Talk:Lee Siegel (cultural critic)/Archive 1

Untitled
Are you certain that the bit concerning the New Republic and sock-puppets does not refer to the other Lee Siegel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.114.67 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What "other Lee Siegel"? please clarify for the uninitiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.248.49 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Was this written by Siegel himself?
No, I have more important things to do than write my own Wikipedia article. But I have revised it to make neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 23:18 13 June 2015

I have the same feeling. That plus the quoted reviews don't sound the reviewers. Janet Maslin, for example. Is this the Lee Siegel who just wrote a very bad op-ed in the NYT? June 6, 2015.64.184.158.144 (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Lee Siegel here: "A vey bad op-ed"? That sounds like a terribly subjective opinion to me. It is reflected in the hostile revision to my entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 22:10 13 June 2015

I'm not saying his page should be negative, but jeez, man, this is pure propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.117.244 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page needs much work. As a biography of a living person, it will necessarily be skewed toward a more positive and noteworthy description.  But it currently reads like a PR release. Jibbytot (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, a "PR release" is redundant, but that's what it is at this point. I'll attempt some modifications in the near future.Jibbytot (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Siegel is fairly controversial, was fired from The New Republic pretty, say, acutely, and none of this is mentioned. I'll be back to work on this, too. --joeOnSunset (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had never heard the term "blogofascism" before, but it does seems that he should know a lot about it as a leading practitioner of the same.


 * Lee Siegel here. I was not fired from the New Republic. I was suspended, I returned, and I resigned. Prove that I was fired. If not, tell me who you are and I will sue you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 22:10 13 June 2015


 * Saying that my previous entry "reads like a PR release" doesn't mean that it does. It means that whoever wrote that doesn't like the fact that there is anything positive at all about my entry. But I am a respected and admired and widely published writer. My entry has to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 22:10 13 June 2015
 * Otherwise why am I in Wikipedia in the first place? Why shouldn't my article be mostly positive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 23:18 13 June 2015
 * Lee, articles on Wikipedia simply tell what reliable sources have said about the article's subject. Whether those sources say positive or negative things, the requirements for inclusion in a wikipedia article are that the sources be reliable, and that the editor cite those sources.  No article should be 'positive' or 'negative' -- the goal is that they should all be objective. valereee (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, a glowing NYT review of his book was added. However, this NYT review isn't so kind. To do. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Lanchester-t.html?_r=0 --joeOnSunset (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this article sounds like the copy on the back cover of one of his books.valereee (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? Why? Because of my achievements? Why else would I be on Wikipedia? What is wrong with listing my achievements? Do they make you envious? Must you tear me down because I have positive accomplishments and professional recognition? You must then search for and exaggerate every negative thing you can find? How despicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 00:49 14 June 2015


 * Lee, when you reply on a talk page, if you start your reply with three colons beneath the post you're replying to, it will indent it so people can read the page more easily. I added them to the above one, which looked as if it were an addition to mine, which made it look like I might have posted it.  If you end your replies with four tildes, we'll be able to see when and by whom the reply was made.  valereee (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've marked everything that needs citation. valereee (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lee Siegel here. This page is clearly now skewed in an unconscionably negative way. Maslin's quote removed? A quick search will prove that it is actually hers. As it stands now, the entry is biased and disgraceful. I am passionately opposed to anonymous "revisions"--i.e. attacks. Please come forward, as I have, tell me who you are, and deal with either me or, if necessary, my lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 22:10 13 June 2015
 * Valeree? Your anonymous description says you deal with food issues. What is your interest in me? What is your expertise in the many complex issues I am involved in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 00:43 14 June 2015
 * Are you prepared to deal with all the partisan interests, hidden interests, professional rivalries and jealousies surrounding figures such as myself? Do you need sources? Then go out and find them. They are easily found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 00:49 14 June 2015
 * Lee, it's pretty clear that you are in fact authoring your own article. Autobiographies are very strongly discouraged here on Wikipedia WP:AB.  It would be better if you would edit other pages rather than your own.  valereee (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not "authoring" it. Wikipedia created it and wrote it, not me. I am protecting myself against defamatory editing and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lee, when you edit a page, you're helping author that page. EDIT TO ADD: It does look like you've been working on this page on and off for nearly ten years. If you feel that what is on this article represents libel, you can report it via a link on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel   Wikipedia takes libel very seriously for Biographies of Living Persons.  valereee (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What about balance? What about mentioning that one day after my op-ed appeared, Secretary of Education Duncan forgave the defaulted loan debt of students who were defrauded by for-profit universities? The case had been pending for some time. It was resolved in favor of the students just one day after my op-ed appeared protesting the unfair burden of student loan debt. Is that not a significant part of the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 12:08 14 June 2015
 * Lee, it may very well be -- has a reliable source commented on it, linking the two? valereee (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of people have been working on this page on and off for 10 years. Am I more biased than someone with a grudge against me who is out to discredit me? Libel--perhaps. Defamation? I had a lawyer look at what my page turned into over the past week and she said that I definitely had a case for defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 12:08 14 June 2015


