Talk:Peter Swirski

Inflated claims of UMSL connections and possible COI
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

As an experienced (albeit quiet for some time now) Wikipedia editor, I was contacted by the English department at UMSL with regards to the subject's claims to be an "Honorary Professor of American literature and culture at the Department of English, University of Missouri-St. Louis" (UMSL). Apparently, there is no such title conferred by the department. Though the subject apparently had a faculty web page at one time (appears to be an inclusion by an unnamed web master at the time), there is no indication that he was actually a faculty member, nor had any honorary title conferred upon him. I am convinced that he is notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia, but am concerned that this affiliation with UMSL is a matter of CV puffery rather than an accurate part of his biography. It might be more accurate to say that subject was 'at one time, affiliated with the University' rather than a faculty member, or even an honorary one. The reference to his UMSL affiliation is a dead link to a now defunct UMSL faculty page at Sun Yat-Sen University. The UMSL English Department has removed the page as not being accurate or valid. The link from Sun Yat-Sen University is not a primary reference, rather, it only links to the dead link to the now non-existent faculty page at UMSL.

I also have concerns with COI by the primary editor of the Swirski page, talk who admits "i always confirm with Peter Swirski about all the information before i edit his page."

Depending upon the results of the discussion here, I propose to remove the mention and reference to the subject as an "Honorary Professor of American literature and culture at the Department of English, University of Missouri—St.Louis." --Quartermaster (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Distinguished" could have been cut and paste. Now the Wikipedia page says "adjunct professor". In the cached page cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=swirski+umsl&d=4698833052959613&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cgiVAI0TTd1YyGBlZUXtmxwxM5aWkr8_ dated  11/6/2014  he is listed as Teaching Professor. Same at this cached UMSL page: cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=swirski+umsl&d=5052493494289435&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=Horx2xKDxtf5m5rw-Yc72dJq9YbSoSOG  cached on 11/17/2014.

Since you claim you are affiliated with UMSL, are you claiming that he never have been affiliated in any way with UMSL? The removed page simply means that person is no longer affiliated, not that it was false earlier. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No discussion so edits implemented
Since after 5 days nobody chimed in to defend the UMSL links I went ahead and edited out both the original claim as well as removed the related category. If anyone wants to restore those edits please discuss this here before doing so. Again, the English Department at UMSL itself finds the only affiliation subject had might have been attending and presenting at a conference. Somehow, a faculty web page was created which has been long removed. Quartermaster (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * UMSL was mentioned in footnoted website as retrieved on Dec. 6. It lists his UMSL email even now. Also, even when he retires from UMSL, category remains, because in Wikipedia it is both for current and former faculty. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask wp-experts how to make a reference to a cached external page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy, and as requested, I would have preferred to have this discussion here before the restoration of the contested edit. I have no problem not engaging in an edit war. Swirski's UMSL faculty web page was an error at the time when web pages were not as rigorously controlled at the University as they are now. The copy in the Internet Archive is spurious. There is no other indication in the University Archives nor in directories at the time that Swirski was formally affiliated with the University. Again, the original web page (even if cached at the Internet Archive) was removed precisely because there was no support for the subject being a faculty member as claimed. Quartermaster (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Subject does not appear in any UMSL faculty directory from 2008 to 2014
I own printed copies of the official faculty directories for the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and can state that no faculty member nor employee of the University by the name of Peter Swirski appears in the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 editions which cover the time period indicated by the cached page in the Internet Archive. The claims about this subject's affiliation with UMSL are only supported by a single cached page in the Internet Archive that was probably written by the subject himself. Once again, I propose to remove these claims to notability at the University. If verification other than the long removed "faculty" web page can justify this claim, please do so here. Quartermaster (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Doubt/Questions about Swirski's UMSL Claims
I am affiliated with UMSL and also puzzled by Swirski's claims. "Teaching Professor" is our highest non-tenure-track, full-time rank. In the Department of English, a teaching professor's main responsibility is teaching (not research), and teaching professors teach four classes a semester (three if they have additional administrative duties). There is no record of anyone named Peter Swirski teaching a single class at UMSL, ever. In addition to that, we do not have an "American literature and culture" program at UMSL.

