Talk:Lulu Schwartz/Archive 1

Discussion started 10 March 2006
Information added to this article should be very carefully sourced to reliable mainstream sources. Anything else will be removed. --Michael Snow 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to somewhat object to that, simply on a matter of semantics: what is a 'reliable' source? What is a 'mainstream' source?  Also, one does not lead to the other.  I could understand if people were not citing their sources, as there is a standing Wikipedia policy on citing sources, however, limiting what sources can and cannot be used seems unneccesary, at best, and while I wouldn't agree with it, I am sure someone will cry the c-word (that being censorship) over it.  Wizardry Dragon 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ... what is a 'reliable' source? What is a 'mainstream' source? Boy, that's a toughie. It's not as if it's ever come up before.


 * Oh, wait, it has: Reliable sources. Anyone hypothetical person crying "censorship" either has basic vocabulary problems or is being dishonest.


 * As for the extra insistence on careful sourcing, it might have something to do with a) it's about a living person, b) it's about a living person who complained about the article, and c) it's about a living person whose complaints about the article were entirely valid, since the previous incarnation of this article was (as I recall) a thinly disguised, rumor-filled, and badly written polemic against the subject. Michael Snow's warning is for any "new users" who insist on readding the same old nonsense, that's all. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, was there ever a bit of policy or recommendation as to handling articles on living people? As well, I'm not disagreeing, it was a pretty horrible article, as I said, my objection had more to do just with semantics.  I for one would hardly see it as censorship, and anyone who does obviously has never worked in the media under a editor-in-chief before, how I'd love to see them deal with that ^_~  I still wonder about the wording at least - a lot of 'mainstream' sources can be just downright wrong about things (such as Wikipedia's previous article on this subject here) Wizardry Dragon 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...my objection had more to do just with semantics Semantics which have already been dealt with generally (see the provided link -- here it is again) and are entirely content-free specifically. Also, if you've read the previous version as you say, given that it was nuked over a month ago, how did you manage to miss the discussion over sourcing, Jimbo's involvement, handling complaints, legal threats, etc.? And where did you get the idea that "mainstream" sources that were "wrong" were involved here?


 * I also have to wonder why you need to see the old Talk pages to "determine for ourselves" when, by your own account, you must already have seen them. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because I have seen them doesnt mean the rest of Wikipedia has, which is why I chipped in that I think it should be archived, since anyone that reads this page or the the article is going to wonder what happened. Wizardry Dragon 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an idea: why not speak for yourself, instead of some hypothetical person crying "censorship" or some hypothetical person dying to know exactly what trashy rumors were being floated -- and how did you get the notion that any of these hypothetical people, reading the article cold, would come up with these bizarre notions entirely unaided? --Calton | Talk 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Discussion Pages
Why were the old discussion pages removed? Can anyone restore them?


 * Because the article was written without reliance on anything in them, they're not relevant to it, and there's no value to having them. They're mostly a bunch of back-and-forth over trashy "sources" and arguing about legal threats. I'm not going to restore them. If you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, I'd be happy to dig through and pull that out for you. --Michael Snow 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not make them available as archive links, as is the custom on Wikipedia? Griot 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because the article was written without reliance on anything in them, they're not relevant to it, and there's no value to having them. They're mostly a bunch of back-and-forth over trashy "sources" and arguing about legal threats. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Probably because"? I take it you didn't read them? I did read them. Some of the discussion was of value. I suspect past discussions were removed because of legal threats. If that's the case, just say so. Otherwise, I don't understand why they were removed. As far as I know, this is the only instance in Wikipedia when past Discussion pages and past editions of an article weren't archived. It's weird. Why was everything prior to this March wiped off the map? Griot 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it you didn't read them?  I did read them. You, on the other hand, given your I suspect past discussions were removed because of legal threats, had trouble reading the simple declarative sentences by Michael Snow explaining why the archives weren't restored, sentences which were the ones I cut-and-pasted to re-emphasize the point that apparently escaped you. Here they are again:


 * Because the article was written without reliance on anything in them, they're not relevant to it, and there's no value to having them. They're mostly a bunch of back-and-forth over trashy "sources" and arguing about legal threats. I'm not going to restore them. If you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, I'd be happy to dig through and pull that out for you.


 * Try reading the sentences this time, and all will be clear. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just read it again, as per your instructions, and again I'm baffled because I read past discussions (and contributed a little) and there was much more in there than "back and forth over trashy 'sources' and arguing about legal threats." Secondly, why was the original article expunged? Very fishy, this whole business. It sets a bad precedent when someone can threaten legal action to have an article removed. But hey, this is the Wikipedia. It's not a real encyclopedia, so I'm willing to drop it. Nuff said. I'm not going to read or contribute to this article anymore. Griot 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...there was much more in there than "back and forth over trashy 'sources' and arguing about legal threats." Really? Not my recollection. But I dunno, if you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, Michael Snow, I'm sure, would be happy to dig through and pull that out for you.


 * Secondly, why was the original article expunged? Because the previous, unstubbed versions were complete and unsalvagable trash. If you contributed to that, you ought to be glad your history has been expunged. If you want to reinsert the trash, you'll have to do it the hard way.


 * I'm not going to read or contribute to this article anymore. Thank God for small favors. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - I mean, how are we supposed to determine for ourselves what we do or do not believe is relevant to the article without knowing the contents of these discussions? Wizardry Dragon 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno, if you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, Michael Snow, I'm sure, would be happy to dig through and pull that out for you. Or, you can trust that people who've read them have already made that judgment. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is ridiculous. We don't censor talk pages, and we have no need to hide what's on them. To say that one would have to petition Michael Snow with some memory of what might have been in an edit is absurd. I can see no problem with opening up the histories of this talk page. To have to have the archives of the Talk Page kept as records on the obnoxious 'WikiTruth' site is an embarrassment. Who cares if there was nothing valuable in the archives? Simply opening them up would have saved many paragraphs worth of pointless back-and-forth, unnecessary insults and patronizing. Accordingly, I've restored the history of this page. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Old comments
Information added to this article should be very carefully sourced to reliable mainstream sources. Anything else will be removed. --Michael Snow 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am geniunely confused. Why? Why is this any more worthy of careful and reliable sourcing than any other article? -Toptomcat 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is not a very helpful question, to say the least. All articles are worth of careful and reliable sourcing.  This one is particularly of interest currently because it has been such a terrible article in the past, and the subject of some controversy.--Jimbo Wales 14:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well basically because SS reads it, is a pain and has threatened to sue. Lao Wai 09:20, 14 June 2006  (UTC)

No personal attacks
Lao Wai, this is a personal attack, please do not engage in personal attacks. ALL articles should be carefully sourced, including this one, and the reason it should be treated specially is that people have used it to attack Mr. Schwartz. Please assume good faith... our objective is a high quality, neutral encyclopedia, with solid sourcing on any aspect which is controversial in any way. This attitude of blaming the subject of a biography is not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales 14:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservative or Conservative
I restored this to conservative rather than neoconservative because I couldn't verify from non-polemic sources the assertion. Scwartz has written about neoconservatives and his new book talks about whether they unduly influenced the current administartion - but not that he is considered one -- Trödel 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

'Non-polemic sources'? You mean like his own articles? Try this in the | National Review where he describes himself as a 'neoconservative'. Or how about doing a search of the Weekly Standard with 'Stephen Schwartz'? There's a 100 plus articles by him in the 'neoconseravative bible'. Next time, please do some more research before reverting. Thanks. Rasta Man06 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to berate people, perhaps you ought to do more than provide an empty link and a OR-style "guilt-by-assoiation" claim (The Weekly Standard is the 'neoconseravative bible', Schwartz has written for the WS, ergo Schwartz is neoconservative. --Calton | Talk 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go, self described 'neoconservative' - Schwatz says discussing neoconservatism in the National Review 'We are almost alone among younger neoconservatives in boasting such credentials.' Rasta Man06 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about 1050 hits for Stephen Schwartz "neo-conservative" (excluding blogs/forums/wikipedia including neoconservative only weakens the results) vs 241,000 hits for Stephen Schwartz conservative (again excluding blogs/forums/wikipedia). With the top hits for the former (other than articles by Schwartz about neoconservatives at standardexaminer.com) being antiwar.com, anarchymag.org, chroniclesmagazine.org, newoxfordreview.org...) A self-reference (which is part of the results above) might be acceptable combined with the polemic sources, but a reliable third party reference would be better - as there are usually motives behind how one describes oneselves. I hope with your superior research skills you will be able to quickly identify one -- Trödel  17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Refactored Comment
Here is some text that was added at the top of this page by in August:
 * ADDED: His Islamic name is Suleyman Ahmad, and he has an interesting piece on the "Jews for Allah" (Web site?) that should not have been omitted:


 * MOVED TO THE TOP: [Text removed per WP:BLP] Also, his intemperate attack on Serge Trifkovic -- for which FrontPageMag had to apologize to the latter -- adds depth and color to an interesting career.

I have removed one sentence as required by WP:BLP (in my understanding of that policy). Cheers, CWC (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence removed
I removed the following sentence:


 * In the early 80s, he was the US representative of Nicaraguan Contra leader Edén Pastora.

No reliable mainstream source was provided, and it can't go in unless one is. --Michael Snow 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No "Comrade Sandalio?"
I can't believe this article doesn't refer to his days of writing, as some sort of commie or another (their sectarian splits don't interest me), under the pseudonym "Comrade Sandalio." Its often one of the first things that gets mentioned when this person is brought up in conversation. I'll have to source that one out, and bring it to life. The fact that one of the intellectual leaders of the now-dominant, neo-"conservative" faction of the Republican Party used to churn out propaganda on behalf of the Nicaraguan "Sandinista" Communists is not only quite hilarious, its also self-evidently noteworthy. Google, here I come! KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism
Is this worth mentioning in the article - in this article Schwartz claims to have invented the term Islamofascism. However this claim is incorrect, as Malise Ruthven used it in the same context in his articles in The Independent newspaper in London in 1990, and it may well have been in use before then. 86.138.46.163 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He claims to have been the first to use it in a particular context, not necessarily invented, but anyway, it doesn't strike me as all that noteworthy here unless someone else identifies him as an influence on others using the term. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neo-"conservative" talk radio host Michael Wiener/"Savage" likes to claim he invented the term "Islamofascist" as well. Its apparently a popular claim among Jewish neo-"conservatives" from San Francisco, since I only know of two such people (Schwartz and Wiener), and they both make it!  I don't know who invented the term, but its about 98 percent certain that whomever that person was, he or she was a European, or possibly a Middle Easterner, and certainly not an American.  Its origin clearly pre-dates 9/11/01, before which essentially no American ever bothered to use the term. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources only
antiwar.com, anarchymag.org, chroniclesmagazine.org, and similar are NOT reliable sources, and have been proven in this case and many others to be highly politicized. Please do not use them for this article. --Jimbo 10:06, 3 September 2006

What's your evidence to support this assertion? Rasta Man06 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Common sense -- Trödel 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to do better than that. Antiwar.com regulars such as William Lind, Uri Avnery and Leon Hardar are highly respected sources. Rasta Man06 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then their thoughts will be in published sources -- Trödel 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For example, Lind's Sep 1 article "Regression" was carried by UPI here -- Trödel 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Writers like these are published in numerous publications because they're credible. Obviously, they don't stop becoming credible as soon as they appear on antiwar.com. Hence its not correct to say that this is an unreliable source, unless you've got something else to back up this assertion. Rasta Man06 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Jimbo's point is that these sources are not generally reliable. My point is that where they have authors that are respected, there is a better more respected source to use - this will help two ways - it lends credibility to the quoted or paraphrased view and it protects wikipedia's reputation. When readers see something quoted to anarchymag.org - they make judgments based on their worldview. If they see the same information quoted to a generally recognized source, like UPI, - they view it differently and, IMHO, more positively.
 * This is especially true when a living person is involved - we need to be extraordinarily picky about what sources are being used to present potentially negative information about a living person out of, most importantly, respect for the feelings of the living, and also out of a desire to protect wikipedia (and all of our efforts here) from disrespect, bad publicity, libel lawsuits, etc. -- Trödel 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it ridiculous to suggest that Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, is not a valid source. The only thing which differentiates it from numerous other sources who's validity would never be questioned, is that it is paleo-conservative in political orientation, and apparently some people don't like paleoconservatism.  Well, too bad.  Chronicles (including its website, http://www.ChroniclesMagazine.org) is a valid source, or no magazine of political opinion is ever valid.  I think a similar argument can be applied to http://www.AntiWar.com, an on-line publication of the Center for Libertarian Studies, but I'll let others make the case for that very popular site.  The notion that a venerable magazine like Chronicles (in constant monthly publication since 1976), and featuring such notables as Patrick J. Buchanan, Admiral James Stockdale, U.S. Senator James Webb of Virginia, Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois, Thomas Fleming, Professor Paul Gottfried, and numerous other journalistic, literary, and political luminaries, is not a valid source, is simply preposterous.  Rest assured that any useful quote I find via Chronicles, either in print or on their website, will be incorporated into this article, or any other I deem useful, and I am quite confident the Administrators of this site, if need be, would issue a ruling to the effect of that being an entirely appropriate course of action. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article have two (2) "References" sections?
Well? Why does it? Someone should merge the two. One of them appears to be a real References section, with footnotes linked to actual citation within the article. The other is a mix of redundancy (some items show up in both sections), and a list of just stuff Stephen Schwartz has written in various publications, quite possibly added to the article by himself. Perhaps some of it belong in the External Links section, but that's already pretty long for this article. One thing is for certain; two sections both entitled "References" is a problem. I'll get around to fixing it, if no one else does first. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear practical to try and merge the two References section of this article. Never-the-less, some of the entries probably do provide substantiation for the article.  Unfortunately, there is absolutely no indication which items from the first References section  correspond with which sections of the text (the second References section is solid, if possibly incomplete, with a ((reflist)) tag displaying (ref)(/ref) citations from the text).  The section just has little asterisks next to each entry, and they are in alphabetical order, of all things.  The solution seems to be to delete this first References section from the article, but to preserve its text here on the Talk page, in case anyone wants to back-engineer, as it were, any of these cites into actual, working footnote-style citations.  Keep in mind that some of these cites are redundant ie., they also appear on the second References section.

* Bernstein, Richard. "The Saudis' Brand of Islam and Its Place in History". New York Times, November 8, 2002. * Bostom, Andrew, M.D. "A Wahhabism Problem Misleading historical negationism". "NRO" http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bostom120602.asp * Doran, Michael. Fighting Faith. "Washington Post" December 22, 2002 http://www.cfr.org/publication/5327/fighting_faith.html * Geertz, Clifford. "Which Way to Mecca? Part II". The New York Review of Books, July 3, 2003. * Heer, Jeet. "Trotsky’s Ghost Wandering The White House". National Post, June 7, 2003. * Jeffries, Stuart. "Did Stalin’s killers liquidate Walter Benjamin?" The Observer, July 8, 2001. * Kakutani, Michiko. "Anatomy of the Left Coast Without the Sunshine". New York Times, April 7, 1998. * Marshall, Paul. "Reading Up on Islam". Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2003. * Meyerson, Harold. "Red Sunset". New York Times, March 15, 1998. * Radosh, Ronald. "State Department Outrage: The Firing Of Stephen Schwartz". FrontPage Magazine, July 2, 2002. * Reidel, James. "Ex-Libris Weldon Kees". The Cortland Review, Fall 2002. * Rifkin, Ira. "Books: Blame It on the Wahhabis". The Jerusalem Report, January 27, 2003. * Rothstein, Edward. "A Daring Theory That Stalin Had Walter Benjamin Murdered". New York Times, June 30, 2001. * Safi, Louay M. "Hardliners in Search of Moderate Muslims!" Media Monitors Network, May 4, 2005. * Safire, William. "State Out of Step". New York Times, July 1, 2002. * Schwartz, Stephen. An Activist's Guide to Arab and Muslim Campus and Community Organizations in North America. * Schwartz, Stephen. "Behind the Balkan Curtain". San Francisco Faith, May 2000. * Schwartz, Stephen. "Defeating Wahhabism". FrontPage Magazine, October 25, 2002. * Schwartz, Stephen. "A Different Kind of Filial Piety". Wall Street Journal, February 10, 1999. * Schwartz, Stephen. "Follies of the MSM". Tech Central Station, June 15, 2005. * Schwartz, Stephen. "Ground Zero and the Saudi Connection". The Spectator, September 22, 2001. * Schwartz, Stephen. "Remembering an SLA Terrorist". FrontPage Magazine, February 20, 2003. * Schwartz, Stephen. "Trotskycons?" National Review Online, June 11, 2003. * Starr, Kevin. "Leftovers; From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind". Los Angeles Times, March 15, 1998. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Undo
I undid the last edit, because irrespective of the reasonable questions some may have about Stephen Schwartz's sincerity with respect to his claim of conversion to the Sufi sect of Islam, I don't think we should be in the position of calling people liars when they claim to be a member of a particular religion, at least not without concrete evidence indicating they are lying. I suspect Schwartz's conversion to Islam is some sort of bizarre stunt myself, but I don't think its appropriate for this article to reflect that suspicion, absent real proof to that effect. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I do think the article should note his Jewish ancestry. I'm not sure if it presently does, but if not, then I shall presumably rectify that. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Living Subject of Entry Comments
I discovered that after a long series of vandal attacks on the entry about me in Wikipedia a new one had taken place. I could not locate an OTRS button on the contact page and therefore went ahead and attempted to revert the page to the state it was in prior to the beginning of February 2009. Anybody reading the comments on this Talk page will perceive the malicious and unfounded basis of the February series of edits. To question the sincerity of my becoming Muslim by insulting speculation is obviously inappropriate, especially since I am the author of a book on Sufism that explains my knowledge of Islamic spirituality in detail. I did not add anything self-serving or self-promoting, but did add the year I became Muslim and the ISBN of the book on Sufism. BTW, I have never been involved in Republican party politics and to suggest I am some kind of ideological leader among neo-conservatives is unsupportable, and I never produced propaganda for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas -- indeed, the list of my books includes one favorably describing the contra and civil opposition struggle against the Sandinistas led by Eden Pastora. To exaggerate my comments in a TV interview through a snippet, to ignore that in the interview I was specifically shown disclaiming any support for illegal surveillance, and to further ignore that  the TV station later, on air, withdrew its characterization of my work, is unethical. But anybody should perceive that to turn a couple of lines in a controversial interview into a section under an inflammatory heading about the intelligence community is also unacceptable and obviously malicious. To further dredge up a graffiti ticket incident from 25 years ago is also an obvious malicious attack.

(talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "To exaggerate my comments in a TV interview through a snippet"


 * Your remarks were not "exaggerated." I typed them into this article, verbatim, from the source.  As was noted properly, via the References section, in the customary manner, here at Wikipedia.


 * "to ignore that in the interview I was specifically shown disclaiming any support for illegal surveillance, and to further ignore that  the TV station later, on air, withdrew its characterization of my work"


 * Do you have a source for those claims? Because if not, then they mean nothing.  I have a source indicating the things I wrote were actually said.  You now claim other things were said, and that the KRON-TV news report was disavowed.  Your claim is not sufficient; you need evidentiary support.  I provided evidentiary support for what I wrote.  You removed it, because it was an unflattering portrayal.  I'm sorry, sir, but I don't know how to write an article about the life & times of Stephen Schwartz (journalist) that won't, if honest and thorough, tend to come off as rather unflattering.  Its not my fault you've lived your life the way you have, sir.  The world can not provide you with a flattering encyclopedia reference, merely because you believe you are entitled to such.  Many public figures do not come off remarkably well in their articles at this site.  And we would frankly not be doing a very good job on this site, were that not the case.  You are simply among that number who come off somewhat unfortunately, albeit merely from a subjective standpoint; certainly nothing I have written about you is unsourced, malicious, insulting, or defamatory.  Like so many prominent Americans in the early 21st century, the truth just ain't your friend, alas.


 * "But anybody should perceive that to turn a couple of lines in a controversial interview into a section under an inflammatory heading about the intelligence community is also unacceptable and obviously malicious."


 * I disagree. I believe, in all sincerity, that your remarks in that KRON-TV interview, speak for themselves, and paint a picture that is both disturbing, and worthy of being acknowledged in the public record, such as within the context of the Stephen Schwartz (journalist) article, here at Wikipedia. You are, of course, free to disagree, but I think its immensely clear which of is less likely to be associated with anything even remotely akin to a Neutral Point of View.  You clearly have a vested interest in keeping some of your embarrassing public remarks, and other behaviors, as far away from the public eye as possible.  I, on the other hand, an unemployed grocery clerk (U.F.C.W., Local #420), have no conceivable interest in attempting to harm your interests per se.  I am simply interested in adding informative, interesting, amusing, and properly sourced anecdotes from your frankly somewhat odd life, to an article that is about...your life.  That might irritate you, but to suggest it constitutes misbehavior on my part is a totally unfounded allegation, and one which I shall demonstrably ignore.


 * Thank you, and have a pleasant day. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Material removed
I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

Specifically:
 * 1) "He claims to be a Muslim" is weasel wording and unacceptable on a BLP. If someone professes to be a religious adherent, we record that profession, we don't implicitly undermine it. Any controversy about it can be recorded with sources.
 * 2) "bizarre stunt" - unless a quotation is not encyclopedic language.
 * 3) The material for the transcript violates undue weight and OR. We don't repost negative commentary from some journalist "according to some transcript".

Editors who are here seeking to promote an agenda should note that it is not permitted on Wikipedia's articles.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, for example, presumably going to be somewhat difficult to obtain a 1987 article from the San Francisco Examiner, however, since I live rather close to San Francisco, I don't imagine it will be impossible, and thus I expect I shall, before too many more days have passed, verified the existence of that article, by obtaining a copy of it from the applicable archives. How would I reliably cite a paper article (or photocopy thereof) from a local newspaper article that is over 21 years old, and thus not Internet searchable?  I could, of course, although I certainly never would, simply announce that I had the article in question (without actually having it), and simply author an appropriate-looking reference cite, using the information I already have about the article.  What bothers me is the possibility that after I have gone to the trouble to take the train down to San Francisco, and obtained the genuine article, how will I be able to refute someone who might be inclined to claim that I had, in fact, actually committed the nefarious deed which I have mentioned as a hypothetical.  I really don't want to go to all the trouble of obtaining the genuine source, if the subsequent reaction is that I am accused of being a liar, am unable to prove otherwise, and am effectively returned to square one, as it were.  So, any help you might suggest in determining how one would go about validating the existence of a 21+ year old, local newspaper article, and subsequently incorporating it into a Wikipedia article, in the form of an evidentiary citation, would be most appreciated.


 * Thanks, truly, if you can help to steer me in the right direction with respect to the care & handling, as it were, of such an item of source material, it would be genuinely appreciated. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You discuss the matter on the talk page, and proceed by consensus. However, on articles regarding living people, material which may reflect poorly or controversially on the subject is kept out unless there is a strong consensus that it is fair, balanced, pertinent and verifiable. It may be better if this article is written from readily available sources - more difficult ones may indeed prove unacceptable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Further Comment from Subject of this Bio Entry
This is my response:

1. My statement on KRON-TV was exaggerated in that a couple of comments describing investigative methods were exaggerated into a fabrication of a relationship between me and "the intelligence community." The investigative methods I described are used by historians and journalists and in no way imply an involvement with the "intelligence community." No information was ever supplied that would suggest I ever participated in or gave testimony or was otherwise involved in any such investigation (although I have provided U.S. Senate testimony on Saudi funding of radical Islam), or that I used any information that was furnished to me for anything other than legitimate historiographic and journalistic aims. My work is transparent.

2. It is obvious to me that the statement from the KRON-TV interview was not taken from the "source," i.e. from a transcript of the interview itself or from a viewing of the video. It was obviously taken from a prior snip of the interview, not from the KRON transcript, which should be easily available from them. The transcript and the video from which it was taken both record my specific disclaimer of any involvement in illegal surveillance. The transcript records the withdrawal by KRON-TV of its charges against my employer and me being "private spies." The claim made in the show had, as we say in journalism, "no legs." Nobody serious or reputable has ever demonstrated or asserted any connection between me and intelligence services and there is nothing in any record anywhere that would show otherwise. Indeed, because of my radical background the intelligence services are, in general, suspicious of me and we have never had relations. My books on Islam do not, in 99 percent of cases, draw on intelligence community material. I have, however, done research on Soviet clandestine intelligence operations, through open sources and identified interviews as an author, not an intelligence employee.

