Talk:Seth Swirsky/Archive 1

New article
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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: 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  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 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)

I'm not sure why anyone would want to take credit for such an ungainly and unnecessary word - uh, all books are documents, and non-fiction is a fairly well-established phenomenon - but I have found a site from 2000 that shows Poley the Clown used the word 7-8 years ago. MoeLarryAndJesus 06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has improved considerably, compared to what it was. I'll add the article to Cleanup, to get an outsider to look at it. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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,, 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 Wikipedia as disruptive and tendentious editing.

There are two Wikipedia pages which address this very directly: Disruptive editing and 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 Neutral point of view, Civility, No personal attacks and 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 Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia 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 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 wikipedia 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
Wikipedia 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 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 Requests for comment) later, but for the time being I have posted it on Wikiquette alerts. — 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), [5] writes articles for RealClearPolitics.com[6], The HuffingtonPost.com[7], PoliticalMavens.com[8] 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 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: [::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. ]


 * 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: [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]


 * 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 Wikipedia 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 11:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "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)


 * "("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)" "Chuckles" is my friendly way of referring to you because of the very friendly way you have welcomed me, chuckles.  I especially enjoy your references to my reading ability.  As for the outside editor, ask Jheditorials what it means.  I no longer care.  I will, however, continue to edit this site appropriately.  Thanks for playing. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In my latest edit I have used the term "former liberal" instead of "conservative." I can see why someone would not want to be described as a conservative these days, since the word has now taken on very unpleasant meanings.  In America these days "conservative" is now synonymous with "torture-loving warmongering religious fanatic." I would certainly never want that label attached to me. Hopefully "former liberal" is not as controversial. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been posted on Athaenara's own discussion page in response to a discussion between Athaenara and "SethSwirsky" which appears there. It's interesting that they felt it better to cozy up there rather than here on the pages directly associated with the article:

It is a complete and utter falsehood that I have sent any e-mails to this "SethSwirsky" person. I suggest that this is just a member of the "Tribe of Seth" referenced in the article.

As for the actual Set Swirsky being a Democrat, don't make me laugh. The guy is a complete and total devotee of the Bush wing of the Republican Party. As I have suggested, if "SethSwirsky" is the real Seth Swirsky, let him submit a blog piece to the Huffington Post detailing his points of agreement with the Democratic Party and saying he's a registered Democrat.

Of course, no such thing will happen.

I find it interesting that this prolonged discussion is happening away from the article in question, and find it cause to doubt Athaenara's objectivity in this matter. MoeLarryAndJesus 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
The user has been blocked as of 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC):
 * "blocked (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours"
 * "extreme 3RR violation (more than 10 reverts) after warnings:"

Full details in the block log.  — Athænara   ✉  20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion (Maybe the fourth)
Hello, I was attracted to this discussion from several posting around Wikipedia. I would suggest that all parties stop the references to e-mails being sent or not being sent as that has no bearing on the inclusion of material in a Wikipedia article and only serves to distract us from the goal of writing a great article.

So, now to the article content. Is it necessary to at all mention the political affiliation of this artist? Does it improve the article? If it is necessary, then I should comment on the references that have been provided for the two versions of the statement that has been in contention. The reference that has been provided to give evidence to Seth Swirsky being a former liberal is out of date as compared to the reference that has been provided to give evidence to Seth Swirsky being a Democrat. If this is inaccurate, please correct me. If we are going to report the current political affiliation of the artist, we should use the latest reference. If we are going to include information from the previous reference, we could note that the artist previously left the left in _____ (I forget the year), but is now again a self-described democrat. Would this be a reasonable compromise? (If the affiliation must be mentioned at all, that is) Sancho McCann 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My edit doesn't mention political affiliation at all. It merely says that Swirsky is a self-described conservative, which he is. Cites I have offered are up-to-date. The opposing viewpoint's cite is not, in fact, dated.

There is absolutely no evidence offered that shows Seth Swirsky is a registered Democrat. None. The postings here by some person claiming to be Seth Swirsky are not evidence. Anyone can post here and claim to be the subject of an article, after all.

The simplest and most accurate description of Swirsky's political views is that he is a conservative who supports the Bush administration. This is amply supported in his own words. The bio at politicalmavens.com is unattributed and undated. Common Wikipedia practice is to describe people with Swirsky's views as conservatives - again, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Robert Novak - I have given ample examples.

