Jump to content

Talk:Lulu Schwartz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.218.124.85 (talk) at 09:28, 30 December 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

  • Michael Totten (February 14, 2011). "From San Francisco to Sarajevo". Pajamas Media.
  • 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.</ref> 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.
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is there specific article content that you feel requires review for NPOV? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. At http://www.worldtravelguide.net/united-arab-emirates/public-holidays it is stated that in the Emirates the Sunni date for Muhammad's Birthday 2015 (January 3) is a public holiday. The following states that in Bahrain, Muhammad's Birthday is a public holiday following the Shia religious calendar (January 13): http://www.gulftalent.com/home/Bahrain-Public-Holidays-2014 Dates different according to lunar moon sightings as well as sectarian custom.

Stephen Schwartz76.218.124.85 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lulu_Schwartz&oldid=640214189"