Talk:Seth Swirsky - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TortureIsWrong (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 19 February 2007 (→Dispute resolution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:56, 19 February 2007 by TortureIsWrong (talk | contribs) (→Dispute resolution)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography: Musicians Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. An article you recently created, Seth Swirsky, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you.Berkeleysappho 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Seth Swirsky cut and pasted this entry entirely from his website. It is against Misplaced Pages rules to write your own entry. Everything here is a direct quote from Seth.com. Shameless self-promotion.Berkeleysappho 08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As the author of Seth's[REDACTED] page, I can tell you that he did not make this page himself. While some of the information used may have been read on his website, it was in no way copied and pasted. All of the information has been originally written. In addition, the information the can be found on both websites is factual, biographical information. If you read the page, you can tell that it does not, in fact, attempt to sell or promote anything. The entry is purely for informational purposes as it merely describes his life and what he has accomplished. This entry is no different than any other band or author website that lists the accomplishments of that person. Please explain how you feel that this is self-promotion. If you have found something biographically or factually inaccurate on the page, then, for all means, please change it. Otherwise, this page is no different than the any other artist page (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/Rick_Springfield.

In addition, portions of the website have already been deleted by the person who has tagged this entry for deletion. Please re-add those portions as they were completely legitimate.

Also, if you merely feel that the page has not been sourced to your satisfaction, I will add sources to verify every piece of biographical and factual information available on the page. Simply ask and it will be done. jheditorials 8:33, 11 December 2006

While I have removed the speedy tag from the article, I do feel that the article does not meet wikipedia's neutrality standards. That is no ground for (speedy) deletion, but it does mean that the article needs pruning. A ecis 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please instruct me as to what should be pruned and I will get right on it. Thank you. jheditorials 8:45, 11 December 2006

I have removed the reviews of both Seth's albums and books. In addition, I have cited several items in the entry. Please let me know if you feel that anything else should be cited. Thank you. jheditorials9:25, 11 December 2006

Rick Springfield's entry is neutral. It mentions career lows as well as highlights. Swirsky's article fails to mention the long-running Mariah Carey lawsuit, for example, or his stint in Strawberry Shortcakeland, was it? However, the page is improved.Berkeleysappho 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Information on the Swirsky v. Carey lawsuit has been added to the entry along with a citation. No information could be found in Google on Strawberry Shortcakeland in connection to Seth Swirsky. jheditorials 12:49, 12 December 2006

Information on the Tao of Seth tribe has been added. I broke the initial section into paragraphs and condensed single sentence paragraphs into full paragraphs for readability. I changed half the "he"s into "Swirsky"s for clarity and for ease of quotation by researchers. I changed passive voice to active voice in one sentence in the media section.

I changed the bookumentary part to "what Swirsky calls a bookumentary" because "bookumentary" is a neologism on Swirsky's part. As far as I can tell, Swirsky coined the word for this project. He deserves credit for it. Berkeleysappho 07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has improved considerably, compared to what it was. I'll add the article to Misplaced Pages:Cleanup, to get an outsider to look at it. A ecis 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the update done by 72.235.213.162 (Talk | contribs) as I feel that this was simply vandalism by someone opposed to Swirsky's political viewpoints as the fact that Swirsky writes political commentary has already been addressed in the article. Jheditorials 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

I have added a comment pointing out that Swirsky's political commentary is conservative and totally supportive of everything George W. Bush's administration does. Anyone perusing Swirsky's writings can see that for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeLarryAndJesus (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have disputed the neutrality of the author section. The constant additions by MoeLarryAndJesus cannot be backed up with cited references and can be considered negative. No matter how many times I change his additions to make them neutral, he changes them back to his opinion of Swirsky's writings. In order to solve this issue, I suggest changing the current phrasing of "Swirsky also types extremely conservative political screeds for RealClearPolitics.com, The HuffingtonPost.com, PoliticalMavens.com and others, in which he expresses his admiration for many of the so-called accomplishments of the Bush administration." to say "Swirsky also writes articles for RealClearPolitics.com, The HuffingtonPost.com, PoliticalMavens.com and others, in which he expresses his admiration for many of the accomplishments of the Bush administration." I feel that this gives a description of the type of articles that Swirsky writes, while at the same time keeping the POV neutral.Jheditorials 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