Googling "Swirski UMSL" certainly produces many hits, but they all seem to be originating from Swirski himself (or his own publicity).

As for the cached page, as Quartermaster points out, our webpages were not monitored carefully back then. I agree that the old page sounds like it was written by Swirski himself because the tone, content, and length are completely unlike any of the other faculty pages from that same archived batch. --Maygogu (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have no idea who maintains profiles of faculty at university webpages. That's news for you: professors themselves. An not only he had a webpage, he was listed in a directory. If the university does a shitty job in maintaining its own directory, then you are making a big disservice to UMSL by making this fact public. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an attack, UMSL is being accused the information posted on their web site, Peter Swirski was listed under Department of English, UMSL from Jan 2010 to Nov 2014. The Department has the record. (Seriabrunei (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC))


 * How is this an attack? Please, let's engage in a civil discussion about the facts rather than using inflammatory language. Again, the UMSL English Department does NOT have any records of the subject ever teaching at the University. The online faculty directory does list him, but it does not point to any office nor any phone number connected to him (if you call the listed number you will get a different faculty member). His entry appears to be spurious and unsupported by any other records at the University. Could you post any supporting information about his teaching at UMSL other than this single directory entry? Syllabi? Students? Course materials? Public online evaluations by students? Are you in contact with the subject? Could you inquire as to what classes he taught? I have access to older course schedules and bulletins and could verify the existence of classes back for more than a decade, and who taught them. If he is listed, there's no problem with including the affiliation. Quartermaster (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Colleague, are you saying that Swirski somehow hacked UMSL website and posted false information? In this case you are welcome to sue him for false credentials, digital breach, and what's not. Otherwise yes, this accusation is an attack. The article has its references. Please  stop pestering Wikipedia with your opinion and prove that these references are false. Your statements of kind "I don't know" and "I cannot find" are merely a reason for doubt, but in no way constitutes a proof.  Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you think I implied that the subject hacked UMSL's computers and we should consider a law suit. That was not my intent. I think an editorial discussion should avoid inflammatory statements like that. My intent was to point out that the directory entry is in error (independent of WHY it is in error). Again. Since you seem personally invested in the subject, could you give any other information that might support the claim of the subject's UMSL affiliation other than an apparently erroneous directory entry and hagiographic web pages? I went back and checked the salary reports for UMSL since 2008 (Missouri is an open records state) and there was no listing of anyone named Swirski being paid. I also checked the Official Manual of the State of Missouri (aka, the "Blue Book") dating back to 2008 which lists all University of Missouri employees, again, with no UMSL employee named "Swirski." These are not my opinions. I am perfectly willing to consider the subject's UMSL affiliation as being valid should evidence be presented. Do you think we should consider Wikipedia arbitration or have an independent Wikipedia editor weigh in on this? I would be willing to have this go to Mediation with no qualms. Quartermaster (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, you can inspect the employee listings of all University of Missouri branches (including UMSL) online via the Missouri Blue Book site in Jefferson City, Missouri. Earlier editions of the Blue Book are at the site back to 1878. I only checked back to 2008. Quartermaster (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your crusade made me wonder whether you really understand how Wikipedia works. I checked your contribs and I see you are editing since 2008. I believe it is time for you to learn that (A) the goal of Wikipedia is NOT truth, but verifiability, (B) a word of mouth from a wikipedian is not a valid reference, (C) arbitration is an ultimate resource of disputer resolution when everything else fails. Now, let's review once again what we have here.
 * 1) (1a) Swirski@UMSL was (a) at UMSL website (b) at BBC programme (c) at several book announcements. See (A).
 * 2) (1b) You claim it is false. See (B).
 * 3) (1c) You write: "I'm sorry if you think I implied that the subject hacked UMSL's computers and we should consider a law suit" and look offended. What's the problem? If you are eager to purge this info from Wikipedia, you have to provide a documentary evidence that the info elsewhere is false. A lawsuit is as good as any, since it creates a public record.
 * 4) (1c-1) You are sorry that I think that you implied something. Yes of course, from facts (1a) and (1b) it is a direct implication that either Swirski and/or his buddies are frauds or you are a confused person.
 * 5) (2) You say you cannot find him in employee records. Sorry, not Wikipedia business. If I were to believe you, then the fact that Swirski was listed as several webpages of UMSL webside for several years tells something about the quality of bookkeeping at UMSL. Also if I were to believe you, just the same I have to believe another Wikipedian who wrote in this talk page that Swirski's tenure expired December 2014.
