Talk:Lee Siegel

Someone want to parse this for reality:

"My name is Lee Siegel and I am writing to you with regard to the entry you have for me in your "encyclopedia," or whatever it is. You say that I was "canned" at the New Republic, and that I was "fired." That is utterly false. I was suspended, and I returned there in April 2007. I can easily prove that. You have libeled and defamed me. That is also easy to prove. I expect you to change my entry immediately."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

He returned to write one book report. Thus, suspension is technically correct. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have an article on this guy?

Never heard of this guy, probably have never read him. Which specific mission point is he relevant to? The article reads as "hey, I don't like this guy," and not "hey, here's something important re: woo/pseudoscience/fundamentralism/religion you should know about..." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am the subject of this article, Lee Siegel, and first I want to thank whoever it is who is questioning the legitimacy of this entry. I, too, have no idea why I am here. I think your mission objectives are worthy and admirable, but I don't see where I fit into them. I have nothing to do with anti-rationalism or any of the regrettable trends you are taking on. And aside from that, this entry is nothing but a string of abusive insults and malicious insinuation. The incident with Kincaid is trivial, was not talked about, had no repercussions, and he never responded. He is not a "social scientist." He is an English professor. My blog posts about him are completely forgotten and had no effect on the culture. As for "blogofascism," I'm flattered that you think it was some type of contribution, but it wasn't. No one remembers it, the term is never used, and it disappeared into the mists of obscure internet friction along with the Kincaid incident.

As for what happened at the New Republic, my suspension had more to do with personal relationships at the magazine, a right-wing owner who was losing his mind and was furious with me for criticizing the Iraq War an Israel, and a very young editor who wanted to encourage abusive commenters' threads in order to attract page-views. I was called a "pedophile" on those threads. The New Republic incident, now also completely forgotten, had many different facets, most of them hidden from public view. It is wrong and harmful to imply that I was malfeasant in any way. In fact, if I had been I would not be writing for all the publications I have written for since then. And the insinuation that I am a pedophile is shameful, and hurtful, and just plain wrong. I have two young children who will grow up to read this, for heaven's sake.

So my question to you, fair-minded editor whoever you are, is why am I here? I can think of any number of writers who have more to do with the anti-rationalist streak in American culture now than me. Kincaid never "got in trouble' because of my post. And to repeat, he is not a social scientist.

I have written honorably and honestly for many years, taking unpopular positions many of which you no doubt would be sympathetic to. Why am I the subject of a malicious, abusive entry? I am hardly a famous public figure. And my work has nothing to do with your goals here on this site. "Hack journalist"? Is that really what I am? Can you prove it?

Finally, why does a wikipedia devoted to rationality and objectivity allow an entry on someone--me--that was clearly created by someone who has a vicious prejudice against me, an entry filled with insults, malicious innuendo and animated by a clear attempt to harm me professionally? I think, in the name of fairness, you should at least contact the person who created this entry and try to find out why he or she wrote it. Such violent prejudice has no place here. I would like to ask you to remove my entry altogether. It has no business being here.

Thank you. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.70.210.215 / talk / contribs} 13:32 (UTC), 6 October 2013

P.S. I never, NEVER accused Kincaid of being a pedophile. I don't accuse people of things. Kincaid had published several pieces of writing defending pedophilia in theory. I asked him if, given the immoral and illegal nature of what he was defending, he practiced it himself. That was well within my purview as a journalist.

The irony to this whole affair with RationalWiki is that I feel flung back to the early days of the internet, when anyone could say anything about anybody behind the mask of anonymity. That, as you know, barely exists now. Comments threads are heavily edited in major and minor publications. May I ask you, since you know who I am, and even where I live, who you are? Otherwise this exchange represents the very type of irrationality you are--again, worthily and admirably--so passionately opposed to.

^{— Unsigned, by: 173.70.210.215 / talk / contribs} 14:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Lee, you are not welcome to call people pedophiles here. Unlike you, we aspire maintain some level of civility and respect for others. Hipo^crite 17:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Civility and respect for others? Then why do you call me a "hack journalist"? Is that civil or respectful? I am writing under my own name. You are jousting with me and insulting me from behind an alias. Is that civil or respectful? Your entry on me is animated by spite and has an insinuating, abusive, subjective tone. Is that civil, or respectful, or worthy of your website? May I suggest that you contact the creator of the entry on me, to see if he or she--it's got to be a he--has any ulterior motive? Finally, to repeat, I never called anyone a pedophile, nor do I do so here.

Well, enough. I've asked you to take down this shameful and childish attack on my character. If you won't, you won't. There is nothing I can do about it. Adieu. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.70.210.215 / talk / contribs}

In Scope

This article is in scope because of his attack on Kincaid, who is you know, a social scientist who got in trouble with Siegel because he studied the sexualization of children in media. Hipo^crite 22:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, he coined a term for a very important branch of facism - blogofacism, which liberals use on conservatives when they call them names. "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." Hipo^crite 22:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So he disagreed with, what, an English professor on his analysis of how children are sexualized in the media? English lit professors aren't social scientists to begin with. They're in the humanities. So that dispute is mission-worthy how? And "blogofacism" gets not a lot of hits, most of which seem to be on obscure blogs. I think there's a pretty big over-estimation of this guy's influence here. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

He didn't disagree - he called the guy a pedo. I disagree with the irrelevancy of blogofascism - how dare we ignore such an important contribution to types of fascism - mentioned in such not-obscure places such as [1] William Sapphire, [2] New Scientist. Hipo^crite 22:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Some guy called some professor a nasty word. That's sandbox stuff, not article stuff. Whatever. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say delete. The guy probably wrote or edited the article himself. ROPChain (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. Sophie^Wilder 18:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

so...

How bout that giant fuck off tag declaring the article unmissional?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD time, I think. Bicycle^wheel 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)