Talk:Richard Seymour (21st-century writer)

Pedantry
I propose that the first sentence, which currently reads: "Richard Seymour (born 1977) is a British Marxist writer, activist and owner of the blog Lenin's Tomb."

should be amended to

"Richard Seymour (born 1977) is a British Marxist writer, activist and owner, in so far as things can or should be "owned", of the blog Lenin's Tomb." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.178.6 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Free Advertisement?
This page reads like an advertisement for a blog and a set of links rather than an informative article.

Noisms (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At present it does, but no problem with 'third party' references for this article's subject. Philip Cross (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Well over three quarters of the article is about Richard, his first book, and his other publications, so how you can say this is an 'advert' for his blog is entirely mysterious.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Rosa, I would note that the above comment is from 2008. A perusal of the history of the article shows that a good deal of work has been done on the article since that time. No doubt it is much better now that it was three years ago.

JimFarm (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by 86.179.94.8 and 82.17.217.35
Users with IP numbers: 86.179.94.8 and 82.17.217.35 (probably the same person) are engaging in vandalism of this page. Please monitor this activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AthenaM (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality - could someone help in making this more objective
I'm quite new to Wikipedia so I don't know how to edit, but this article is far from balanced. Considerably more weight is given to favourable views of his work (especially regarding 'Unhitched') with two reviews from In These Times for whom Seymour is a writer and only one 'mixed' review mentioned which is not representative of a number of very savage reviews in the Sunday Times http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/books/non_fiction/article1204264.ece including lines such as 'The worst thing about Seymour’s book is that he thinks he writes as well as Hitchens, with embarrassing consequences.' The line 'The book was forcefully denounced by one reviewer, however, as "sectarian and mean-spirited"' fails to mention that this was Fred Inglis writing for the Independent (another respected broadhseet UK paper) and Inglis writes also in this review that 'This little book is 134 pages long. The Author shouldn't have done it. It's paltry and trivially abusive.'

My point is that the best bits of the good reviews have been used and the lest critical bits of mixed reviews, with no real critical content making it onto this page, which indicates a bias. Nor is it quite right to make implications on this page such as 'Unhitched was given a more mixed review in the conservative British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph' (i.e. that the review was mixed because of an editorial bias in the paper which is not representative of a consensus in the mainstream press that has been highly critical of the book) while failing to mention that the good reviews came from Seymour's collegues at In These Times.

Apologies for not being more used to wikipedia. Perhaps someone can clean up this article to make it more objective?

Thanks --Degurds (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In which case, Degurds, I am sure you would like to read Richard's reply to the review in the Times:

http://www.leninology.co.uk/2013/02/opuscular-perfectly-cromulent-expression.html

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I had already read it. My point was not that Semour had not replied to the criticism. Far from it. His blog has many replies to reviews. My point was that THIS article was biased because it cites chiefly favourable reviews and excludes the bulk of criticism. Whether or not Richard Seymour believes the criticism to be fair has no bearing on this page, nor are his views on those unfavourable reviews likely to be objective either.

Degurds (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  08:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Potentially Malicious Site: (Blackhat seo SPAM)
 * hxxp://www.zero-books.net/	"cheap cialis"
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/c9c587653c7f7dcde0e752953ea6e749c1c5ac0bc40b7666456cc3a2749f69df/analysis/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.zero-books.net
 * hxxp://www.johnhuntpublishing.com/login-v2.html		"viagra for sale"
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/4b4d76d141ef57c5bf20b8f9a71a12d1e7bbbd0e354eb6519e56b7979638604b/analysis/1374134964/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.johnhuntpublishing.com


 * I have reverted your edit for the same reasons I have explained at Talk:Laurie Penny. Philip Cross (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-promotion
This wiki article has clearly degenerated into self-promotion. The intro section was overburdened with irrelevant facts. Superfluous material has been deleted, leaving a more streamlined introduction which sticks to the basic facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.14.77 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Richard Seymour (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090218225711/http://versobooks.com:80/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml to http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081214193122/http://timesonline.typepad.com:80/oliver_kamm/2008/12/more-valuable-a.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2008/12/more-valuable-a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotional
Tagged page for promotional tone/advertising style. Tag should not be removed until someone wades in, deflates the hype, rewrites in a neutral tone and brings secondary sources that evaluate his work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disgrace
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/02/guardian-writer-if-burned-falklands-hero-knew-anything-hed-still-have-his-face/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.217.26 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Breitbart is not considered a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits of Al-Andalusi on 20 February
The url which this editor insists on adding does not mention Richard Seymour at all, a requirement, nor do the two sources by Peck and Elgot identify the "Jewish journalist" or any of them state that he is an Israeli settler. The other version is an illegitimate synthesis. I have also restored the passage mentioning Seymour's invitation to Liverpool last year which gained plenty of media attention last year. Philip Cross (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Peck and Elgot are not the last word on the matter. Just because they do not state that he was a settler/hasbara activist does not mean other sources are to be dismissed.
 * 2) Seymour wrote on his blog: "He turns out to be a settler and hasbara activist, who runs an American-Israeli PR firm". The JP link, while not mentioning Seymour, backs this claim.
 * 3) There is no evidence that this settler is a "journalist". Further, the description "jewish" is extremely troubling and insinuates anti-semitism. Wikipedia is under no obligation to copy the tactics of the trashy British media.
 * 4) You have not talked about your removal of the complete quote from Seymour. This betrays your bias. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. I cited reliable sources following policy stated there, you do not.
 * 2. A deviation which attempts to excuse Richard Seymour.
 * 3. "Cut his throat" is incitement to murder. You cannot identify him as a "settler"/ or "hasbara activist" and reject "Jewish journalist" (in fact a quote from Richard Seymour) because you don't want Seymour to be lumped in with some of Jeremy Corbyn's former friends.
 * 4. The full quote I removed reads: "He makes me sick. He's a piece of shit. He's standing there complaining that the army isn't helping the colonists keep the Palestinians in their place. Fuck him, they should cut his throat". Someone added Seymour's apology, which is presumably therefore disingenuous if the full quote is to be retained. (You appear to writing for him.) The most tendentious, much quoted final sentence, is all that is really needed. Philip Cross (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "You appear to writing for him". Well. The fact that you purposefully removed the cited full quote, twice, tells me everything I need to know about your disingenuous edits and character. Also, here at Wiki, we don't give a damn how you view Seymour's apology and that you think it is not "worthy" of inclusion because of that. That's straight censorship. And you claim that Seymour affirmed that this settler is a journalist. Not true.


 * "With that said, I made an attempt at compromise, keeping the details of the conference controversy drama, kept the journalist claim but with attribution to the trashy British media journalists, and presented Seymour's quote fully:
 * "Elgot of The Guardian and Peck at The Independent claimed the Israeli was a "journalist", whereas Seymour questioned the "journalist" claim and says "he turns out to be a settler and hasbara activist, who runs an American-Israeli PR firm".
 * I believe that's reasonable. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Still disputed?
The 'Controversial assertions' section still carries a neutrality notice, although to me eyes the situation described on this talk page has been resolved. Should I remove the notice, or is there still an issue? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A bit like a dustjacket detail
A lot of this article reads like the sort-of thing you see on the duskjacket of a book. There is definitely too much non-encyclopedic tone going on. I'll get it an edit. Seaweed (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)