Talk:Seth Swirsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
|
|
|
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 TortureIsWrong (talk • contribs) 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 - «Talk» 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
- 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)
-
- Fyi: MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked a second time. — Athænara ✉ 08:38, 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)
"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
