Due to the rapid and verbose nature of this debate, comments are quickly archived. Please see December 06 2005 for the most recently archived discussion, or Archives for a detailed list of archives.

• This article has recently been linked from Slashdot (comments), a high-traffic Internet site. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the page history.
• On December 5, 2005, John Seigenthaler Sr. and Jimmy Wales appeared on Kyra Phillips' CNN show. See the segment here.

I can understand having the page protected during the current controversy, but entirely blanked? Isn't that going a bit too far? If we believe in the wikipedia process at all, why not leave a reasonable, corrected, protected version up during this awkward time? Bikeable 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we really are experiencing technical difficulties, notably undeleting the article after we deleted the bad edits. The admins are scrambling to fix the problem, and it'll be back up as soon as possible. // Pathoschild 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bikeable, yes, what Pathoschild said. :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the quick responses! Glad to see it's back. Bikeable 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For good. --VKokielov 07:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the pronunciation of "Seigenthaler", I'm not sure if the a in "thaler" is long (like day, /e/) or short (like bet, /ɛ/). Like I said before, I've never heard the name pronounced aloud so I'm unsure. Sorry if this is a stupid question. --Foofy 14:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the a sounds like that in the word "all". You may hear it here. 70.144.52.207 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wow, I was a bit off. Thanks for the link. The correct pronuncation is ['sigɛnθɔlɚ], but we should have an IPA pro check it out. I would make the update but the page is protected right now. --Foofy 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photo in the article uses the promotional fair use copyright tag... I don't think this is the correct tag, and as it stands this might be copyright infringement. Which we cannot have on an article undergoing as much scrutiny as this one. I could be wrong, but we need to be sure. Jacoplane 15:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken from the press section (specifically this page) of SMU's website. It falls under Wikipedia's policies on the fair use of press photos.

I think I have a good understanding of image copyright policies. A lot of my time is spent sorting such issues at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. This image is fine, I wouldn't have uploaded it if I wasn't sure. Don't worry.  :) --Foofy 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, when I uploaded I used the "promomotional" tag, which was a bit off. I changed it to "promophoto" as it should be. --Foofy 16:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

brian0918 is working on the revision history, removing certain libellous revisions which were inadvertantly restored. I know some people have qualms about deleting history, but this is our policy and it should be carried out the same in this case as any other. Those concerned about the historical record should know that of course all the old revisions are stored in the database so in 100 years when historians want to study this incident, they can. It's just that it would be deeply inappropriate (always) for us to keep revisions of those sort public. Please let brian do his work undisturbed. :-)--Jimbo Wales 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It is very startling to stumble onto a blank history. Article histories and discussion pages often shed more light on the nature of the information in the article. Being able to access that "black box" (in Bruno Latour's sense) is often critical to being able to trust the content -- which seems to be at the heart of the issue at hand.

Specific alterations of article history should be made as transparently as possible, perhaps leaving a notice:

Access to this portion of the page history has been removed by [[User:So and so]] because it violates [[This policy]]. Complete page histories are stored by the Wikimedia Foundation and are available to researchers according to [[This other policy]]. Dystopos 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain why taking this action is such a bad idea. You are potentially converting a situation where you are clearly not liable into a situation where you might be liable. If you start deleting access to content whenever any person asks you to, as you have done here, then in the future what happens when someone asks and you do not agree with them, they can point to your previous deletions and argue that they want the same. You would be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place: either you delete anything and everything upon request regardless of how you feel about the merits of this request, or you play judge and jury deciding what requests to comply with and what to refuse. If you take the former path, it would be a grevious blow to free speech and wikipedia's credibility, and if you take the latter approach, you might very well end up getting sued by the persons whose demands you do not obey. All of this could have been avoided if you merely stuck to your guns and told Seigenthaler to edit the article himself. By stepping in and proving once and for all that you have the right and ability to control content, and indeed that it is now POLICY that you will wield such control when faced with situations like this, you are voluntarily exposing yourself to litigation that you could have avoided altogether by taking a hands-off approach, not to mention the amount of work it will require if more Seigenthalers start popping up demanding changes to various articles. What if the Scientologists give you a call tomorrow demanding the 'defamatory' content on wikipedia be taken down? Kaltes 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting revision history… sounds a lot like totalitarianism to me. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe if we were a government, or if we were a community first and foremost. But we're not. We're an encyclopedia first, and there's no reason whatsoever to allow the content to remain. Of course, this will mean following through with others' request to remove libel from history, but we'll take those one at a time. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-7 13:06