 * 6) (3) You wrote: "you seem personally invested in the subject". And you are not? Unfortunately I am not. Otherwise I would have called Swirski and asked for clarification.
 * 7) (4) I don't believe Swirski as he is needs to defraud his credentials. At the same time, I admit a possibility that someone else (literary agent, girlfriend, troll/hacker grandchild, etc.) could have created the confusion. Unfortunately, this confusion may be resolved in Wikipedia only by references to reliable sources. We has a couple of celebrities who were very angry that they could not set their personal facts straight in Wikipedia, and some of them went on busily making a mockery of the fact that they had first print some angry letter somewhere and then use it as a reference in a wikipedia article. Well, this is how Wikipedia works. We don't check credentials of wikipedians, who are anonymous. Wikipedia relies on the fact that news publishers verify the credentials of writers and the information they provide. (Consider this a hint.) Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This cached page from the UMSL website lists him as at least a former teaching professor there. I have to assume the website of an organization listing its employees is generally assumed to meet RS regarding the employment of the people listed there. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * At the time the page was produced, University web sites were not centrally controlled nor monitored. The official salary reports as well as the publicly available and online employment listings in the official manual of the state of Missouri (The Blue Book) WERE formally derived from official employment information at the time. So, informal, uncontrolled web pages (they are NOW much more rigorously patrolled and controlled by University IT folks) that have been deleted are being claimed as a reliable source in total contravention of the more formal (lack) of evidence of employment and affiliation in official state documents. Web Page vs. Official Employment Records. The web site has NEVER been an official record of employment. The actual employment records maintained by the University and State ARE official documents and definitive proof of status with the University. Which one is MORE reliable? This reminds me why I stopped actively engaging in Wikipedia for the past few years. Common sense seldom prevails. Quartermaster (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on your points. I am simply pointing out that in general a "corporate" website is considered RS as per that guideline. The lack of evidence in the Blue Book is however interesting, because, as you say, that is a very official publication, although, as I can say from some personal experience as a former employee of that state, it is capable of errors of sorts as well. This very much gives the impression of the kind of cloak-and-dagger stuff one most often associates with Batman and James Bond and the like, which, honestly, isn't something we deal with that often around here. I myself am unaware of the specific rules of inclusion of university employees in the Blue Book, as that wasn't where I was working, but the assumption, reasonable as it is, that the one is necessarily more reliable than the other is itself open to some question without further clear evidence. Are there, by any chance, any sort of UMSL newspapers available online which would almost certainly indicate any changes of academic staff at the school for the time period in question? If there are, whatever side they might support would seemingly be the right one. One thing which does come to mind, perhaps wrongly, I don't know, is the possibility that the individual was offered and accepted employment well before work was scheduled to begin and decided to change his mind before actually starting at work. If the school's IP people were a bit too quick on the gun, that could explain this. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can make numerous guesses of how this happened. I see the only way the issue resolved. Somebody from UMSL administration notices this dispute in wikipedia and bothers to publicly clarify the issue. Our chat here is nothing but idle chat. It is a well-known fact that it is extremely difficult to prove a non-existence. And since wikipedia accepts only published references, someone else must publish this proof, i.e., denouncing/explaining the earlier references. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As apart of idle chat, I may agree with your opinion that IP was to quick on the gun: the webpage says nothing of courses he reads, only, as user:Quartermaster puts it, a "hagiographic", list of publications. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "university websites... not controlled nor monitored" Yeah, right. Four years nonstop nobody noticed an extra staff member whose UMSL email address is all over internet. I am more inclined to believe that Swirski was involved in some kind of controversy so that UMSL now wants to sweep it under the carpet. Well, in this case beware the Streisand effect. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Intention to Invoke Dispute Resolution
Sir. By the apparent emotional tone of your responses here I am not sure you are proceeding in good faith. Hence, I am going to invoke Wikipedia mediation. Hopefully you will have less of a problem with a disinterested third party weighing in on this specific editorial issue. Yours, Quartermaster (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Peter_Swirski.23Inflated_claims_of_UMSL_connections_and_possible_COI