Third Opinion

I believe that User:MoeLarryAndJesus is being disruptive. His edits are POV, and do not conform to WP:NPOV. There is no need to describe Swirsky's political views in such detail. Please keep reminding him on his talk page, and encourage him to discuss his edits on the talk. If he keeps being disruptive, you may want to go with warning templates, or report it to WP:ANI. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the above opinion by a[REDACTED] editor, I have changed the disputed portion of the website to the suggested text and removed the dispute tag. Jheditorials 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials.

There is absolutely no reason that the very conservative nature of Swirsky's political writing should not be mentioned. Other conservative political writers like Michelle Malkin and Robert Novak are identified as such in their Misplaced Pages listings, and Swirsky should also be identified as such. His writings are uniformly one-sided knee-jerk defenses of all things George W. Bush - far more so than Novak's, for example. I have posted a variety of comments along these lines, some very mild, and for some reason a fan of Swirsky's keeps removing them. I think Swirsky would be proud to be known as a Bush diehard along the lines of Malkin or Coulter. Certainly his writings reveal he is just like them in political depth and tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeLarryAndJesus (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to discuss the language of the addition, but it seems quite fair and accurate to mention the nature of Swirsky's political writing, since such commentary is UNIVERSAL when discussing political writers on Misplaced Pages. Why should Swirsky be immune? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeLarryAndJesus (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on a comparison of the edits, it seems to me likely that 72.235.213.162 (Talk | contribs) and MoeLarryAndJesus (Talk | contribs) are the same person. Neither of them (if they are two editors) seems to understand that this is not a political graffiti board or a blog but an encyclopedia article: the standards for the latter are higher. — Athænara ✉ 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am MoeLarryAndJesus, and I am NOT "72.235.213.162. " I also do not see why people are insisting that Swirsky can't be identified as a CONSERVATIVE political writer, when he clearly is such. I can only asume that Swirsky's family members and/or paid hacks are cleansing this site on his behalf, especially since the "corrections" are coming so quickly. Why would Swirsky be ashamed to be known as Michelle Malkin with a baseball collection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeLarryAndJesus (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of him before today. Please sign your own posts, and please cease the POV edits to the article. Such edits amount to vandalism. — Athænara ✉ 08:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about identifying Swirsky as a movement conservative and devoted fan of George W. Bush which amounts to "vandalism." His own writings confirm him as both. Try reading them before you make a judgment, even if you've, <cough>, never heard of him before today. - MoeLarryAndJesusMoeLarryAndJesus 08:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is something very un-encyclopedian about MoeLarryAndJesus (Talk | contribs) repeatedly editing this article only since his/her first contribution (with that identity) one day ago. What s/he is engaging in here, whether or not s/he understands the effects and consequences, is what is known on Misplaced Pages as disruptive and tendentious editing.

There are two Misplaced Pages pages which address this very directly: Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. I recommend, "Moe," that you read them to understand the context in which such activities here are viewed.

It wouldn't hurt to read Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Edit war while you're at it. They might help you get off to a better start here on the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Athaenara should consider that the only reason I keep editing the Swirsky piece is that someone ELSE keeps editing out my changes. What's wrong with identifying Swirsky as a conservative? It's standard descripttion for political writers of his obvious slant here on Misplaced Pages. See Michelle Malkin or Robert Novak or Ann Coulter, for instance.

What's really going on here? Is the "Tribe of Seth" as noted in the article behind this? Why isn't anyone complaining about THEIR constant edits?