 * Famous figures who have the resources hire publicists to buff and polish their Wikipedia pages. That is an open secret. I am doing nothing of the sort. I accept that I am controversial. I am presenting a balanced point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 12:15 14 June 2015


 * Finally, my wife received a call threatening me the other day. I referred to it in my CNN interview. You have to be very careful that what you allow on this page is balanced. You do not want to be responsible for, God forbid, inciting harm against my family or me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lee, please don't make legal threats. There's a very strong policy against that here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats valereee (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's see. I can't protect myself against biased editing. I am not allowed to know your identity. I can't notify you that a legal recourse is available to me. Brave new world, isn' it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 12:43 14 June 2015
 * Lee, you absolutely can protect yourself against biased editing. The link I gave above will take you to the page to report libel -- as I said, Wikipedia takes this very seriously in biographies of living persons. Here it is again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel  valereee (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lee, here's another resource -- this is a discussion board for people with concerns about biographies of living persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard valereee (talk) 17:00 14 June 2015 (UTC)

COI editing and WP:BLP
I note that the subject of the article has been editing the article and point them to WP:COI. I also note that they are not signing their posts on this talk page by using the four tildes and ask that they do so as it is very difficult to follow discussions. Lastly, I note that there are sections of the article that have no source. In the absence of a reliable source I would expect most of these paragraphs be challenged and then removed. Flat Out (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's get something clear. And then I am going to return to planet Earth. Wikipedia is a journalistic venue, not a reference work. One hour going through its entries reveals dozens of factual inaccuracies, biased and defamatory editing, ignorant and amateurish interpretations of complicated historical and biographical circumstances. I am no worse or better than any other figure written about here. My accomplishments, such as they are, are so modest, relative to who belongs in a self-styled "encyclopedia" that I don't even know why I'm in here. But, unlike you, who operates from behind a veil of anonymity, my identity is clear here. I live in a community, with my wife and two children. all three of whom are affected by the biased editing you say you prohibit, yet end up allowing. I have every right to protect what people ANONYMOUSLY say about me in public. You keep asking me to abide by rules that you made up to suit your project as if they were moral laws conferred from on high. But they are arbitrary rules that happen to suit your purpose. The whole situation is Alice-in-Wonderland absurd.

You seem to think my entry is "balanced" and "neutral" now. Fine. If that's how you want it, then keep it like that. But keep the haters and defamers out of it. And then I'll stay out of it.

I would still love to know who you are, and what experience you have that warrants your being permitted to supervise the biographical accounts of controversial people. But according to your "rules," it is outrageous for me even to ask.

Working his way through college and graduate school
Lee, we need a reference for this. The way the insertion was made, it looks like the references support working through college and grad school rather than full scholarship. And really, you really should consider NOT editing to try to make the facts look more positive. It's not a good idea. Go talk to the folks at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. They will be very helpful, I promise. valereee (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The reference is to an interview I did with CNN. Here is the link:https://twitter.com/carolcnn It's on the Twitter feed of the CNN anchor who interviewed me. You have to scroll down a little and you'll see it. I have no idea how to insert that into your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 19:50 14 June 2015
 * Lee, if you insist on editing the page, which Wikipedia strongly prefers you not do, then at minimum you need to learn how to cite sources for your assertions. If you don't, they'll be challenged and likely removed by another editor.  It's not really kosher for the subject of an article come in, make assertions, and then ask someone else to go find the supporting reference for that assertion.  And please indent your responses (you can see when you are typing in your rsponse that the person whose reply you are responding to has inserted a number of colons before their response -- all you have to do is insert one more colon than they did) and PLEASE start signing your posts (just add four tildes after you're done with your response) so that others who read this can follow the conversation and know who is saying what.valereee (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Valeree, I am not trying to make the facts look more positive. I am including all the facts. The fact that I worked even as I took out loans is essential to the context. Leaving it out is an omission that creates a false impression that is the moral equivalent of a falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk • contribs) 19:53 14 June 2015
 * Lee, it may feel essential to you, and I do understand that it's difficult when you read something that feels negative, you want to respond. But Wikipedia requires that we use information from reliable sources -- if you want to put something in an article, you have to first go find it in a reliable source. You need to find someone ELSE who has actually said those things about you.  You can't just state the facts yourself.  This is one of the reasons Wikipedia prefers people not edit their own articles.  valereee (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting previous contributions
Lee, please don't delete your previous contributions -- they're part of the talk page history. valereee (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's get something clear. And then I am going to return to planet Earth. Wikipedia is a journalistic venue, not a reference work. One hour going through its entries reveals dozens of factual inaccuracies, biased and defamatory editing, ignorant and amateurish interpretations of complicated historical and biographical circumstances. I am no worse or better than any other figure written about here. My accomplishments, such as they are, are so modest, relative to who belongs in a self-styled "encyclopedia" that I don't even know why I'm in here. But, unlike you, who operates from behind a veil of anonymity, my identity is clear here. I live in a community, with my wife and two children. all three of whom are affected by the biased editing you say you prohibit, yet end up allowing. I have every right to protect what people ANONYMOUSLY say about me in public. You keep asking me to abide by rules that you made up to suit your project as if they were moral laws conferred from on high. But they are arbitrary rules that happen to suit your purpose. The whole situation is Alice-in-Wonderland absurd.

You seem to think my entry is "balanced" and "neutral" now. Fine. If that's how you want it, then keep it like that. But keep the haters and defamers out of it. And then I'll stay out of it.
 * No, I think it still needs work, and so do other editors. That's why there are those banners across the top -- multiple editors have noted that the article needs work.  It's a way to get other editors to come take a look and see if they can help improve the article.  valereee (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I would still love to know who you are, and what experience you have that warrants your being permitted to supervise the biographical accounts of controversial people. But according to your "rules," it is outrageous for me even to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Lee, I have the ability to research what's being said in reliable sources and the willingness to cite those sources when writing. Many of us do edit in areas of particular expertise, but many of us come across an interesting topic, click to wikipedia to find a starting point for understanding that topic, and then upon finding the article is missing important information, go do the research and work on expanding the article.  That's all I'm doing here.  I'm literally just a volunteer doing work I find interesting.  I know this is difficult for those who are the subjects of articles. valereee (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Then why isn't there a masthead, or a list of editors, as there is for every other reference work, let alone journalistic venue? Why are your "subjects" not allowed to know who you are? Do you not believe that transparency works both ways? Should you and the other "volunteers" here not be accountable for the work they do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.22.182 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: why no masthead: well, there are literally millions of editors -- you're an editor, since you've edited a page. At any given point probably 100,000 editors work on the English Wikipedia in a given month.  Now, there are only about 1300 administrators, and you can find that list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000  If you want, you can talk to one of them about the situation.  Or you can go to the BLP noticeboard at   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and talk about it there.


 * Re: why usernames and even IP addresses allowed -- it's not actually anonymous, as anyone can go check out an editor's past contributions, see what's been posted on their user and talk pages, and get a fair idea of whether or not they tend to have a hobby horse -- rather than requiring real names: there are actually reasons for that here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy  but it's basically to prevent people from being afraid to edit for any number of reasons, including being threatened with legal action.  Which can be frustrating to someone in your position, but the upside is that there are checks and balances.  Because there are so many editors, badly written articles will generally get rewritten as soon as the next editor gets interested in a topic.  Certain very high profile people have thousands of editors working on their pages, and their talk pages are very extensive as the various editors work out amongst themselves what is the fairest way to present the information available from reliable sources.  See Hillary Clinton for an example. Her article's talk page has been archived 24 times.  And we -are- accountable.  I contact other editors often, and they contact me, to discuss whether a recent edit was okay.  That's what I'm doing right now with you -- trying to explain my thinking on this to another editor.  valereee (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Completed citations as best I could
I couldn't find anything even in an affiliated site that gave the number of languages for translation for the one remaining. I propose we leave it in here and keep checking -- eventually it will go up on some official bio in an affiliated site, and since it's not anything contentious I think that would be fine. The upcoming book I changed to 'forthcoming' rather than giving it a date as I got multiple hits on various dates, but that should be an easy fix once the book is actually out. valereee (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed NPOV and citations needed tags. Had removed autobiographical too, as I'd completely re-edited, but tagged it again because article's subject continues to edit. Continued patrol of this article will be necessary.  valereee (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed most of the unsupported content and have left just one tag re: the lead which could do with a sentence or two to summarise the key referenced points. Flat Out (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

undo weight solution?
I made the two controversies subsections of a single section to (I hope) give them less weight than they have as their own sections. valereee (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gah! UNDUE.  Need more coffee. valereee (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

removed lede too short
Added a sentence to summarize works and award. valereee (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)