Talk:Seth Swirsky/Archive 1

message: The user has been blocked as of 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked

message: 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 The reference that has been provided to give evidence to Seth Swirsky being a former liberal is out of date as compared to the reference that has been provided to give evidence to Seth Swirsky being a Democrat.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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Third Opinion (Maybe the fourth) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Shifted to the right" or "Former Liberal" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bookumentary 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Bestselling"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subheading 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 - «Talk» 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Fyi:   has been blocked a second time.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Writings 

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