Talk:John Seigenthaler

File:Walesvseigenthaler.jpg

This article has recently been linked from the moderate traffic web site Slashdot in its Your rights online section. The usual link used for high traffic websites contains the inaccurate claim that the history of the article is complete, when it has in fact been edited to remove the material being discussed at Slashdot, so would contradict the claim made by the author of the newspaper item being discussed.

Conduce to libel

I have updated this article with an explanation of where problems can occur. It's really to do with the providers. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why was this featured in the news? Anyway, I read the article by Mr. Seigenthaler... if he was offended, he or any one who knew him in depth should have reverted the changes or contacted an admin. It was just by chance that no one caught the mistake for that long. It's his loss if he thinks Wikipedia is a joke; the "millions" others mentioned in his article would vehemently disagree. --Madchester 07:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Madchester is talking about Template:In the news... not in the news as in the USA Today! As for him believing the site to be a joke, I don't think he does. He's quite upset (justifiably) that some idiot libelled him. This said, I personally blame the providers for not assisting correctly. Don't forget that it a) took a lawyer, and b) it is a media personality with quite some clout before they even provided him with the information on how he could gain the personal details of the person who libelled him. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. it's ironic, but this is the question posed by Daniel Brandt on Wikipedia watch. The answer to Daniel and John is that they can ask a court to get the details from the provider, then they can sue the defamer. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. Even when the changes are reverted in Wikipedia, the libelous comment could have (and has) already spread all over the web. "It was just by chance that no one caught the mistake for that long." No. It's quite normal. He is not Bush or Hitler, so very few people know about the guy. Very few could have corrected that information. I don't think Wikipedia is a joke, but I do think this is a serious problem.BorisG 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

But really, if very few could have corrected the information, then by implication very few should have seen the incorrect information. I would actually think that the number of people who reads a vandalised article before it is corrected remains fixed, regardless of the popularity of the article. But this is of course pure conjecture -- it would be interesting to investigate it further. Grahn 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your implication isn't correct. The number of people reading something is always likely to be considerably larger than the number who can contribute to it, no matter what the subject. With Wikipedia's increasing popularity, the proportion of people who come to it to find information, rather than contribute, is likely to increase. This means that we have to take incidents like this much more seriously. ianbetteridge 11:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding what I said. I never said that equally few should have seen the incorrect information as could have corrected it. What I said was that roughly the same number of people will read incorrect information before it is corrected, regardless how long it takes for it to be corrected. (Judging from the wikipedia statistics on the number of article edits versus article views, this number seems to be less than 10, if I interpret it correctly.) The only assumption I have made is that any random person reading an article is equally likely to be a person that will correct it. Of course, this likely not always true, but I don't think it is far from the truth in the general case. However, I share your concern for the credibility of wikipedia. Grahn 12:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit of a shame about the apparent vandalism that occured to the biography, but many things have to be considered with a project this large, and with this many users (the count at the time of writing was 620,139 registered users/editors):

1. Not all articles that are featured in regular encyclopedias will be referenced. In this respect, Wikipedia is no different, and thus any vandalism that occurs in a little-referenced article can go largely unnoticed until, as is the case here, an accidental find exposes it.
   Also, it must be remembered that, despite the wide range of topics here, we all have our little specialities, so if someone isn't quite enthused by journalism, as an example, then of course they will largely miss the articles about major journalism figures.
2. Vandalism occurs everywhere, in both the physical and virtual world, whether we want it to or not. And yes, some of it is offensive. And again, some of it is out of human sight most of the time. (This point ties in the one above.)
3. Not all the contributors source their work (just about all the responsible ones will, but not all contributors are responsible). This can make it even more difficult to determine whether the information given is accurate or not. (Note that I didn't say 'impossible'.) Thus, yet again, vandalism can go unnoticed, especially to untrained eyes.

Now, this list isn't exhaustive, I'm sure; I'd be more prepared to say it's the tip of the iceberg. But I will say this much: Incorrect information is present everywhere (I could name names, however that'd just be little more than rude and inconsiderate). What we have to do is realise that it's incorrect, and either ignore it or, as it is in Wikipedia's case, remove it. --JB Adder | [[User talk:Jb-adder|Talk]] 09:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that only registered users with confirmed e-mail addresses should be allowed to edit. We cannot expect responsibility with no accountability. Anonymous posting is bound to lead to trouble.