I have offered several compromises. The last is to describe him as a "former liberal," but apparently that wasn't good enough. So now I'll revert to "conservative." MoeLarryAndJesus 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From Swirsky's oft-cited "Why I Left The Left" article: "And so, as any reader of this article can well understand, it became impossible for me to relate to the modern Democrat Party which has tacked way too far to the left and is dominated by elites that don’t like or trust the real people that make up most of the country.

Although I haven’t always agreed with President Bush, I proudly voted for him in 2004 (the only one of the four presidents not elected by the popular vote to win re-election). And I now fully understand Ronald Reagan’s statement, when he described why he switched from being a liberal to a conservative: “I didn’t leave the party – It left me!”"

So I suppose Ronald Reagan was actually a Democrat when he said that? Give me a break. Swirsky is no more a Democrat than Reagan was in 1980. And the bio at politicalmavens.com wasn't written by Swirsky, folks. Get over it.

I have reverted the passage to read "former liberal" again. MoeLarryAndJesus 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the article that is being used to give evidence to the self-description of Seth Swirsky refers to an event in 2007 in the past tense, dating it to be at least from January 1, 2007. The article that you have used is 06-09-2006. It seems inaccurate to ignore the newer information. Also, the claim isn't that he's a registered democrat, but a "self-described democrat .... " Sancho McCann 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Please tell me what the date on the "self-described Democrat" bio from politicalmavens.com is. It's undated. Also, I have listed more articles in which Swirsky distances himself even further from the Democrats. (The word is capitalized, by the way.) What exactly is the evidence for him currently being a Democrat of any description?

Also, since my edit merely describes him as a "former liberal," what difference does his party affiliation make? The point is that his political commentary is ALL of one stripe. Here's Swirsky in the middle of January blasting both "the Left" and Democrats, unequivocally: MoeLarryAndJesus 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is undated, but it refers to an event in 2007 in the past tense. So, it must be newer than January 1, 2007. Sancho McCann 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My recent edit includes both views, and both references, this is more encyclopedic than either of the versions previously. Sancho McCann 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for this argument: "Actually, in the article that is being used to give evidence to the self-description of Seth Swirsky refers to an event in 2007 in the past tense, dating it to be at least from January 1, 2007."

Sorry, but that makes no sense. You have no idea what sorts of edits were done to that "article," which isn't an article at all but a bio (not written by Swirsky)on a website. If the site editors dropped in a line about his new cd without changing anything else in the piece, how is that "evidence" in regards to the date of the other information? In the Wikipedia article at issue, is the mention of the new cd evidence that EVERYTHING in the article was written after the cd was released? Of course not. The argument is simply fallacious.

Go to seth.com and type in "Scoop Jackson" in the search engine and you won't find Swirsky describing himself as being in any "Scoop Jackson tradition," if there even is such a thing.

"Former liberal" is supported over and over again by Swirsky's own words and articles. It's the most accurate and simplest and best-supported description. No one has offered any rebuttal to its "truthiness," to use Steven Colbert's term. MoeLarryAndJesus 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"My recent edit includes both views, and both references, this is more encyclopedic than either of the versions previously. Sancho McCann 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)" Please provide one current cite in Swirsky's own words - not that of a third party - which indicates he is still a Democrat. (A word you still are not capitalizing in your current edit.) If the "party left me," as Swirsky says, he's not a member of the party. If your spouse leaves you, are you still a couple? Only if you're a stalker, and then only in your imagination. Swirsky has moved on, and his actual articles - not some anonymous website blurb - show this. MoeLarryAndJesus 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Swirsky does state that he is a Democrat. This was written on December 13, 2006, in a response to a comment on his blog on his site:

"This is what 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." --HollisterMusicGuy

Sure, a "democrat" - small d. Not a Democrat. He's a Ronald Reagan conservative now, not a member or supporter of any living Democrats. It's a meaningless phrase. It's like saying you're a Whig when there are no Whigs left.

What do you call someone who votes solely for Republicans, urges others to vote for Republicans, supports Republican policies, and mourns publicly when Republicans lose? I suppose you could call them many things, but I wouldn't call him a Democrat.