I am certainly willing to compromise here. Are you? I believe Swirsky should be identified as a conservative political commentator and that the article should reference not the "many accomplishments" of the Bush administration but its "policies and actions." "Many accomplishments" is not a neutral term - it gives a positive spin whereas "policies and actions" does not.MoeLarryAndJesus 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm willing to compromise. After thinking about it, I think that saying "policies and actions" is more neutral that many accomplishments as, you are right, "accomplishments" is a positive word. Additionally, I am changing "conservative" to "a self-described Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition" as that is how Swirsky describes himself in one of his articles. I'm glad that we could work together to solve this issue. Jheditorials 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

Sorry, I have changed it again to call Swirsky a conservative and have given a source in his own words to verify this. He's no more a "Democrat" than Ronald Reagan was when he was president. I believe using the term "conservative" for Swirsky is entirely accurate and supported by his explicit adoption of it himself. It is also consistent with Misplaced Pages standards for other self-described conservative commentators. There is no non-neutral language in the new edit and what's there is fully supported.MoeLarryAndJesus 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree. I'm more apt to go by what Swirsky's bio says about him. I'm going to bring in a neutral outside editor to make the final decision. I agree to go with whatever the outside editor decides. I hope that you will as well. Thank you. Jheditorials 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

Gee, that's funny - Swirsky calls himself a CONSERVATIVE in the article which HE wrote which I provided a link for. You provided a link to a so-called bio page on a site which WASN'T written by Swirsky but by the editor of the site. On what basis does your link trump mine? The phrase was "self-described Democrat" - if that's Swirsky's phrase, why would he speak of himself in the third person that way?

The Swirsky-penned article I provided is recent and much more reliable than your anonymous, undated link. MoeLarryAndJesus 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(MoeLarryAndJesus (Talk | contribs) needs to moderate his contentious and uncivil tone.)

In his article "Why I Left the Left" (June 2006) (in which he also stated "I haven't always agreed with President Bush" and quoted Ronald Reagan's "I didn't leave the party - It left me!"), Seth Swirsky made it clear that ~~although~~ he still considered himself a Democrat as recently as 2004 ~~he does not consider himself a Democrat now~~. (Strikethrough my misinterpretation; corrected by Mr. Swirsky in his own post below.) — Æ. ✉ 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar experiences and reasoning have been explored by Ron Rosenbaum in "Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee" (October 2002 New York Observer column, Rosenbaum's original full title abbreviated in FrontPageMagazine.com reprint) and by Keith Thompson in "Leaving the Left" (22 May 2005). — Athænara ✉ 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, I will abide by this ruling.Jheditorials 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

→ It isn't a ruling, it's an opinion: That's why the project is called Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. — Æ. ✉ 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Athaenera is exactly right. Swirsky no longer considers himself to be a Democrat - it is therefore inaccurate to refer to him as one, whether in the Scoop Jackson tradition or any other. Also, if Jheditorials will abide by the decision, as he/she keeps saying, why continually change my accurate description back while waiting? MoeLarryAndJesus 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

→ No, I was exactly wrong on the precise point of political affiliation. — Æ. ✉ 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that I have not changed the page since before I placed a request on the third opinion page earlier this afternoon. If the page has been changed since then, it was not by me. My changes are always signed with my username.Jheditorials 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

I was made aware of this dispute just now --this is Seth Swirsky. I reverted the page back and here are my reasons: First, my article "Why I Left The Left" says why i left the left of the democratic party --it never once stated i had switched parties. it mentions my political hero henry 'scoop' jackson in the piece. it may be intimated that i left the democratic party, but i was careful not to write that. i can understand how moelarryjesus could think this, but it is not the case. my bio, which i wrote on the politicalmavens.com site (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/sethswirsky/bio/) last year, states clearly what i consider myself (not what others consider me: a democrat in the tradition of henry "scoop" jackson.) moreover, on my own website (seth.com), where i have a blog (blogservations), in a rebutal to a writer I again state my political affiliation (december 13, 2006) (http://www.seth.com/sethblogarchives/2006/12/to_democrats_it.html#more) when i wrote: "...democrats I admire of the past, like Henry "Scoop" Jackson would have done. I am still a democrat, but not a supporter of any of today's feckless democrats, but of yesterday's, like Jackson." It's quite unfair of one[REDACTED] contributor to continue to try and label me something other than what i am. as an aside, it's a tad creepy considering the deeply insulting, personal email I have also received from this anonymous (to me) person and the amount of times it seems they continue to try and revert the page to who they think i am. I hope I've made my case clear --again, while to some i may appear to be a conservative, I'm a registered democrat, and as i say, one in the tradition of the late senator henry jackson. how others view me is their right, but, in this case not accurate. -- Seth Swirsky

Oh, sure. And NOWHERE in the Swirsky link provided does the real Swirsky claim to still be a Democrat.

