Talk:Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Archives: old talk (unrelated to present article)

---

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

Contents 1 No personal attacks 2 Neoconservative or Conservative 3 Calton Bolick's remarks 4 Reliable sources only 5 Refactored Comment 6 Sentence removed 7 Am I missing something?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Calton Bolick's remarks

It's curious that Calton Bolick seems to defend Stephen Schwartz whilst attacking Jack Sarfatti as a general pattern? Did Bolick know Schwartz at Berkeley? What about Sarfatti? Schwartz and Sarfatti have had a stormy 30 year relation in San Francisco even being room mates at the Basque Hotel on Broadway in the early 90's. At the moment Schwartz and Sarfatti are out of sorts with each other over Michael Savage the neoconservative radio talk show host. There are many Google citations on this rather obscure falling out between these two eccentric characters. :-) Britjones

[edit] 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

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"[1] 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)

[edit] Refactored Comment

Here is some text that was added at the top of this page by John randolph (talk • contribs) in August:[2]

ADDED: His Islamic name is Suleyman Ahmad, and he has an interesting piece on "Jews for Allah" site that should not have been omitted:[3]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Am I missing something?

Can this uy 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)