Just to make sure everything is neutral in to regards to lambasting Wikipedia (which is happening) on the John Seigenthaler bio page please ad two articles from news,net just to balance the opinions out. This is a great project Jimmy that shouldn't go anywhere, but there are kinks needing ironing out. good night and good luck Jimmy. Briaboru 01:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)briaboru01:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Seigenthaler was founding editorial director of USA today, then it would be of interest to know the events around the founding of USA Today and his role in it. Does anyone know?--BorisG 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the Seigenthaler edit his own biography? That's the point of open source... A shared community of information. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.147.19.217 (talk • contribs) 23:24, December 6, 2005

Since someone seems utterly determined to delete anything that might correct this erroneous line of argument, I'll say it again. He was libeled. The libel was up on the encyclopedia for months. Simply correcting it and going away would not change that. There seems to be an attitude prevailing here that Wikipedia is immune to criticism because anyone can edit it. But you see, this is the source of the criticism. There is no accountability here, and that is his problem. If you're confused by this, I don't know what to say; the problem is obvious. Rogue 9 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has been deleted? Perhaps you are having hallucinations. In any case, correcting it does "change that" -- libel requires intent, and there was no intent by Jimbo to libel Seigenthaler. Seigenthaler can go after the person who posted the libel, but as Jimbo notes in the CNN piece, you need the help of the ISPs. And he also noted that this is a common situation all over the web. It's like if someone spray paints libel on the wall of a building -- the solution is not to tear down the building, or to blame and attack the owners or builders. -- 68.6.40.203 09:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Libel. The plaintiff needs to prove 'the defendant made the statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was false.' The anonymous edit was clearly "reckless disregard". ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 07:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is accountability, as witnessed by Jimbo's quick response once he was informed of the problem, and of his change to require registration to create new pages, once he identified the problem. Aside from that problem, according to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_070805_rewrite.html, "There was actually a very interesting study done up at IBM in Cambridge around a project called History Flow that looked at the history of vandalism for highly contentious subjects on the Wikipedia, whether it was abortion or Islam or Microsoft, or any topic that got some group exorcised. And what they found was that vandalism tended to last less than two minutes. People get e-mailed when a page is changed, so it's not passive monitoring. There's highly active monitoring around page changes, particularly for contentious pages, so that the vandalism is found and undone very quickly."

This was asked in the NPR interview. Feel free to listen to it. Link is in the article. —preceding unsigned comment by Gflores (talk • contribs) 00:35, December 7, 2005

There's nothing about NPR in the article. If you have a reference, you should give it, not refer to another page that may at one time have had a link to it.

Having listened to the CNN piece, I find it sad that both Seigenthaler and Phillips are so clueless about Wikipedia, Wikis, the Web, and the implications of an open medium. Phillips complains that the Wikipedia article on her doesn't reflect the way she wants to be presented -- but that isn't its purpose. And Seigenthaler complains that even the history of false charges is available -- shades of 1984, where even the record that something was said must be erased. Does he want to eliminate the google cache and archive.org as well? I realize that many people don't understand these issues, but these folks are journalists who have a responsibility to inform themselves so they can inform the public, rather than fanning the flames of censorship. -- 68.6.40.203 06:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it sad that you are so hopelessly naive about the failings of Wikipedia and are so ignorant of the fact that free speech is not a license to slander and libel. What he is doing does not constitute censorship. Whoever wrote that damaging piece about him on this encyclopedia was not acting within the bounds of free speech. Lies specifically intended to damage someone's reputation infringe on the rights of the target, and are explicitly illegal. Rogue 9 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote. Try reading it again, for comprehension this time. Seigenthaler complained that the history was available -- on the very day that the posts were made, before anyone even had time to remove them. He wants Jimbo to put prior restraints on people, which would totally destroy Wikipedia. Again, my comment was his failure to inform himself before spouting off. -- 68.6.40.203 09:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also looking for a place to talk about this whole subject, but it clearly says this talk page is the wrong place. As for your confusion, in wikipedia a single person voice isn't (or at least shouldn't) be "bigger" than anyone else's. So it wouldn't matter, even if it's a person's biography, what that person thinks about it alone. Wikipedia has a community intelligence factor, and that ideally goes over a single person's point of view. It's almost the same way that Google work to link pages, wikipedia work by linking information. Think of "PageRank of information".

But I believe we should find a better place in wikipedia to discuss this, since it's not really about John, but it's about what people think of wikipedia.

--Cacumer 22:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, that we should use neutral point of view, i.e. it should be written, that someone consider Seigenthaler, for example, living in USSR in 1972, but Seigenthaler himsel, sais that it is wrong. Dims 05:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I considered him to be living on Saturnus at the time will the article not be written from a neutral point of view unless it addressed my claims? Just because someone makes some absurd and completely unfounded claim about someone doesn't mean we have to write about it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh edit conflict. Very good point, Ævar. Dims, what if someone said on an article about you that you were a drug dealer in Indonesia? Would you not try to defend yourself and ask for the truth? NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union claim is not just false, but an attempt to paint him as a Communist. It not an innocent mistake. __Nut-meg 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone makes the assassination claims about Seigenthaler, and we can verify that, then they should be included in the article and cited—but only if we can judge those claims notable within the context of his biography. Wikipedia's notability standards are quite relaxed, of course; provided we can determine the claim has some currency among a significant number of people, that would suffice. On the other hand, if the claim is idiosyncratic, it shouldn't go in. I don't think we should be doing anything in particular just because Seigenthaler says we should. We should do what Wikipedia's policies tell us to do—but I'm in no position to determine what that is. Everyking 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with whether Seigenthaler is right, it has to do with whether claims about him are substantiated. You talk about people having the right to know the truth -- how does making unsubstantiated claims give them the truth? That was Seigenthaler's complaint, and it should be the complaint of any sensible person. -- 68.6.40.203 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to see a list of articles that exist, but have no links to them from elsewhere in Wikipedia? If such a list were available, people would more easily be able to find articles that exist and possibly contain bogus information but are not likely to be stumbled upon by the average reader.

--Quokkapox 11:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Quokkapox, such pages are called Orphan Pages. Look up the page to see a list of such pages by alphabetical order. And do add pages to the list if you know any :-). Jam2k 12:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• [saigenθa:ler]? [si:gnθa:ler], [zaigenta:ler] :-) --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 13:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Japanese article says [si:genta:ler] --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 14:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In IPA (GenAm) it's more like ['sigɛnθɔlɚ], based on what it sounds like in the CNN clip. --Foofy 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone just upload an audio pronunciation. Lotsofissues 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sei is like "SEE", gen is like "Gold pEN", thal is like "THick bALL", er is like "winnER". So I think Foofy is correct. The only change that might need to be made is there should probably be a secondary stress mark on the third syllable. But I think as it stands now is fine. Kaldari 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Details need to be added about the kidnapping. His son was the target.

Lotsofissues 13:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Varizer 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's unprotected. Protecting admins should be sure to unprotect once Jimbo's radio interviews are over. They don't last for 18hours. -Splash^talk 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another "false" claim was he berated the American Broadcasting Company or WGBH of not taking cartoons off the air, someone deleted it. Despite he didn't say anything about what was on the TV networks. He claims this was a false biography, and was not involved in the Kennedy assassinations?