What could be funnier than someone who claims to be a Democrat who only supports dead Democrats, by the way? MoeLarryAndJesus 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

More from the real Seth Swirsky. If he's a Democrat, so is Sean Hannity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/welcome-to-the-democratic_b_30857.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/common-sense-vs-nonsense_b_32931.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/the-day-after_b_33650.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/to-democrats-its-still-_b_35874.html MoeLarryAndJesus 22:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people support "dead" politicians: Ronald Reagan comes to mind as an icon. But, I do resent somewhat your need to label me something I am not You can call me what you choose but that does not mean I am that. I left the left --not the democratic party--there is a difference. I certainly would not have it in my biography on politicalmavens.com or on my website if I wasn't one. Finally, you cite as examples of my supposed "conservatism" articles I have written against democrats. Didn't democratic senator Zell Miller harangue his own party at the 2004 Republican convention? Did that make him a republican? No, He didn't change parties. -- Seth Swirsky

Really? He endorsed the ultimate Republican wackaloon Ralph Reed for Lt. Governor of Georgia. If all Democrats were like Zell Miller, you know what the Democratic Party would be? To the right of the Republicans.

If the real Seth Swirsky claims to be a Democrat, he has a funny way of expressing it, by always referring to the Democrats as "they" and the conservatives as "we." Read the links I have provided. The real Swirsky has nothing good to say about any current Democrats, urges people to vote against them, and mourns when they win. Calling him a Democrat is like calling Joe McCarthy a Communist. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect MoeLarry Jesus, you are painting all democrats with one brush. Is Hillary Clinton a "real" democrat? She voted for the war in Iraq. Many in the democratic part don't consider her a 'real' democrat. I choose to affiliate myself with the party of my choice --it's stated on my website and on politicalmavens.com --I choose to admire the kind of democrats I do --Henry Jackson being that person. It's yur choice to have a problem with it, but not to label me something you think I am. --Seth Swirsky

Uh, the "real" Seth Swirsky certainly paints all Democrats with one brush, over and over again - except for a few dead ones, and includes Hillary Clinton under that brush. Of course the real Seth Swirsky also knows enough to capitalize "Democrats." He went to Dartmouth, and while I don't think he's a great prose stylist he's at least somewhat literate. And he's no Democrat. MoeLarryAndJesus 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MoeLarryAndJesus what more can I say to you, but you are acting like a "JACKASS". Please see the linked reference to my term if you do not fully understand the meaning of this word. This is an encyclopedia, not a politilical blog. Go drink the purple cool and keep your idiotic personal attacks in the proper forum. PS. Could someone explain to me why Al Gore is flying around in a Gulf Stream to his personal appearences about Global Warming? Indynetman 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)indynetman

Oh, the irony of being accused of making "personal attacks" by someone I have never dealt with who now calls me a "jackass"! By the way, it's "political" and "purple Kool-Aid," and what does Al Gore have to do with any of this?MoeLarryAndJesus 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

"Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." (Misplaced Pages:Civility policy.)

Misplaced Pages article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing the improvement of encyclopedia articles. They are not attack pages, blogs, or cyber-playgrounds for disruption and tendentious incivility.

The acrimony with which MoeLarryAndJesus (Talk • contribs) has been plaguing this article and its talk page for the past day and a half is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, a dispute resolution project which requires good faith in disputes between only two editors.

The problem may have to be bumped further up the line (e.g., to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment) later, but for the time being I have posted it on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007. — Athænara ✉ 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I acted in good faith, and the OUTSIDE editor decided in MY favor. Seth Swirsky is, as I said, a conservative. My version is more accurate than the other one offered, and much better supported. And by the way, there is NO rational reason to think the "Seth Swirsky" writing in the discussion here is for real. MoeLarryAndJesus 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read what was actually written. There was no "ruling" and no one decided in your favour. — Athænara ✉ 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was no ruling, Athaenera, then what exactly is this?