Also, changes to any watched page, especially a user's Talk page, should optionally be e-mailed to the user, for those of us who contribute occasionally, but do not check our watched pages or Talk page every day. Wrolf 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy

Seigenthaler's biography on Wikipedia was tainted by a false and vandalous entry between May and September, 2005. The information was spread across dozens of Wikipedia mirrors before it was discovered and deleted. Seigenthaler wrote about his experience with the vandalism in USA Today on November 29, 2005. He expressed deep concern for the inability of anyone to determine who was responsible for the libel and decried online privacy laws, writing "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."

Wikipedia has had numerous problems with Internet providers who use proxies and dynamic IP addresses, which at times inadvertantly gives their customers complete anonymity. The IP address or usernames of all Wikipedia users is logged and it is quite clear who has written what in the page history. In the case of the vandalism of Seigenthaler's article, it was shown that the IP address 65.81.97.208 was the author of the edit, and the logs show that the edit was made at 00:29, May 27, 2005 (currently the revisions are deleted, only administrators can review the content, though anyone can view the time and IP addresses of the edits). A whois of ARIN shows that the IP address belongs to BellSouth, an major U.S. Internet Service Provider. A reverse domain name lookup resolves this to adsl-065-081-097-208.sip.bna.bellsouth.net.

Wikipedia has previously had issues with other large providers, such as Australia's Ozemail (their security team told Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu that he could block the IP address range he asked about, as they said it was only being used by their proxy servers - this proved false) and AOL, who uses centralised proxies which users cannot bypass. These providers have been less than responsive to Wikipedia when asked for assistance in dealing with page vandalism.

---

Of course it's neutral but I don't think it belongs onto the article page but onto the discussion page, or at least only for a few days. -- TomK32 07:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't it belong on te article page? He's published an opinion piece in a major daily newspaper - his comments about Wikipedia, whether anyone agrees or not, are highly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Because I don't think it will be interesting (in this detail) anymore in ten or twenty years. -- TomK32
    • I disagree. As Wikipedia becomes more mainstream, conflicts like this are important milestones to note. It's both an object lesson in the foibles of Wikipedia - and a clear demonstration that now, more than ever, Wikipedia is becoming a part of the mainstream American culture. It's not every day that a journalist of Seigenthaler's stature writes about an Internet encyclopedia. FCYTravis 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, given that he's referred to the Communications Decency Act, which was also ammended by the USA PATRIOT Act, I believe that it's most likely notable material. I'd certainly still be interested in a few years time. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I concur with Ta bu shi da ya. The Land 11:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
          • My opinion is somewhere in the middle. The incident itself is notable, but the way it is described in the artcile sounds more like a Wikipedia's response to the USA Today article. Strictly speaking, comments about Wikipedia's troubles in tracing contributors are original research. -- 11:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What if it becomes a seperate article altogether, with only a reference in Mr. Seigenthaler's article. It is an interesting case study. -- user:zanimum
    • Yes, please. There should be a spearate, featured-quality article about Wikipedia controversies. None better to write such a beast than the community. Then there can be deep links from pages such as this one; having the majority of the Seigenthaler article be about WP is unbalanced (His life is far more important than this footnote to it). +sj + 15:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How about moving it to WikiNews? Isn't that why we have WikiNews? For moving short-living content to a better place? --TomK32

I think there are two serious problems with this as it stands. First, the controversy thing is longer than the rest of the article. Mr. Seigenthaler is not notable mostly for his controversy with wikipedia. That maybe how most of us found out about him, but not why he should be included in our encyclopedia. Second, the end of the section is clearly "wikipedia's" response. What does our dealings with an Austrailian ISP or AOL have to do with Seigenthaler? Someone from Bell South vandalized his page. I think the section should be there, but much shorter. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like there should be an entirely separate article, probably a "Current Event" article; and that this article should only have a one-line link to that news item at the top or bottom of the page. Don't let POV bias slip in: this may be a big deal for Wikipedia, and might be even a historical event for Wikipedia (for better or worse), but it's a drop in the bucket of the life of a man like Mr. Seigenthaler. --IQpierce 9:12 CST, 1 Dec 2005

"populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellect" As opposed to the mainstream media, populated by professional vandals with poison-pen agendas? As if Dan Rather, Bob Woodward, and Chris Matthews haven't attempted far worse feats of character assassination? It's only when a member of the press (cue heavenly music) get's hit with something unjust that we learn how unfair journalism hurts our democracy. proteus71 14:46, 1 Dec 2005.