3. In the U.S. the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. I am not obligated to search through records 1,000s of miles away to find the transcript of the KRON-TV interview. If someone is going to cite the interview it is their obligation to locate the transcript and cite from it correctly, not mine to produce the transcript to disprove an example of unethical and tendentious editing.

4. The following statement is an admission of the absence of a neutral point of view: "You clearly have a vested interest in keeping some of your embarrassing public remarks, and other behaviors, as far away from the public eye as possible."

The following is an even more aggravated admission of the absence of an NPOV: "Many public figures do not come off remarkably well in their articles at this site. And we would frankly not be doing a very good job on this site, were that not the case. You are simply among that number who come off somewhat unfortunately, albeit merely from a subjective standpoint; certainly nothing I have written about you is unsourced, malicious, insulting, or defamatory. Like so many prominent Americans in the early 21st century, the truth just ain't your friend, alas."

First, the suggestion that my Islam is in anyway insincere, as in the term "claimed," is an insult and anybody should be capable of understanding that fact.

In addition, anybody should be able to perceive that a Neutral Point of View and a "subjective standpoint" are not the same thing. The claim that the truth is not my friend is malicious and insulting, aside from being absurd in suggesting that any single individual is in possession of the truth of history. Even I, a polemical historian, do not claim such omniscience. I will, however, note that the truth I write about Stalinism and especially about Wahhabism has definitely been my friend, far more than dredging up trivial nonsense a quarter of a century old could harm me.

I have done nothing in my public life of which I am ashamed; my life is a completely open book as is typically the case with journalists and authors. My comments on the KRON interview were brief and produced at the end of a blind-side interview. "Other behaviors"? This has to be a joke. Receiving a graffiti ticket 25 years ago is not embarrassing to me. It is irrelevant and nobody in the world would take such a thing seriously. Nor would the endless regurgitation of the fact that while acting as an illegal revolutionary in a country with a persistent secret police and death squad problem (Spain after Franco) I used the name "Sandalio" be embarrassing. The author of these edits apparently assumed that this latter fact implied that I wrote propaganda for the Sandinistas and added the Talk comment "Google, here I come!" on the apparent and mistaken apprehension that "embarrassing" articles by me signed "Sandalio" or articles by me propagandizing for the Sandinistas are somewhere on google. No such material appears on google because at the time I wrote as "Sandalio" the net did not exist and because I never wrote anything in support of the Sandinista regime.

Indeed, as I keep pointing out in responding to these malicious acts of vandalism, I am a public intellectual, a journalist, and author. Anybody who wants to know my views of Communism, Spain, and Nicaragua can read at least seven of the books listed in the entry. Anybody who wants to objectively assess my involvement with Jews and Islam can read four books, three of them published by one of the world's most important trade publishers (Doubleday) and one of them (SARAJEVO ROSE, on Jewish-Muslim relations in the Balkans) issued by the most prestigious publisher in the Arab world.

I am not impressed by protestations of innocence or neutrality in these acts of vandalism, which are revealed in the talk and history pages to be motivated by a malicious desire to make my life difficult and to attract anti-Jewish and radical Islamist ire toward me.

There is nothing "odd" about my life, another proclamation of the absence of an NPOV. I am an author. Authors (and journalists) are not exactly known for living the lives of office employees. I was a revolutionary, and became an anti-Communist aligned with the West. There is nothing odd about this; it was a common experience in the 20th century and is allegedly present in the current presidential administration. I had a long interest in Islamic spirituality and Sufism, had no religious affiliation, was not considered Jewish by religion or descent (my mother's Christian background was more influential in my upbringing), and after a long period of involvement with the situation in the Balkans became a Muslim. There is nothing odd about this, either. Everything I have done that is of public interest is public as is the common practice with journalists and authors. No reputable journalist except for the reporter on the graffiti ticket nonsense has ever questioned me about the issues that keep popping up in these acts of vandalism, I have never been implicated in or legally investigated for anything even remotely unethical or otherwise worthy of such notice at this point, and resent the implication that my life, my religion, my work, or my motivations should be subject to public disparagement on the basis of speculation. After both the graffiti incident and the KRON accusation I was hired and worked for 10 years at the San Francisco Chronicle, which owned KRON-TV at the time, and that should illustrate the irrelevance of the incidents.

I wish to emphasize that the idea that an author of serious books and articles published in mainstream media would be considered to "not come off remarkably well" or be labelled "odd" by someone who ignores said books and articles, inserts self-contradictory material, and limits his comments to gossip and speculation, is not only malicious, it is reckless and malicious. I can speak with confidence in saying that normal people all over the world, including the Islamic world where I have travelled widely and lectured as a Muslim -- including in mosques -- judge me by my books and articles, not by irrelevant incidents 25 years old, even when they are informed of the latter. My view of Islam and Wahhabism is accepted by the majority of the world's Muslims, and Sufism is not an obscure sect; half the Muslims in the world are Sufis or Sufi-oriented. (Both Sunnis and Shias include Sufis.) That is how the real world is. Trying to transform me into something I am not, including a "Sandinista propagandist turned Republican party leader," without even the slightest examination or citation of my works, is unethical and malicious. Authors and journalists should be cited from their works, not from defamatory comments by internet stalkers or other adversaries.

I have made no attempt at any time to influence the content of this entry or to add material favorable to me but it would be useful if the entry also mentioned that from 2004-2006 I was employed as a Writer-Expert by the National Endowment for the Arts and am the main contributor to a new book, "The National Endowment for the Arts: A History," issued by NEA, ISBN 978-0-615-23248-5, under the final editorship of a colleague, Mark Bauerlein.

I further removed from the entry a link to the libelous gossip of the person who calls himself Keith Sorel, on the grounds that a) it is a source for the irrelevant, malicious material that had previously been inserted; b) it appeared in a marginal and non-credible source. It is not a portrait of my life in Bohemian San Francisco; it is a false, defamatory, and recklessly malicious attack on my character.

SulejmanSchwartz (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the Dils?
Shouldn't we include that in the late '70s Mr. Schwartz managed the (now legendary) punk band The Dils? And that he wrote columns for Search and Destroy magazine under the name Nico? To me that's one of the most interesting things about him, and I bet a lot of people don't know. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

An important omission in this article
Twice in this article, it mentions Mr. Schwartz's college, but with no mention whatsoever of which college that was, or what subject he might have majored in while in college. Nothing about graduate school, either. Someone should be able to figure out what these facts are. Perhaps they will be found in the publication, Who's Who in America. 98.81.23.222 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
Can this guy really be called Muslim? He appears to be a Jewish guy who has nothing but bad stuff to say about other Muslim organizations? I'll be honest, this is the first thing I've ever heard about him. But, I just read the article and he appears to have antipathy for all other Muslims and support American policies in the middle East. It's almost as if he is attempting to "delegitimize" many mainstream Muslim organizations and using his status as convert to "front" that. Somebody please tell me if I'm way off base here. Are there any articles that have raised this issue? Nlsanand 20:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources are pretty clear that Schwartz is Muslim, I don't think that's seriously disputed. I'm not aware that anyone has tried to declare him kafir. Don't get too confused by the Jewish background, that's purely ethnic and not religious, as the article indicates. It's not inherently un-Islamic to support American policies in the Middle East, and it's not our position to question his religion on our own initiative. To the extent that reputable sources have touched on it, Louay Safi's critique is already cited and gives an adequate flavor of that view, I think.
 * His background is admittedly unusual, which is why it's worth exploring. Islam includes practitioners from a diversity of viewpoints, as do any of the other major world religions. There's nothing fundamentally impossible about a professing Muslim being highly critical of other Islamic perspectives, any more than it is for a professing Christian to be highly critical of other Christian perspectives (the Christian religious left has sometimes taken this approach to repudiating evangelical politics in the US). Internecine disputes are sometimes the most bitterly fought. --Michael Snow 04:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, reasonable people of at least ordinary intelligence are going to be naturally skeptical of Schwartz's claim to be a sincere convert to Sufi Islam. Never-the-less, a man's religion is almost impossible to dispute.  If he claims he's a Sufi Muslim, we have to pretend to take him at his word, irrespective of what we might really think ie., that he claims to be a Muslim A) in order to lend himself credibility while launching a never-ending series of vicious tirades against Sunni Islam, and B) in order to spice up his already quixotic bio by throwing in a conversion to a relatively obscure sect of Islam. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If he were Wahabi, I would agree with Kevin's first point. But Sufi?  No.  Then again, perhaps I lack the requisite intelligence.  I must -- as I certainly didn't think that Sufism was obscure.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Who's Afraid of Stephen Schwartz?"
The above ("Who's Afraid of Stephen Schwartz?") is the title of a newspaper article published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian long about 1985 (I believe), before the dawn of the digital age. Scholars mining Schwartz's past for dross or gold or brass or mold will want to go to the offices of said newspaper, where in the morg, they may find this article. It makes for a fascinating glimpse of the subject before he found G-d and embraced Islam. I'm just sayin'... SCFilm29 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It never stops
This is a comment from Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, the subject of this article. For what must be the 12th or so time, the person who falsely calls himself Keith Sorel, and whose real name is Kevin Keating, has reinserted his libelous diatribes against me into this entry. These texts published in periodicals with titles like [[Anarchy] have been inserted and removed repeatedly. See the note from Jimbo Wales above.  The material is false and libellous, and I object to its posting on this site.  This matter was supposed to have been settled many times before.

I further object to the suggestion on this talk page that it is in the public interest for anybody to "mine" my past for negative information with which to assault my reputation. I am a widely published author, my writings are public record, as are many articles about me, and if any derogatory information aside from trivial, 25 year old articles were significant, it would not have to be dug out of a newspaper "morg." The term is correctly spelled "morgue."

The individuals who insert this nonsense into this entry apparently do not grasp that my books, issued by reputable publishers, are concerned with and describe in detail my personal evolution. It is obviously unfair to attack an author based on old gossip, speculation, and libelous allegations rather than examining the author's work. My books are available in numerous public and university libraries.

Finally, so-called experts on Islam who seek to question my religious affiliation are so uninformed they do not realize that except among the most extreme Wahhabis and other violent radicals, it is unacceptable to question the profession of faith of a Muslim. A Muslim is defined by belief in one God and the message of Muhammad, not by speculation on the part of people ignorant of the subject. The concept that people at Wikipedia "pretend" to accept my Islam, which is explained quite thoroughly in my published work, is unethical, to say the least.

Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used as a forum for internet stalking. The comment of SCFilm29 is manifestly malicious.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz 68.49.236.146 (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Interviewed by Michael J. Totten Feb 2011
Michael Totten recently interviewed Mr Schwartz. See here or here. Like many of Totten's interviews, it may seem a little amateurish but is in fact very informative and insightful.

I've added it to the article as the first reference, replacing a misleading claim and bad source about SSS's political stance. I don't have time right now to update/correct the rest of the article. I also deleted some bad ELs per WP:BLP and WP:EL. (Linking a hostile anonymous blogger in a BLP? Where were the grown-ups?)

As can be seen on this page, lots of people hate SSS and wish to use Wikipedia to hurt him. Some of them lie. We need to do a much better job of enforcing Wikipedia's rules here. CWC 15:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IndyMedia attack on Steve Schwartz
My understanding is that Steve Schwartz is a neo-con; so why is he getting published in an obscure anti-capitalist journal like this?

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/480326.html

Miasnikov (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC) miasnikov Miasnikov (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I drastically shortened Miasnikov's heading, which was   This article about Steve Schwartz is now circulating around the internet; what gives?
 * Err, I guess Miasnikov means the book Arena Two: Noir Fiction, which includes (according to the deeply hostile writer of the IndyMedia article) 3 stories by SSS. Perhaps because the book's editor liked those stories? Or at least disliked them less than the other submissions he got? (The IndyMedia writer makes the classic category mistake of assuming that anyone who approves of a person in any way must approve of them in every way. This black-or-white mentality brings some psychological and social benefits in the short-medium term, but is bad for everyone involved in the long term.)
 * BTW, that article is not a Reliable Source by Wikipedia's standards, and is not significant (AFAICT) enough to be mentioned as a notable attack on SSS; see WP:BLP. Cheers, CWC 05:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh. Glancing over this talk page after saving my previous edit, I see that SSS describes the author of that IndyMedia article as engaged in "internet stalking" using "libelous diatribes". Note also Jimbo's comments and that Contributions/SCFilm29 was blocked last December. So we are not going to mention Keating or his claims in this article, absent a major libel case or something similar. Cheers, CWC 05:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Humble Factual Objections by Topic of This Entry
I appreciate the NPV of Wikipedia and its various services. I wish to correct some statements in this article.

First: "He founded a one-person semi-Trotskyist "group" FOCUS.[6]"

FOCUS was not a one-person group and the reference in the article, to the volume of Robert J. Alexander, INTERNATIONAL TROTSKYISM, p. 943, does not say that. Alexander's description is "A small group... The principal organizer of FOCUS was Stephen Schwartz." Alexander goes on to describe the transfer of the FOCUS group to Portland, Oregon, after I departed from it. This illustrates that it was not a "one-person" group. There is other evidence of this in the FOCUS publication, THE ALARM, which had several contributors.

Second, earlier: I did not become a Trotskyist in college. I became a Trotskyist between high school and college, after the events of 1968, when I read a lot of books I had not read before, including Trotsky's REVOLUTION BETRAYED.

The pieces in ARENA are reviews, not stories, and they deal with the historiography of the Spanish Revolution and Civil War of 1936-39, with which I share an interest with the editor of the journal. One of them was published in Spanish in the leading intellectual journal LETRAS LIBRES and, originally, in German in the JAHRBUCH FUR HISTORISCHE-KOMMUNISMUSFORSCHUNG. The latter is the most respected journal on the history of Communism in the world, having been created by the reformed institute of party history of the former East German regime.

Miasnikov is one of dozens of aliases Kevin Keating has assumed in order to circulate dishonest polemics. Gavril Myasnikov was a Russian anti-Stalinist who is profiled on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavril_Myasnikov. Keating also poses on the net and elsewhere as Tibor Szamuely, an especially revealing alias as it is stolen from the correctly named (in Hungarian) Szamuely Tibor, who attained infamy and notoriety as a political mass-killer during the failed Hungarian Revolution of 1919. He also has a Wikipedia entry, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_Szamuely. It is one thing to steal the names of Nestor Makhno and Gavril Myasnikov, among others, for such ends. It is quite another to compare one's self with Szamuely Tibor, a sadist and coward.

Anybody can check the net and see that Keating has been thrown off discussion fora for hiding behind multiple screen names.

Otherwise, thank you for your consideration.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz 76.218.124.46 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will reread the article for NPOV and modify if appropriate. KSRolph (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note: controversial figure. Made minor edits. Use of "neo-con" is not understood to be neoconservative by all readers, may be considered incendiary, deleted; changed some adjectives to NPOV; more may be in order. Contributor making edits, please avoid anti- Good Faith impulses, even with notably controversial figures. I agree that the college should be mentioned. One part of the essay here describes anti-Jewish (inferred) sentiments, then goes on at the end to include a Holyland for Jewish peoples sentiment. May need clarification.  I am not reviewing references or contexts at this time.  KSRolph (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Keating/"Miasnikov" has tried to find a way around Wikipedia's NPOV policy with the note above
I think the situation is self-explanatory. No public writer or journalist should be subjected to continued internet stalking of this kind, and certainly not with the unintentional complicity of Wikipedia. There has been nothing "strange" about my life or deeds, all of which are public, within normal canons of privacy. I protest against insistent intrusion.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz 76.218.124.46 (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "note above" was removed after Mr Schwartz wrote this, for good reason. Mr Schwartz's wider points are still valid. I know, because I've just removed multiple instances of subtle, hostile and dishonest POV from the article. CWC 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning to Editors
Given the persistent nasty editing by SSS's enemy/enemies, including "clever" tricks aimed at deceiving Wikpedians, all edits to this article need to be checked carefully. References which do not include a URL should be treated very sceptically, as should all references to books. If an edit to this article looks at all dubious, I suggest reverting and starting a discussion on this page. Thanks in advance, CWC 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted another addition of links attacking the subject of this article to this talk page by User:Miasnikov in violation of WP:ELBLP and WP:NOTFORUM. Miasnikov, this is your final warning. Any more disruptions and I guarantee you will be blocked. Marokwitz (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Note from Subject of Entry About Authored Book and Article
All of the research included in my book INTELLECTUALS AND ASSASSINS has been verified, most notably by a publication on the Eitingon case by Mary-Kay Wilmers, "The Eitingons: A Twentieth Century Story" which is referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kay_Wilmers.

I direct you also my article on Wilmers' admissions, "Commie Dearest," in The Weekly Standard of September 13, 2010, accessible at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/commie-dearest. The review requires a subscription but should be accessible through the usual article services.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.46 (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Further Relevant Error in Related Wikipedia Entry
I notice that the Wikipedia entry on the Soviet spy Mark Zborowski, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zborowski, reproduces a mistaken rendering of my name as "Stephen J. Schwartz" and disparages my work. I again protest against the manner in which Wikipedia is used to distort simple facts about me or any other person who happens to attract the dislike of people whose interests are anything but neutral. "Stephen J. Schwartz" is not my born name. Not one word of my assertions about Stalinist intellectual spies has ever been disproved. Indeed, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced an extensive interview program regarding my exposure of the Soviet secret police activities of the Chilean writer Pablo Neruda. Nothing I wrote about Mark Zborowski was ever or could ever be challenged, because it was based on public record information mentioned in the works of various historians.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.46 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Photographic image available?
Did this page have a photograph of Mssr. Schwartz? Mssr. Schwartz if you have an image, please upload it to the commons and leave me a message. Thank you kindly, KSRolph (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Did a photo ever turn up for the commons? KSRolph (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The abuse never ends
I am the subject of this article. I have removed the following insulting and prejudicial comment from a caption accompanying a photograph of me: "American journalist Stephen Suleyman Schwartz dressed for Halloween at the Caffe Trieste in San Francisco, early 2013."

It is rather astonishing to realize how heedless and lacking in self-awareness Wikipedia people are regarding the use of this "encyclopedia" as a medium to defame and harass individuals who hold views disfavored by marginal and irresponsible people. Wikipedia is very often a platform for inquisitorial persecution. I have experienced this for a decade.

I was consulted regarding the involvement of Wikipedia with Kazakhstan and participated in a discussion with some Wikipedia personnel in which I acted in good faith. Indeed, I have always acted ethically in dealing with Wikipedia. But I am tired of having to check and recheck this page for personal attacks by anonymous trolls.

In the photograph described I am wearing the garments and regalia of Bektashi, Alevi-Bektashi, and Ahl-e Haqq Sufis. I am not dressed for Halloween. Muslims do not celebrate Halloween. To suggest I would do so is an attack on my religious freedom.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, writing from EuropeStephen Suleyman Schwartz (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note from subject of this entry -- more libelous material removed by me
I am unfortunately compelled to monitor this entry constantly and to remove libelous material from it. The latest was a claim that "However many Muslim organizations and Albanians despise his writing and accuse him to be an outright liar, manipulator and charlatan. The Muslims of Kosovo accuse Schwartz to be a friend of suspected Kosovar war criminals and rapists, who cooperates with them to attack the values of Islam among the Albanians.

I would first point out that the so-called Forumi i të Rinjve Musliman (Muslim Youth Forum) among Albanians is an extremist organization and that its attacks on my journalistic colleague Visar Duriqi have been the topic of a strong cautionary warning by the international monitoring body Reporters Without Borders. It does not speak for "many" Muslims or "the Muslims" in Kosovo. I would second point out the language of the insertion is plainly libellous -- referring to me as a "liar, manipulator and charlatan."

The Reporters Without Borders press release defending Visar Duriqi is accessible at retrieved September 9, 2014.

It is onerous for me to constantly have to check this page. Wikipedia once again allows itself to be used as a platform of scurrilous claims.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz 76.218.124.85 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That some people accuse you is a fact. This fact is backed by citations.  I have no opinion whether they are right or wrong.  However it is not libelous for Wikipedia to report that some people have made these accusations.


 * I will revert your censorship of the article. If you have access to reliable sources disputing the accusations, you are welcome to add something disputing them.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Censorship, my ass. "Some Muslims?" THAT'S your attribution in Wikipedia's voice? No. I'm reverting that nonsense. Don't weasel-word. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Toddy1, how's your Albanian language skills? Are you willing to stand behind what that source says, whatever the hell it is? --Calton | Talk 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reminder about this article and Mr. Suleyman Schwartz
Mssr. Schwartz is a journalist, historian, and biographer. Because his investigative work is controversial, this article has been subject to 'graffiti' and attacks; some betray a poor sense of idealism held by many Wikipedia contributors.

This page should have review for inputs not worded in the Neutral Point of View. Talk about rape and terrorist affiliations is no light set of charges, and has no place in this article. Mssr. Schwartz has no criminal record in any nation, no history of incarceration. KSRolph (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that a search on Google shows "Stephen Sulejman Schwartz, 2013 -- Photograph by K.S. Rolph, reproduction prohibited without permission of the Center for Islamic Pluralism." In short User:KSRolph has a conflict of interest.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ +

Dear Toddy1 and fair-minded Wikipedians, As far as I know, photographs in Wikipedia have been gifted to the commons. I don't know what the Center for Islamic Pluralism is; its not my area of interest or expertise. I am a scholar of indigenous languages of the Americas, folk science in the Americas, gender issues, and qualitative methods. I'm far enough removed from this article to see whether it follows NPOV and good-faith practices, as I have taught them to my students in Wikipedia college courses. Toddy1 - you are hovering over this article for what reason? Don't you have better things to do? I will report harassing behavior towards a responsible female Wikipedia contributor who has done no harm. KSRolph (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ + ~ +
 * Stephen Sulejman Schwartz (the subject of this article) is the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Subject comments again
The libelous claim that Kosovar Muslims have accused me of being a "liar and charlatan" was reinserted without sourcing. What will it take to stop this campaign? BTW, the argument of accusations backed by citations about which Wikipedia supposedly is free of libel because Wikipedia does not know if they are right are wrong is false. There is no "neutral reporting of libel" with a disclaimer of ignorance. Further, as I have repeated on numerous occasions, in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, in libel as in other matters. Anybody who wants evidence that I am not considered a liar or charlatan in Kosovo need only consult the translated articles from Kosovo media on the Center for Islamic Pluralism website. Libelous statements republished (meaning restated in any forum) remain libelous and the person who republishes them participates in the libel. That is basic libel law in the U.S.

I don't intend this as a solicitation to read the CIP site, but it will show that these charges cannot be sustained.

Also, I resent the undertone of anti-Jewish prejudice in some of the TALK comments. And I did not write and have not edited this entry. I have only checked it for libelous and incorrect comments. Had I written this entry it would include a number of important things that are missing from it.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Stephen Suleman Schwartz: Dear Mr. Schwartz. I see that you have had to weigh in repeatedly to deal with inaccuracies and libel against yourself on this article. With respect, take just a moment to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Biography of Living Person's standard WP:BLP. Its distinguishing feature is that any contentious claim about a living person that is not adequately sourced to a significant, reliable 3rd party source is to be deleted without discussion. i.e. no need to waste your time writing prose about Wikipedia's continued participation in libel. Just delete it and mention in the edit summary that it is due to WP:Libel, the relevant policy. This is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Regardless, if you simply delete the offending passage and mark it as BLPREMOVE, other editors will step in quickly to take further steps to stop the offending editors quite quickly. I hope this has been helpful. Bapehu (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor who posted the above comment joined Wikipedia on 23 November 2014 - see Special:Contributions/Bapehu. It is astonishing for a two-day old editor to have authoritative knowledge of Wikipedia policies.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that what I wrote was contentious or astonishing. It just seemed in reading the talk page that Mr. Schwartz has repeatedly gone on at length about libel and wikipedia's failings rather than referring to the robust exclusion policy for an article of this type. Regardless, thanks for you comment as it caused me to reread my post and remove overreach for the age of my account. Bapehu (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-promotional autobiography lacking 3rd party sources to establish WP:NO or justify its length?
This article appears primarily based on autobiographical sources: whether the source be Schwartz himself, his organization, the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, or a bio page of some organizations he is a part of. Several of his books warranted book reviews in major publications. Assuming this makes him noteworthy enough to warrant an entry, my feeling is that the size of the page does not reflect his degree of noteworthiness. Rather, its length and the sourcing for much of it looks like self-promotion.

The only 3rd party sources at present are:
 * I can find no record of this online news article on the Pajamas Media site. The link itself is broken. Is Pajamas Media significant or reliable?
 * I can find no record of this online news article on the Pajamas Media site. The link itself is broken. Is Pajamas Media significant or reliable?


 * Reidel, James. "Ex-Libris Weldon Kees". The Cortland Review, Fall 2002. While there, he made his first serious writing attempts, focusing initially on poetry. Schwartz increasingly took an interest in Trotskyism between high school and college. In college his views developed into an 'evolution away from Stalinism to Trotskyist Marxism'.
 * Schwartz is not the subject of this article in anyway. It is an article on his father and refers to Stephen Schwartz purely in passing. I would delete it without further consideration, if this article didn't have such a controversial history. Definitely not significant.


 * Alexander, Robert International Trotskyism: a documented analysis of the world movement Durham, Duke University Press 1991 p.943
 * Schwartz is cited and mentioned on 2 or 3 pages in the book, but is not significant enough to merit an entry in its 17-page index. Not significant.


 * Cross talk on Schwartz article on Max Etington
 * Theodore Draper, "The Mystery of Max Eitingon," The New York Times Book Review., April 14, 1988, pp. 32–43.
 * This article in a reliable source takes a Schwartz article as a starting point. This is significant coverage of the article but doesn't treat Schwartz as its subject.
 * Stephen Schwartz, Vitaly Rapoport, Theodore Draper, and Walter Laqueur, "'The Mystery of Max Eitingon': An Exchange," New York Review of Books, June 16, 1988, pp. 50–55.
 * This is just a series of letters to the editor protesting the quality of Schwartz's article mentioned directly above.
 * Max Eitingon: another view, The New York Times Book Review., 3 July 1988
 * A short op-ed taking the same Schwartz's article as its subject, not Schwartz himself.


 * Book Reviews of "From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind": the subject of them all is his book, not Schwartz
 * Kakutani, Michiko. "Anatomy of the Left Coast without the Sunshine." New York Times, April 7, 1998.
 * Starr, Kevin. "Leftovers; From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind". Los Angeles Times, March 15, 1998.::* Ditto
 * Meyerson, Harold. "Red Sunset". New York Times, March 15, 1998.


 * Rothstein, Edward. "Connections; A Daring Theory that Stalin Had Walter Benjamin Murdered". New York Times, June 30, 2001.
 * Times article discussing an article of Schwartz's.


 * Ira Rifkin, "Author links Saudi brand of Islam to worldwide violence", Religion News Service. 2003
 * This article takes Schwartz and his book on Wahhabism as its subject. 3rd party source relevant to the subject.


 * Book Reviews of Two faces of Islam
 * Marshall, Paul. "Reading Up on Islam". Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2003.
 * Bernstein, Richard. "The Saudis' Brand of Islam and Its Place in History". New York Times, November 8, 2002.
 * Geertz, Clifford. "Which Way to Mecca? Part II". The New York Review of Books, July 3, 2003.

In sum, we have one third party source, a few hundred words in the Religion News Service from 2003, a book-review, which talks about Schwartz himself. I will wait for comments on this point. I am tagging the article as self-promotion for now. If I don't see more significant reliable 3rd party sources about Schwartz, I will at start to significantly pare-down the article to more accurately reflect its subject's significance. Compare, for example, this article to Steve Coll, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and dean of the Columbia School of Journalism. Bapehu (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've edited this section after finding that I mislabeled what seems to be primarily autobiographical as self-published. My apologies to anyone I may have offended. Peter Hughes Bapehu (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

More comment from victim of this nonsense
As I stated above, "I did not write and have not edited this entry. I have only checked it for libelous and incorrect comments. Had I written this entry it would include a number of important things that are missing from it."

I consider the accusation that I wrote this entry, that it is an autobiography, or that it is self-promotion, to impugns my professional credibility. I consider the same about the claim that the entry is "a fan-page and, as is evident in Schwartz's active contributions to the article... a largely self-made fan-page." To emphasize, I have not written "active contributions to the article." I consider it rather amusing that these charges are made about an article that does not bother to determine whether "Suleyman" is my legal middle name, which would certainly have been curious in Ohio in 1948, or what I studied in college, or where, or any number of other matters. Again, I do not intend to edit this article. I only note my objections on the talk page.

Does Bapehu know what "self-published" means? None of the references in this entry were self-published except the first, taken from the Center for Islamic Pluralism website. The Wikipedia entry cites my published works, but except for one, they were not "self-published." "Self-published" means published at the author's own expense. I do not own and did not pay THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, or any of the other media or book publishers that published my articles or books except for the printer of my early book of poems, A SLEEPWALKER'S GUIDE TO SAN FRANCISCO and part of the printing expenses for my SARAJEVO ROSE, which was issued by a respected Arabic book publisher. I did not pay for publication or publish AN ACTIVIST'S GUIDE TO ARAB AND MUSLIM CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN NORTH AMERICA. Media and reputable trade publishers accepted my articles and books and paid me. That is not "self-publication." I believe that accusation is also libelous.

Academics now frequently are asked to pay the printing costs of their books, by reputable university presses. Even that does not make them "self-published."

Does "Bapehu" know what "self-promotion" is? A person engaged in self-promotion would not cite his or her critics, typically.

Since when are book reviews not "third party sources"? I did not commission the reviews, pay the reviewers, or attempt to influence them. Some were critical of my books. Any normal person considers a book review a third party source, since authors are ethically prohibited from soliciting friendly reviews. A person writing an autobiographical entry would not include a description of him or herself as "a strange and outlandish figure."

KSRolph is a Wikipedian who took a photograph of me, on which the Center for Islamic Pluralism claims copyright. The act was a simple one and involved no conflicts of interest. Why should I be compared with Steve Coll? "I mean, really?" I said from the beginning and repeat that I am indifferent to what Wikipedia produces about me. But this endless and unproductive controversy has no obvious motive, on the part of my opponents, but malice.

I claim no special importance in the world but I find it curious that this entry attracts so much nasty attention. Someone is obviously concerned about something and I do not believe their interest is neutral.

Further, I object to the attempt to reduce my reply to these tendentious idiocies by subordinating my comment to that of an anonymous and incompetent person calling him- or herself bapehu. All of my previous replies were kept separate. Sooner or later Wikipedia will have to stop shielding these cowards. At the least, I am a public intellectual, journalist and author, with a transparent life. Who or what is Toddy1 or Bapehu? I said from the beginning I refuse to play a Wikipedia computer game against shadow puppets who have no credentials or standing in intellectual life.

Considering the ridiculous inconsistencies, errors, and genuine self-promotion visible on so many Wikipedia pages, I suggest these people concentrate on cleaning up factual issues and stop harassing me. You can start by reviewing your articles on Islam, which are replete with radical propaganda.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Schwartz: As you rightly stated, I was clearly in the wrong calling your articles self-published. I meant to say that the source of the article was largely auto-biography. As you rightly stated, no reasonable person would believe that you self-published an article in the New York Times or Frontpage, etc. I'm not sure that meets the muster for libel. Regardless, I have removed the offending material.
 * I apologize for my mistake, and I sincerely apologize for the grief that I may have caused you.
 * No offence meant, but a given article's Talk page is for people to discuss ways in which to improve the article. I didn't write the post because I was out to get you. I was trying to improve wikipedia. The article on you appears to take you as its primary source. I am not sure that this meets wikipedia's standards. I am not your opponent, and I do not have malice towards you. For the record, my name is Peter Hughes, I live in Quebec, Canada. I at least am editing wikipedia with a stable username, which provides for some accountability. I am coming here to try my best to contribute. This is the internet after all. You, for example could be anyone, especially since you haven't even registered a username. All we know about you is that you are at 76.218.124.85. If you find wikipedia lacking and want to contribute, why don't you pitch in? Perhaps others will take benefit from your contributions. Bapehu (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Per this discusison I have replaced the "possible autobiography" tag with a more generic "neutral point of view." This tag simply reflects that there are some points of disagreement about whether the material in the article is presented in a neutral manner. It is not a reflection on any person. I trust that addresses the principal concern that the original tag implied a breach of journalistic ethics.