"I merely objected because his bio states that he is a Democrat. As the outside editor has ruled in your favor, I will no longer edit this portion of the page and your last revision will stand. I don't think it's inappropriate to refer to someone as either conservative or liberal, I was merely questioning whether Swirsky was a conservative (due to his bio). Thank you. I'm glad that we were able to resolve this issue. Jheditorials 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials"

→ A misinterpretation of the situation, and not the only one here, either. — Athænara ✉ 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I read very well, despite your smug-beyond-measure comment, and "the outside editor has ruled in your favor" has a specific meaning in English. Perhaps you could ask a kind person to help you discern it. MoeLarryAndJesus 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians who offer third opinions do not make rulings. We do just what the project says. We offer third opinions. It is an informal process which works very well in less contentious situations. — Athænara ✉ 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to offer a compromise here to please MoeLarryJesus: How about this:

Swirsky, a self-described Democrat in the Henry “Scoop” Jackson tradition (although some see him as a conservative), writes articles for RealClearPolitics.com, The HuffingtonPost.com, PoliticalMavens.com and others, in which he has expressed admiration for many of the policies and actions of the Bush administration.

Would this suffice, MLJ? It seems like a fair compromise. I am what I describe myself as--although, I acknowledge that others, like yourself, may see and label me differently. That seems to distill our thoughts on this. --Seth Swirsky

Why, no, "Seth," that's not acceptable. Even on the chance that you're the "real" Seth Swirsky, what exactly makes you think you get to write your own entry? What's next? Charlie Manson describing himself as "innocent," with a parenthetical aside saying "some see him as a conservative"?

Seth Swirsky's own writings say he's a conservative to the bone - a former liberal who now has nothing but contempt for liberals. He's as CONSERVATIVE in his writings as Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. The description is completely accurate.

Of course you could always correct the record by posting a column on the Huffington Post where you describe what it is that makes you something other than a conservative. Then there would be a verifiable source to support some other perspective. At the moment there is not. MoeLarryAndJesus 06:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try this once more. If it doesn't work, I'll try it again if I so choose. Athaenara repeats:

This isn't about you, chuckles. Again, it's about the OUTSIDE EDITOR Jheditorials consulted. Here it is again, in a language known as English:

Does that help? Exactly what is your problem here? Do you just despise new contributors, or do you think they should all bow before your magnificence? MoeLarryAndJesus 07:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

("Chuckles"? What the heck is that about?) By "outside editor" do you mean someone who edited a bio on another website? — Athænara ✉ 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we're dealing with a obsessed "fan" (in "MoeLarryJesus" -- has he edited a single other article in 3 days?) who continues to want to label me as a "self-described conservative" although he can find not a single instance of me having "self-described" myself that way. On the internet, I am self described at least twice as a Democrat in the tradition of Henry "Scoop" Jackson (read earlier proof of this). I understand that it may be unusual for the subject of a Misplaced Pages article to defend themselves here, but someone mentioned it to me and principle is involved here: I don't like being mislabeled. I've attempted to offer a compromise to resolve this matter, but to no avail. Point of information: You can be a Democrat who is highly critical of the Democratic party and still be a Democrat. Ed Koch (former mayor of NYC and a frequent writer on RealCleraPolitics) is one. So is former Democrat Georgia Senator Zell Miller. So, is longtime Democrat Joe Lieberman (but for the politics of his state, making him an Independent, he would still be a Democrat). Again, I have offered a good-faith compromise yet "MLJ" continues to revert the page back. Where can I file a formal complaint against this obvious vandal who emails me personally using language that I don't want to repeat here? This is what we're dealing with here -- a person who is obviously getting off in his harrassment of me. --Seth Swirsky

"Again, I have offered a good-faith compromise yet "MLJ" continues to revert the page back. Where can I file a formal complaint against this obvious vandal who emails me personally using language that I don't want to repeat here?"

This is a complete lie - I haven't sent Swirsky any e-mails, and I don't believe for one moment that the writer is the "real" Seth Swirsky. And I have offered numerous examples of the real Seth Swirsky calling himself a conservative and demonizing Democrats. What's so terrible about calling him a conservative? It's what he is, just like Coulter and Hannity. MoeLarryAndJesus 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories: