Talk:Joel Siegel

Clerks incident

Why do we need mention of the Clerks II "incident?" It's amusing, interesting, etc. But doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. It's not historically important, it's not important in the life of Joel Siegel (nor Kevin Smith, etc) and seems included solely to feed on our tabloid curiosities. Especially considered it makes up half of the entire article. There's just no good reason for it. - Pariah23 — Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It speaks of his unprofessional behavior during that incidenct and possible ghostwriting of (at the very least) the headlines on his ABC website. Chad Hennings 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Kevin Smith was a total gentleman about the whole situation. Didn't he invite him on a radio show, only to call him gay slurs and make fun of his mustache for ten straight minutes? I hope he's ashamed of himself in light of recent events, but that's assuming he's actually CAPABLE of shame. --M.Neko 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being mentioned, but at present it makes up about half the article. This seems a bit unbalanced unless this is the main thing he is known for. (and I don't think it is)--T. Anthony 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia normally track the unprofessional behavior of every person profiled? If Siegel had been arrested for money laundering or armed robbery, then perhaps that unprofessional behavior is worth mentioning. Rudely interrupting a movie? Please. And someone ghost writing headlines is hardly shocking, interesting, or significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pariah23 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is significant as it's received news coverage, so a small mention might be appropriate. But I definitely agree with T. Anthony that it should not amount to half the article. Themindset 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it has an appropriate amount of coverage, the *problem* is that this man led a very full and rich life, and the rest of it needs to be filled in to balance it out. --Thespian 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the coverage is by the participants in the alleged incident and the other source is a gossip site. Unless there are reliable third party sources found for it, it should go. Even with reliable sources it shouldn't comprise half the article.Capitalistroadster 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - unless we can find a few neutral sources that not just report the incident but make it clear that this incident was somehow significant, then it doesn't belong. Rklawton 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, this isn't an AfD. There was enough coverage of it at the time (I first saw it on CNN, and at the time Opie and Anthony were nationally syndicated) that regardless of whether we can find cites now, it should be mentioned. A search on google for 'joel siegel clerks' turns up 45000 hits on this; even if the coverage has expired, as news coverage does, it certainly was a rather significant event that many people felt they needed to mention, and we'd be remiss to remove it. --Thespian 05:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

more: whatr the article REALLY needs is a good juicy chunk of what he was doing at GMA for the last 26 years; ironically, I can't seem to find it in searches for seigel; every article is either about his death or Clerks II. I'd like to discuss the punny quotable review snaps, his career on camera, etc., but all I can find are 'He worked there for that long'. Instead of removing the highly citable Clerks II stuff (it was covered on CNN, Fox, MSNBC and nightlies, though it was repetitive and most of them just reported on what we can provide citations directly to, so I just added CNN and Fox to give an idea), perhaps you can find something to flesh out what he's been up to the rest of the time.

While I usually avoid linking to YouTube, in this case, an EL or two to one of his reviews (there or on ABCnews.com might be an idea to give people an idea of what his reviews were like.) --Thespian 05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking about this incident is absurd. If you want to look for flaws in Siegel's life story, there are plenty. Up the the opening graf it says he was at the scene of the assassination of RFK. It says he met MLK. I knew Joel like a brother, He never told me any of this. I do not believe a word of it. Joel was prone to exaggeration. So what? So is everybody. I could tell you worse about him, but I could also tell you things he accfomplished that are extraordinary and that should be on the record. This is so far a totally sloppy obit. Link2dan 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a very notable, noteworthy (and published) incident and it belongs in the article. Lesser events of celebrities are included in their articles under sections called "Controversy(ies)." This was in fact a controversy and it clearly belongs here. Let's not engage in Wikiality. No, it didn't define him or his life - but he did it - it happened - and it belongs here. It goes from half the article - too poof - gone?! That's ridiculous. How about a happy medium? A coupl of paragraphs? The recording of his call to the radio show alone shows that everything happened as reported - he admits it. No need to rely on gossips sites etc. That's a BS excuse. The incident is significant due to his celebrity and that it happened in his professional role as a move reviewer. Wikipedia needs to apply the same standards across the board. Put it back. I believe I've touched on every argument against reinstating the event - looking forward to a response. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.52.112 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Came here to read about the Clerks incident but it isn't here. Unbelievable. Wiki needs to grow a pair. Is the admin protecting this article a big Joel Siegel fan or perhaps a family member? The incident is a noteworthy controversy that did in fact take place as evidenced by the audio recording. http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/19/smith-vs-siegel-round-2/ It belongs in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.30.185 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Partner?

I just read about his passing on the IMDb, and they say he is survived by his wife Ena, this article says he has a partner, implying that he is gay. At least I can't tell because the name of the person isn't exactly sex defining. Anyone have any info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.146.45 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No partner... Just a wife and son — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themistersmama (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Biography assessment rating comment == The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, this article can be expanded focusing on his overall career. The Clerks II incident should be pruned severely even if it is consistent with guidelines Capitalistroadster 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've added a reference and some more info, as well as fixed the Clerks stuff, I've reassessed at start-class. MSJapan 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MSJapan for the work. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ena: wife #3 or #4?

Whether Ena was his 3rd or 4th wife, I do not know. I found 10 sources that say third and one that says fourth. The LA Times and the NY Post both say 3rd. The Arizona Republic says 4th. I think we should stick with the majority on this until something more definitive comes along. Rklawton 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My name is Dan Cooper. I worked with and was a close friend of Joel's during the 70's and 80's. Let's clear up this wife business. Marriage #1 and the divorce took place in California. If you need details on this contact Eileen Imber in Manhattan. Marriage #2: I introduced him to Jane Kessler. They married, and Jane tragically died of a glioblastoma. Marriage #3. I barely knew this girl, who was much younger than Joel. I think her first name was Melissa. Joel put her through cooking school. When she graduated she left him. In his home in Connecticut, he put in a full restaurant kitchen for her. I was there and saw it. So she left him and that was that. Ena was wife #4. Period. Link2dan 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, thanks for taking the time to help with Jeol's article. Here's the problem. Anyone can register for an account here. Anyone can edit articles. Anyone can claim to be anyone, and there's not much we can do about it - except this: we require verifiable and reliable sources. In short, we depend on published sources for our facts. If you can point us toward such information sources, we'll be happy to incorporate that information. Does Joel mention any of this in his book? I'd be glad for an excuse to read it. Rklawton 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a primary source. You, for example, have no knowledge of Joel or in fact the business. Joel's book, like that of many other news celebrities I know, are as much fiction as fact. There are countless people who know, for example, about his third wife. Minimally hundreds. How absurd is it that you suggest it has to be in print. Primary sources are primary sources, sir. Find two who agree and that's what's called a fact. You can go ahead and phoney up a bio about Mr. Siegel. Notice that absolutely no one else who actually knew him is helping put this together. Who qualified you to write about Joel Siegel?71.249.78.152 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm soory, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, subscribes to neutral point of view, and has set policies on sourcing. Generally, biographies put together by people who know the subject are frowned upon because of hagiography. I'm normally not rude, but we have no way to verify who you are, and even if we did, you don't count as a source, because you're unreliable. moreover, who are you, who doesn't even have an account registered here, to talk about what Wikipedia policies should be so they fit what you want? Go get a blog to be indignant on, sir. MSJapan 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, for the editors of Wikipedia, is the foundation of the future complete unreliability of Wikipedia as an accurate source. When BaskinRobbins employees and DunkinDonut donut makers start writing biographies based on existing possibly badly sourced and semi-fictional journalism, let alone celebrity autobiographys, the most absurd form of ghost written fictionalized garbage, the world of knowledge is at its end. Wikipedia needs to deal in proper history: accessing primary sources. I've said enough on all of this. Joel Siegel's memorial is his problem now. You rock collectors can get back to your hobbyLink2dan 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Debate it at the village pump, then. Not here. MSJapan 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically prohibits primary sources. Perhaps you have us confused with Wikinews? I've posted some useful links on your talk page. Give them a read when you have the time. They'll explain a lot about what Wikipedia is and how we go about editing our articles. You'll see, in the end, that for an encyclopedia anyone can edit, what we do makes a lot of sense. Rklawton 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate

In 2005 he received an honorary doctor of humanities degree from the Savannah College of Art and Design, but it is not listed in his awards section. One would think this would qualify for acknowledgment, even if it wasn't widely publicized. SCAD article Connect Savannah Article" Kartos (talk) 16:06

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joel Siegel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609122857/http://www.wchstv.com/abc/gma/joelsiegel.shtml to http://www.wchstv.com/abc/gma/joelsiegel.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)