The Times of London relied on this article for their article on the controversy: [1]

Lotsofissues 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we couldn't make such an article that Seigenthaler would be proud of and ask for some news authorities to publish it or at least make an apology on our behalf in some news. I suppose this would at least make people realise that what we do at WP is really important and that we are interested as this authoritative encyclopaedia stays one of the first sources refered to. Lincher 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, we should set a goal to make it a featured article. Everyking 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for it. Gflores ^Talk 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the goal be to make every arcticle (eventually) feature quality?--146.7.33.199 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course. But this should be a much more immediate goal. Everyking 20:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do we need to do to get this article up to Featured Article status? Kaldari 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Clean up Wikipedia controversy section. The whole section seems a little disjointed and kludged together. Needs a better ending at least. Kaldari 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Cleaned it up a little. Added sentence about new article creation policy that resulted. Kaldari 16:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Recruit more help. I have nominated the article for the Article Improvement Drive. Please vote for it there. Kaldari 15:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. ?
4. PROFIT!!!!!!! :-)

Why the hell is the redirect page locked from vandalism but THE ACTUAL ARTICLE isn't? You idiots.

It wouldn't be an issue if people like yourself didn't vandalise it...: [2] -- Francs 02:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree-- the redirect page is protected but the main article is not. It would make sense to lock the main article. -- Timothy Chen Allen 03:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was the interview on CNN the 5th or 6th of December? --HappyCamper 02:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5th. [3] [4]

"Afterwards the FBI appears to have collected rumors about Seigenthaler. ... He had previously promised to publish whatever the FBI gave him, and did so." Where is that published? Is it on the web? I didn't find anything searching at fbi.gov, even though they post some FOIA documents. GangofOne 06:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia staff is wrong in not allowing authors to respond to perceived libel. Don't get me wrong: I heard Mr. Seigenthaler on CSPAN asked about the Northwoods document, and he mumbled a lot of things about disinformation. Not knowing anything about him personally, this one detail suggests that he actively covers up un-American acts in the highest levels of government, for the Northwoods document is not disinformation, but was released under the Freedom of Information Act, and is suggestive of the interpretation of 9/11 in the context of the PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor". This being said, some people may have biographies with inaccurate information on them. I wrote much of the article The Exodus. My approach there was not to state the true version of events (as I understood it) to the exclusion of all others, but instead to summarize the major points of view, and their pros and cons. If something is wrongly said about somebody in a biography, that person themselves should also be considered an expert witness on the subject, even if biased witnesses. I think that defamatory content, especially that which is suspicious, but the government will not investigate it, must be protected, or else these concerns will go unvoiced. That being said, not all conspiracy theories are right. Thus, I strongly urge that the best opinions be brought to bear on any subject. Thus, uninvestigated allegations should be protected, but also the person on whom the bio is about should be available. At worst, there should be a link to the authors rebuttal on the main page. Mr. Seigenthaler oddly suggests that the Internet's protections for free speech may be taken away if incorrect charges are not allowed to be rebutted. At the same time, he runs this First Amendment center, as if he is for free speech. Perhaps we should distrust the true motives of his foundation, but if the best charges and the best rebuttals are both available, then we get the best version of the facts from which to form our own opinions. If he spins misinformation on rebutting his critics, then so let it be. In a free intellectual environment, Mr. Seigenthaler should not fear the charges if he is allowed to rebut, and he is in the right, but also, the critics should be content to be able to voice their concerns and respond to his rebuttal, and the real information will still get out. Identifying all sources for Wikipedia information may chill some contributions. The ultimate success of Wikipedia I think will be in conflict resolution. I was very concerned my article on the Exodus would get hacked up by people maintaining fringe theories, so I tried to provide headings for them to air their points of view, and such counter arguments as seemed telling from a neutral (although scientifically-minded) point of view. For some articles, I anticipate people with limited perspectives hacking up each other's articles. The Wikipedia staff will need the good education and thoughtful editing to try to preserve the best points of view of ALL sides, and only then will some of the disinformation that has been the mainstay of the news media be cleared up. True patriots should celebrate the distilling of the best points of view, and placing in some sort of perspective. I'm