My apologies for inadvertently misusing Wikipedia terminology with regards to "arbitration" and "mediation." This should more properly be labeled a request for Dispute Resolution which is the natural next step in this editorial process. I have made that edit ("Dispute Resolution") in the title of this section. Quartermaster (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a native English language speaker and I don't have skills to properly hide emotions (yes many people have emotions in disputes, surprizing, isn't it?) in form of thinly veiled accusations of malice (e.g "am not sure you are proceeding in good faith"; reminds me my fav from the Pirates of the Caribbean "I am disinclined to acquiesce your request. Means 'No!'") . Of course I am pissed off because instead of following wikipedia guidelines you keep hinting at my malice COI. My only "I" is that I am using numerous Swriski's texts about Stanislaw Lem as references in articles about Stanislaw Lem, but I don's see any "CO" in this.  Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the close at DRN, I have removed the contentious material regarding USML, this information should not be added back in until a reliable secondary source can be provided. A poor primary source (such as the archived USML page) cannot be used for BLP. War wizard90 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing at the correct guideline. I will keep this in mind for future. Although I assumed that WP:BLP is to handle slanderous and other negative information.  Staszek Lem (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the key word at WP:BLP is "contentious" which this clearly is (since it's being contended), however, the only reason I came to remove the material is because I was following the case at DRN as a volunteer, and figured it would be better if an uninvolved editor removed the material to avoid any negative reactions. If any reliable secondary sources can be provided, I would support re-adding the material. War wizard90 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that BLP is sloppy in the wording here. One has to clearly distinguish contentions in "real world" (as seen through sources) and within wikipedia (as seen in editing history). I assumed that WP:BLP is related to controversies of real world: one sources contradict others or some sources make extraordinary/ridiculous claims. Unreferenced claims do not need to be "contentious" to be removed on the spot. In our case I don't see any controversies in "real world". Even assuming a more lax interpretation, I find it ridiculous to claim that the university website is an unreliable source (see also John Carter's opinion in the section above). Same goes to the claim of the DRN volunteer that BBC did not check their facts in some cases. Or book publishers do not check their facts when they describe their authors. Nevertheless I will rest here.
 * Now it is 2:1 in terms of wikipedians' judgement of the case. So unless Swirski's supporters join the dispute with extra arguments, I am fine. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Slightly misleading information re: Helsinki Collegium position
According to the article, Peter Swirski is supposed to have been a Professor and Research Director at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies in Finland. The claim is misleading since Helsinki Collegium seems to offer only one visiting professorship post (The Jane and Aatos Erkko Visiting Professor in Studies on Contemporary Society), which Swirski does not seem to have held during his time at the Collegium. On the Youtube video referenced in the article in relation to the above-mentioned claim, Swirski is referred to as an "HCAS Fellow" and same title is also used in the Collegium's Annual Report (http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/english/about_the_collegium/AnnualReport_2010-2011.pdf). The annual report also mentions Alan Warde being the then visiting professor at the Collegium.

Professor should therefore be amended to fellow in order to improve the article's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RememberTheCant (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)