 * If there are points in the article which are disputed, or which present documented issues in a non-neutral way, can they please be raised here on this talk page so a consensus can be reached on whether to reword. I note the article contains some unreferenced statements, and some referenced only to primary sources or blogs. These will need careful review for accuracy. If they remain unreferenced, or insufficiently referenced, they should be removed. And of course if there is additional material which can be appropriately referenced, that can be added at any time.


 * Views welcome on how to address these content issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording of the tag you deleted was This article may be an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page. (September 2014). The article has been repeatedly edited by Mr Schwartz.  I think you should restore the tag.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there specific article content that you feel requires review for NPOV? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in hindsight that conveyed the wrong tone. My argument is essentially this: the identity of contributors is less important than the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article. If there is a contributor with a COI the risk is they might deliberately or inadvertently introduce material or overall content that reflect a non-neutral point of view. The solution is for others to address that via identifying the POV sections and shifting them towards a neutral tone. So - let's identify those sections or sentences and propose alternative or better-referenced words.


 * Further, another editor felt the previous tag implied poor behaviour on their part. The current tag makes the same warning re article content, and call to action re fixing it, but does not contain that implication. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Schwartz on contributing to Wikipedia
It has been suggested I should indeed contribute to Wikipedia articles, though not about myself for obvious ethical reasons. There are errors in the entry on me still but I am content to live with them -- errors abound in all media these days and none of them in the current entry are gross. I'm not going to ask you for special consideration of my work.

I have been reluctant to become involved in editing Wikipedia, aside from a very few instances of removing, or protesting on the TALK page, material about me I consider inaccurate and flagrantly offensive, also because of the question of neutrality. If I were to edit a Wikipedia entry on some local news event I reported for the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, and in which I was not involved except as a reporter, I would do so as a neutral person. But I never accepted the idea that objectivity as a journalist means neutrality in the face of evil, and in my more literary and historical works, I am not neutral and do not claim to be so. When I wrote about the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, the Spanish civil war, Latin American politics, California intellectual history, Kosovo, Stalinism, Wahhabism, Sephardic Jews in the Balkans, and Sufism I made and make no claims to neutrality. These writings are based on deep sympathies I do not conceal. I would therefore not presume to edit Wikipedia entries on these matters, about which I do not have an NPOV. I am not an academic.

I might be willing to help correct some Wikipedia entries on Sephardic Jewry but at this point that would require a lot of fact-checking by me. I am not Jewish by birth or religious upbringing, much less Sephardic, and can write neutrally and, I think, authoritatively, on such matters as linguistics and other aspects of local Sephardic cultural history in various countries. Sephardism is a fascinating topic with many distinctive aspects. But the sources are obscure and require considerable review. Some materials I have collected are unpublished. My writings on Sephardism are also influenced by my Islamic appreciation for the protection of the Sephardim by the Moroccan and Ottoman sultans, so I cannot not claim absolute neutrality on the matter. But I have assembled a lot of interesting and unknown materials on the topic, much of it printed. Abominably, a great deal of the corpus of Sephardica was lost in the Holocaust.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have access to published material about Sephardic Jewry I would encourage you to make contributions here. Naturally, any new material would need to be cited to publications and not to personal knowledge. There is some role for personal knowledge on talk pages, because nobody wants to make changes to an article that are known to be incorrect. About editing on topics you know something about, the test of your neutrality is that nobody should be able to tell which side you favor when they read your article contributions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Schwartz recommends a correction (not on himself)
Thank you for clarifying some details of my biography.

Here is an example of an article on Islam that includes a citation error: The article on Mawlid, the celebration of the birthday of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawlid. This article contains the following statement: "In most Arabian countries - i.e. Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain - [Mawlid] is not an official public holiday." The comment is sourced to the following note, number 41: "Moon Sighting". Moon Sighting. 20 June 2011. Retrieved 20 November 2011." If one links to that page, there is no reference in it whatever to the status of Muhammad's Birthday in Saudi Arabia except to refer to its place on the Islamic calendar in use in the kingdom.  As to Muhammad's Birthday in Kuwait, this source identifies it as public holiday -- a travel guide, but their publishers have an incentive to accuracy: http://www.worldtravelguide.net/kuwait/public-holidays.  The following source lists Muhammad's Birthday as an official public holiday in Qatar: http://www.expatwoman.com/qatar/monthly_qatar_guide_2013_2014_Holiday_Dates_Qatar_11115.aspx.  At http://www.worldtravelguide.net/united-arab-emirates/public-holidays it is stated that in the Emirates Muhammad's Birthday is a public holiday.   The following states that in Bahrain, Muhammad's Birthday is a public holiday: http://www.holiday-times.com/public-holidays-bahrain/.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome. So dive in and edit, boss. This is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapehu (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stephen Schwartz' help would really be extremely welcome in the Wikipedia community. I agree with him that many Wikipedia articles on different aspects of Islam are far from being solid and neutral. This however doesn't seem to be exactly the tone that helps winning him over to "dive in". Let's see what we can do about the hints he gave us. --PanchoS (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Moscow speaks

 * Some things never change. I see a known Russian propagandist and enemy of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific posted an anonymous statement about me.  To wit, "Steve Schwartz has never been an officer of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. He was a contract employee for the purpose of writing the union's history. The union is headquartered at 450 Harrison Street in San Francisco. Anyone wishing to verify what I've written should contact them. My source is myself, a former activist member of that union, including during the time of Schwartz's employment."

I am Stephen Auden Alfred Schwartz, known by my Muslim name as Suleyman, and by various pen-names, such as Nico Ordway, Sandalio Solsona, Sari Saltuq, Albert Moreland, Paul Yanovsky, et al. Adoption of pen-names is an honorable tradition but American Trumpies and other dunces seem never to have heard about it. Too bad. When you only read Wikipedia and can't read books you don't know such things.

I have never in my life held myself out as an officer of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, a post for which I was unqualified, unlike the author of this ratbite on my coat, who tried to run for union office.

In 1974-75 I was chairman of the stewards' committee of the then-Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Local 248 in San Francisco.

In 1994-99 I was a delegate from the Bay Media Guild to the San Francisco Labor Council.

In 1995-99 I was secretary of the Bay Media Guild.

None of these positions made me an employee of said unions.

I was an employee of the SUP in running their centennial history project.

I have been involved in union activities in Nicaragua, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Kosovo.

Please say no to anonymous trolls.

SuleymanSchwartz (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fundamental rewrite needed
The first half of this article explains Schwartz's spiritual quest to find his home in Sufi Islam. The second half of this article is about his, and I quote, "Views on Islam [and] Israel".

We don't even have sections on Binyamin Netanyahu's "views on Israel," nor do we have sections for any Imam's "views on Islam." Why would we need such information on the opinions of one Mr. Schwartz?

This article needs to be rewritten from the ground up to be even close to encyclopedic. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am the former Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
I am the former Stephen Suleyman Schwartz. Since 2016 I have been. out as a trans female, Lulu Schwartz. Today I tried to gender correct my bio. My edits were reversed instantly. I protest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.163.171 (talk • contribs)

Assalamulaikum Ms. Schwartz - I came here to see why in fact your page lists an incorrect name. I'm very new to wikipedia, so I don't know if there's much I can do to help solve it, but I will try.

MekhiMKL (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ms. Schwartz - I did manage to make some changes. I'm not advanced enough to know how to migrate the page and such. Inshallah someone with more knowledge can help us, and the changes I made are not reverted! MekhiMKL (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ms. Schwartz - my revisions were reverted. I'm going to try to get some help with this issue. MekhiMKL (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)