaign by chance, like I once came upon a child playing with a cigarette lighter at my son's elementary school and probably stopped a building fire or his self-injury.  If I had walked in a few minutes earlier or later, I probably wouldn't have been aware of it.  It's the same with discovering you, if I had logged in a few minutes earlier or later you wouldn't have been chronologically at the top of my watchlist.


 * I have encouraged you again and again to improve the article and not merely be a deletion team. Whether you will ever take that advice is up to you.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The definition of this behaviour is "meatpuppetry" and it is SERIOUSLY frowned upon by wikipedia. It matters not whether you are in the same room as J Neil Schulman or a 1000 miles away, in a cyber sense "meatpuppetry" knows no geographical distance, only a proximity of desire and goals.

You are too close to Mr Neil Schulman. You have a conflict of interest. I advise you step away, lest you erode whatever credibility you have left as a Wikipedia contributor and editor (and possibly even run afoul of administration for your flagrant breaches of site rules and regulations) (Truthful Additions (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC))


 * What breaches? Disagreeing with you on a talk page?  I haven't made any COI reversions or even touched this article.  You sound like a cliche' Western villain:  "This Wiki ain't big enough fer both of us.  Get outta Dodge by sundown or I'm agonna git ya!"


 * When I was a boy one year there were two kids I had never met before who had transferred in at school, who noticed I was sensitive and decided I would be a good target. So they began to deliberately antagonize me, giving me punches when there were no teachers around and verbally harassing me when there was a teacher in the background but not close enough to hear.  They did it long enough that eventually I blew up, but all the adults noticed was the blow-up, not the preceding antagonism.  So who got punished?  Me.


 * That's what you did to Neil, I think. Neil is a gentle, decent, extremely intelligent man but gets a bit irritable in print at what he perceives as slights to his ability and achievements.  Wikipedia is an analog to my school.  You irritated him and kept at him until he said the line-crossing thing of daring you to sue him, and the teachers(admins) only saw that.  I don't know if you're socks or not, but a big indication is that one of you here and another from earlier this year have only contributed to the project on one subject, on Neil's pages.  One has a clock on his or her user page that says he or she has been an editor for exactly one month and three days, and all he or she has done is revert Neil's articles, contributing nothing else to the project under that name.


 * So you've succeeded in your WP:HOUNDING. Your target lost his temper and you can laugh in the corridor.  What an intellectual achievement your contributions to the project have been!  And now you're trying to threaten me with The Wrath of Khan Admins for noticing it.


 * Not gonna happen. I'm not a schoolboy any more and I know the rules of dignity and politeness better than you.  But I'd hazard a bet that you're wishing you could raise the dead, so you could try it on Samuel Konkin, too, as Neil and SEK3 were much alike except the latter was just a bit more phlegmatic, so your schoolyard bullying efforts would be just ever so more difficult.


 * As I noted in an earlier edit, this is typical of Wikipedia, which is why I took a break from it. And it's the very first thing I've encountered upon coming back.  This is why Wikipedia is a favorite subject for the comedy of Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report, because of this anti-intellectual childishness which pervades the project in certain areas.


 * I would have tried to fix the article to contain proper references to the things I already personally knew as true, but I don't think you'd allow them, references or not. I would hope for better, but as I am frequently over-optimistic, I'm not going to try, because I think the same thing would occur.  As I said, Neil is my friend, and I know well enough what contributions to society he's made.  As for yours, well, I can't use the proper words without getting into trouble, so I won't -- but when you Grow Up, you may realize what a hollow victory you have here.


 * And I checked to be sure -- there is nothing here which violates NPA, as I am giving an opinion about action and in fact have encouraged you repeatedly to improve your contributions, so I would advise not embarrassing yourself further by complaining about me to admins. I wash my hands of you.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Liar I said and liar I meant. You think it's libel? Sue me. Truth is a defense in U.S. courts and you'd have to reveal your actual real-world identity instead of irresponsible attacks from anonymity.

The problem with Wikipedia is its preference for articles to be written and edited by the most ignorant, instead of anyone who can contribute facts. This business about original research is nonsense. In any other form of publishing -- including the writing of real encyclopedias like the Britannica -- experts are sought out to write articles, not shunned. Jneil (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing wikipedia rules with US laws? You think anonymity is something Wikipedia frowns upon? It amazes me that I'm new here and I seem to have a better grasp of the concept of Wikipedia than you who have been here for years(on the other hand, you seem to have spent most part of that time doing vanity articles on Wikipedia and constantly breaking COI).
 * About personal attacks. WP:NPA WP:HARASS
 * About legal threats.WP:NLT
 * About anonymous users. WP:ANONYMOUS WP:HUMAN


 * The fact that there are no third-party secondary reliable sources about you speaks volumes of your notability. Whoever created this article copy pasted from your own personal site, and who would do that who wasn't you or somebody close to you? Are you notable enough if nobody but yourself or someone close to you didn't find the time to write about you?
 * But sure, you go to Encyclopedia Britannica and demand that A) That they should have an article about you B) You should be the one who writes it. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a single entry about you. Not even "Alongside Night", your greatest claim of fame. Take a look yourself. http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=alongside+night What does that tell about your notability?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To Jneil..... Nevermind, noticed that the admins banned you now so not much point reading all those guidelines I posted(although you would have avoided that ban if you read them in the first place). Well, what can I say? Best of luck to you on Encyclopedia Britannica. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

book dates
Isn't it more usual to list books by the date of first publication, rather than most recent republication? —Tamfang (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Date of death
I remember that news of Schulman's death was suddenly scattered about the internet on the 10th of August, including statements from people who knew him, but the next day someone cited a source conventionally considered reliable—maybe it was a newspaper obituary?—saying he died on the 11th. Then nine days later someone corrected this article, citing his sister's statement. Maybe questions are raised about how much weight should be given to various sorts of evidence. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * J Neil Schulman by Arturo Ruggeroli.jpg