"Former liberal" remains the best description of what he is - it avoids party affiliation entirely. MoeLarryAndJesus 17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a blog, MoeLarryJesus. If you want to debate Swirsky, I suggest you do it at one of the many sites he writes on. I go by what cites I can find and I have found 3 in which it is stated that Swirsky calls himself a "Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition." This is what is relevant. There a number of ex-liberals that are still Democrats. You can interpret Swirsky any way that you wish to, but the most accurate description of him was in the cobbled together version by editor Sanchom, with my slight clarification. Trying to work in the spirit of fairness, concensus and accuracy MoeLarryJesus and yet you still revert to your "interpretation" of what Swirsky is. --- HollisterMusicGuy

It's not "my interpretation." It's what Swirsky says he is, and that's a former liberal who supports George Bush. There's nothing inaccurate about that comment and it's fully supported. It's also much easier for people to understand than some vague nonsense about "the Scoop Jackson tradition," which says nothing to people who don't know who Jackson was.

Do you know what happened to former Scoop Jackson Democrats? They became neo-conservatives like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Perle, one of the architects of the Iraq War, once worked for Jackson.

I find it interesing that no one disputes the accuracy of my version, (former liberal) but for some reason you keep calling for it to be changed. Can any of you dispute the accuracy of the label where Swirsky is concerned? MoeLarryAndJesus 18:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Former liberal implies that he has no liberal tendencies, which might be too strong a claim. Sancho McCann 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Please present a single source to support your "feeling" that Swirsky might still have some "liberal tendencies," whatever that means.

What part of "Why I Left The Left" is vague? He's a former liberal. It's his claim, not mine. He "might" be a serial killer, too, but there's no evidence for it. MoeLarryAndJesus 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would only have to provide references to support my feeling that he might still have some liberal tendencies (beliefs, whatever you want to call them) if I include a statement in the article to that effect. I have not. Sancho McCann 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shifted to the right" or "Former Liberal"
The question has been raised: what is the difference between these two phrases. Does one mean more than the other? Is one a stronger statement than the other? Is there evidence for the weaker of the two? Is there evidence for the stronger of the two? If we can answer these questions, we can probably come to a solution that everyone will be satisfied with. Sancho McCann 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one cares, so I'll go ahead and change it back to "former liberal."

For all the talk from Athaenara and "SethSwirsky" about building consensus, when Sanchom put this opportunity out there neither took advantage of it, though Athaenara did find the time to post the news about my 24-hour block in several locations. It makes me, at least, wonder about the priorities some people have.MoeLarryAndJesus 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left the sacred-to-"Seth" "Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition" line because I now think it's hilarious. Jackson was a simpleton who was one of the last Democratic supporters of the wholly pointless Vietnam war. His "tradition" is being carried on only by the neo-conservatives who gave us the Iraq War. Good work, guys! Swell thinking! MoeLarryAndJesus 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bookumentary
I have removed the words "something he calls" from the bookumentary section for accuracy purposes for the following reason: Since the term "bookumentary" is an accepted term (as shown by the citation), then it is a bookumentary regardless of whether or not that is how Swirsky refers to it. (Example: If you write a book, it is considered a book because it fits the accepted definition of the word.) Thank you. Jheditorials 14:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials
 * I've also changed "bookumentary" to "book (with a DVD)." After reading the description of what a "bookumentary" is according to the cited reference, it appears that Swirsky's project does not fit into this definition. I believe the new definition is more on target. Jheditorials 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