not even sure that saying "what a fag" is constructive, without at presenting compelling evidence that he's at least some sort of intelligence community wonk, etc. It's an ad homonym attack, "against the man", and currently, everybody loses, since the charges that he conspired in the assassination of Robert Kennedy are not there, not giving us any basis for the statement "what a fag", nor are any rebuttals present. Only open information standards can save us from massive misinformation campaigns underway throughout the U.S. and the world. To mute the charges, if they seem to be at all meritorious, is to limit what we can say about potentially true conspiracies. There are too few avenues for this already. To mute the rebuttal, I suggest, also sets a bad precedent. If they want to limit the free speech of people through Congress, when a plurality of views is being presented, would only underscore what some conspiracy theorists have been claiming already. It would be the action of a dictatorship. Don't limit our conspiracy theory ideas, and don't give Congress the excuse. Even a conspiracy theory that has essentially no merit should be mentioned, with its counterargument, so that people don't walk around with the wrong idea of the subject. I did it in my article, and I expect no less out of the Internet community, one of the last bastions of the truly free flow of ideas left. Note how except for CSPAN, television doesn't allow ordinary people to give their opinions on the air without being highly vetted. Why is this? Are they afraid somebody will mention the many evidences of an inside job on 9/11? If so, why are they afraid? A truly free press should allow these concerns to be voiced and refuted. That is not what we have on TV. The news services no longer serve us, and the politicians no longer serve us. To allow public pressure to force a removal of the claims against Mr. Seigenthaler only begs the path of making Wikipedia no more informative than the TV news media - especially if they might even be thought to have any merit. To not allow him to respond means the conservatives can point and claim yet another phony liberal conspiracy, as they are so wont to do. To allow the free flow of information may yet save us, and anybody who says otherwise is un-American. If all points of view get a fair airing, only the guilty need fear the truth. --ThaThinker 23:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All -- I saw Seigenthaler's interview on CSPAN this morning. He said, among other things, that the current biography still contains two "harmless" errors -- one, he's credited with writing a book that was actually written by his son (not specified which). He also said the information about the bomb threat in Nashville was directed at his son, not at him. "I think they probably picked it up from Editor and Publisher, which was wrong. But they [the magazine] corrected it." I'm not sure which book is incorrect, but I'll remove the information about the Nashville bomb threat etc. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 00:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to amazon.com, Nashville: City of Note is by "John M. Seigenthaler" so I've moved that book to his son's article. Gamaliel 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good article in the New York Times today about this. The formerly-anonymous Wikipedia editor has voluntarily come forward, confessed and aplogized to Seigenthaler, and explained that he did it as a prank, not realizing that anyone took Wikipedia seriously. (He's also resigned from his job, fearing that his employer was taking heat as the holder of the IP address from which the edits were made, after inquiries from none other than Daniel Brandt.) Steve Summit (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was really classy the way Seigenthaler handled things after the guy apologized. The article says they talked for a while and he urged the guy's boss to hire him again. So while I think the whole Wikipedia dissing was a not nice, I think he's a pretty cool dude. Different generation, but still cool. End pointless rant. --Foofy 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am miffed at the seriousness of the action.

--60.254.104.18 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned with the 'free speech' aspects of this debate. After all, from what I gather, Seigenthaler wasn't accused of "being a Kennedy assassin" but was "believed to be connected to the assassinations for a brief time". Seigenthaler has been going on the talk show circuit given what seems to me to be carte blanche freedom to say whatever he wants about wikipedia such as " Wikipedia is totally irresponsible". Isn't this December 9th, quote from Morning Journal on CSPAN libelous in itself? This very discussion is evidence in itself that Wikipedia isn't "totally irresponsible", especially since the authorship is registered now giving it the same credibility as any book. I had wished Wikipedia had stood its ground in a different way but I totally agree with the registration that resulted. I think the protests by Seigenthaler was given too much credibility and air time and wonder what lies in store for free speech on the internet.

I added a line in the introductory paragraph: "He is perhaps best known for his recent attacks against Wikipedia, which have resulted in new restrictions being placed on unregistered contributors to the encyclopedia." I believe this statement to be beyond disputable. Nobody I've talked to has heard of him outside of the context of the controversy. I imagine that's why his article was inaccurate for so long. But User:Pgk has reverted my edit, without a comment. Should I rephrase it to "recent criticisms" or something? Or was the edit lost in all the vandalism repair? A5 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]