Good. If that term is never used again by anyone, anywhere, the world will be a better place. MoeLarryAndJesus 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bestselling"
I have removed the word "bestselling" from the Author section due to a lack of solid documentation on sales figures or a citation to a recognized bestseller list (for example, the New York Times or Publisher's Weekly). The term "bestselling" is vague and must be supported. MoeLarryAndJesus 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Subheading
I've created a Political Writings subheading, which I thought would be helpful. It is done in the same style as the subheading under Songwriter. Jheditorials 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials
 * That's an awful lot of attention being given to a handful of mediocre blog-posts. Though the site gives Swirsky credit for writing for several sites, the fact is that none of the posts are exclusive to any of the sites.  He has written some posts and provided them free of charge to the listed websites, and the article gives the impression that he's a more serious political commentator than he is.  It's not like you'll see him discussing politics on Hardball anytime soon.  He'd be eaten alive by any opponent with real knowledge. MoeLarryAndJesus 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Political Writings
The section entitled "political writings" was removed by "Hipocrite" for the reasoning "Political writings - no reliable sources in this section." I have re-added the section as everything in the section is provided with a reputable citation. Please explain why you mean by the "no reliable sources in this section" comment. Thank you. Jheditorials 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)jheditorials
 * While the cites are legitimate, there is a strange thing going on in the "political writings" section, since it gives a hugely exaggerated picture of Swirsky's political activities. He has basically written a dozen or so blogposts and they've been posted on 3 or 4 blogs.  Big whoop.  He's not being paid for these shallow little rants, and the article makes it seem like he's actually a professional political commentator. The article might as well contain details about "stuff Swirsky has said in bars" or "how much he drank in college."  Does it really matter? MoeLarryAndJesus 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)   — The preceding comment was added by  20:46, March 1 2007 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. The only sources I saw about his alledged "Political writings" were blogs. Please don't include information sourced only to blogs. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Seth Swirsky's page back before this latest round of vandalism occurred. I assume its being directed by MoeLarryJesus, who in his obsession with Swirsky in maligning his character, is trying to hurt his page. We know that Wikipedia blocked his usage last week because he reverted Swirsky's page 10 times! All anyone has to do is read this discussion page to know how obsessive he is with this very accomplished person.

About restoring Swirsky's "Political Writings" on his page, I can cite a number of examples of people who write articles or blog in the Bios of many people listed in Wikipedia: Bill Maher ("Since May 2005, he has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.") Cenk Uygur writes blogs for the Huffington Post, as Mr. Swirsky does. Uygur's blog writing is talked about on his Bio but deleted in Swirsky's Bio? Other examples abound: Michelle Malkin, David Sirota ("Since May 2005, Sirota has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post, in addition to his own blog."), Dennis Prager, and countless others. To single out Swirsky's blogs for elimination is absurd.

In terms of Trivia on people's pages, again, the amount of people with them is numerous: Tom Seaver, Buzz Aldrin, the amount is too many to name.

Since MoeLarryJesus was suspended by Wikipedia for vandalism of Mr. Swirsky's page, he continues to try and disrupt a perfectly well cited article on this man's accomplishments. HollisterMusicGuy 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, assume good faith. MoeLarryAndJesus hasn't contributed to (or removed anything from) this article since February 22nd. All he has done as regards this article is contribute to this discussion page. Your direction of conversation is straying from comments that will help to improve this article. Sanchom (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sanchom, exactly why would anyone assume "good faith" when discussing MoeLarryJesus vis-a-vis Seth Swirsky's article? Have you seen his personally directed vitriol at Mr. Swirsky? How about a few quotes: In insisting that Swirsky is a "conservative" MLJ said: "In America these days, "conservative" is now a synonymous with "torture-loving warmongering religious fanatics." Nice POV for an editor to have, especially when "editing" someone whose views he clearly despises. Gee, wonder why he reverted Swirsky's page 10 times and was suspended from "editing"? Did you see what he's done since he's come back? He vandalised "Dick Cheney's" page and was again reprimanded. He again vandalised Swirsky's page, trying to put hourly sales figures of Swirsky's new album from Amazon. Why should we assume good faith with this guy? He clearly has an agenda: not to edit well, but to destroy all that he despises which is anyone who supports President Bush. Nothing against you personally Sachom. I just don't think you're seeing the full picture with this guy. 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Juluke2


 * You may be correct. Regardless, my main point was that this article's talk page is not the forum for this discussion. Sanchom (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyi:  has been blocked a second time.   — Athænara   ✉  08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Blogs are not reliable sources. The only sources I saw about his alledged "Political writings" were blogs." Is David Sirota's political writing on Huffington Post "alleged"? Swirsky writes political pieces that are picked up by numerous site. His political writing is certainly a salient fact that deserves recognition, as it does with "Bill Maher". He consistently writes for prominent, well established-in-the-media sites. I've heard him numerous times on TV and radio and heard his pieces being cited by prominent "pundits". It's absurd to think his political writing shouldn't be mentioned in his article. --- Juluke2 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)