Why remove ([1])? I think it's important to point out rebuttals to the subjects assertions in the USA today article to maintain NPOV. Airing only the subject's views is not NPOV. Edit: I've restored the text but with reference to Slashdot remove. Hopefully this will placate others who find this self-referential.

• Presenting the facts alone would be both more encyclopedic and less POV than presenting all possible opinions about this issue. The publication of the editorial is fact. Rebuttal is not necessary. This isn't Crossfire. Dystopos 16:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't really notable. Nobody is going to be interested in the predictable internal unrest of the Wikipedia community due to criticism. If the Wikimedia Foundation had an opposing viewpoint, that might be worth noting (and disappointing). ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It *IS* a fact that there is a sizeable number of people who disagree with this. Presenting the opinion of the subject (including quotes which are rather incendiary) but not representing differing opinions by a large number of people (in large enough numbers, even non-public-figures count as notable IMHO). Yes it's not crossfire, but it should include factual representations of both sides of the disagreement. While it's obvious to any frequent Wikipedia reader that there would be such dissent, to a non-savvy reader it would appear that there are no differing opinions. 134.50.7.201 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."

Yes, they're called "we the people". Hope you got my IP as I flew past. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Original entry

Based on the Nationmaster Google mirror, the original entry seems to be this:

FALSE ENTRY: John Seigenthaler was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the ealry 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.

John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984.

He started one of the country's largest public relations firm shortly thereafter.

What Seigenthaler quotes in his USA Today article is the full extent of the entry. Although it clearly is false and potentially libelous, I would at least like to mention that it does not appear to be the most sophisticated attempt at libel. The writer probably intended it more as a stupid joke and a test than as an attempt to libel him, but it's hard to say. One issue this raises is that while regular contributors may see Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia, others may view it like any other joke chat board or Internet forum. Oddly enough, in they way they market their content, Wikipedia and the mirrors may be more responsible than this user who might say he felt he was posting an ironic joke and didn't believe that Wikipedia information would be taken seriously anyway. The commercialization of Wikipedia through the deal with Answers.com, which changes the role of Wikipedia in connection to the commercial use of its content, will only make the risk of lawsuits rise. Tfine80 17:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides being published on the USAToday website yesterday ([2]), it was also picked up by Yahoo! News today ([3]), although a quick check at Yahoo! News and Google News does not show the story anywhere else...yet. I imagine this article is going to get lots of visits for awhile. I did a small update showing that the IP was probably in the Nashville, Tennessee area [4]. ^BlankVerse 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that would make sense. I believe he still lives in the Nashville area. He was editor of The Tennessean before he was moved up to USA Today (both Gannett papers), and he founded the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt. He's probably made a few enemies and other ne'erdowells in his time. Ttownfeen 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (edited by Ttownfeen 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC) for grammar and sytanx because I must have been asleep the first go around.)

But the entry seems so childish and silly to be a real adult enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some kid who has a beef with another kid in the family or something. Maybe even a immature relative playing around. Tfine80 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was reading up on Seignethaler this morning and apparently he's been the subject of quite a few death threats and even a kidnapping attempt. Apparently he's pissed off a few people in Tennessee. Gamaliel 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The allegation seems more a mistake then slander. After all, in 1976 the FBI had an undercover agent working for him as a copy editor at the Tennessean. I'd like to see any source showing that the FBI investigation had anything to do with suspision of being linked to the JFK assasination. Personally, I feel much more scared for my freedom when an angry rich politians are running around screaming lawsuit, compared to having possible errors in a peer reviewed editing system where all that is required is having someone who is simply willing to re-edit the article. --Stevenwagner 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV entry on Wikipedia

Seigenthaler's biography on Wikipedia was tainted by a false and vandalous entry between May and September 2005. The information was spread across dozens of Wikipedia mirrors before it was deleted. Seigenthaler wrote about his experience with the vandalism in USA Today on November 29, 2005. He expressed deep concern for the inability of anyone to determine who was responsible for the libel and decried online privacy laws, writing "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."

If someone can please rewrite this in an NPOV way which doesnt simply parrot the distressed complaints of an aged person concerned about the details of his legacy, I (and perhaps many more) would much appreciate it. --St|eve 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"distressed complaints of an aged person concerned about the details of his legacy"? Excuse me? Get real! I thought you were an admin! haven't you bothered to read the deleted edits?! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A prominent, accomplished person finds himself libelled on Wikipedia by someone suggesting that there was evidence linking him to two assassinations, and gets mad and writes about it. What's disgusting is that someone comes along on this Talk page and accuses him of being an old man too absorbed with his own legacy. What that tells me is that this sort of situation will happen again and again. 4.230.168.124 00:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mock someone who took the perfectly reasonable position of being outraged at being accused of murdering his former boss? Gamaliel 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say yes, considering he had four months to edit it, as people with knowledge of subjects are encouraged to do on Wikipedia. — ceejayoz ^{talk .com} File:Australia flag large.png 14:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really encouraged in this instance, though, as that would be a violation of the guideline WP:AUTO. Probably a good violation of it, but there is still a guideline that suggests he shouldn't change it himself. Also, how could he change it when he doesn't know about it? Should everybody periodically check that Wikipedia doesn't contain a libellous article on them? JulesH 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote that paragraph. Personally, I think removal was probably an appropriate option, since writing a newspaper article is entirely unremarkable. Having sentences about it here is just myopic self-vanity on our part. -Splash^talk 00:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree to an extent, but considering how much blather there used to be about this matter, I think it's a decent compromise. Gamaliel 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I, personally, have never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. before this morning's news, and as such don't see the accusations as "obviously ridiculous." No one has given any evidence that it is or is not ridiculous, except fear that some old man will sue anyone who doesn't say nice things about him. This article is, at least in this decade, John Seigenthaler's claim to fame, and it cannot be separated from his biography. We need some evidence either way, so those of us who don't accept an editorial in the USAToday as de facto infallible fact have something to go on. Mrcolj 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Seigenthaler has many larger claims to fame in this decade. There is a much bigger world outside the purview of Wikipedia or the blogosphere. As to the removed content, anything that is not verifiable does not belong here.(Wikipedia:Verifiability). There is a broad plain between censorship and correction. Opinions about the validity of his editorial are neither biographical nor encyclopedic (WP:POV). Dystopos 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

People taking themselves too seriously again

I find it ironic that he founded an organization promoting discussion of the First Ammendment.

He takes himself seriously as a person; Wikipedia takes itself seriously as an encyclopedia. There's a parallel here. -- Peripatetic 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the irony. The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to say (potentially damaging) things that are untrue. Pacian 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But Wikipedia failed as an encyclopedia in this case - the vandalism was up for several months. OTOH in the last two days his entry has become far more thorough. Lars T. 16:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the most important reasons why Wikipedia should pay attention to his criticism. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is laughable. Being offended by something you read on the Internet is as silly as believing what you read as graffiti on bathroom walls. 216.98.57.65 16:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In this analogy, Wikipedia is the graffiti on the bathroom walls? I think that was Seigenthaler's point...

I'm sure those who have spent a lot of sweat and time trying to fine tune Wikipedia into a truly useful tool will be glad to hear your opinion.--24.21.255.203 09:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia failed because a user saw an error and did not correct it. Seigenthaler became a user the minute he entered an article. If you choose to use Wikipedia, you have taken the responsibility of correcting things you know are untrue. As well, how does he know for sure that the "vandal" hadn't read somewhere or seen a program to that affect (i.e., that Seigenthaler was believed to be involved in the assasination), which would mean it's not legally libel, because that was what the user believed to be true? Not only that, he took the problem to the wrong people. Congress has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia; it is not owned nor operated by the US government but is a public organization, meaning it can say or do what it wants and has the right to resolve inter-Wikipedia conflicts without government intervention. The ISP more than likely had it's hands bound because the "vandal" signed a Terms of Service contract saying the ISP could not hand out his information without a court order- meaning that Seigenthaler should have gotten a lawyer and a court order rather than trying to contact the ISP directly as a private citizen. To take umbrage to something and then respond to it incorrectively, and passively, as he did, is ridiculous. (Edited, I misspelled "correct it," which just proves my point, I guess.) --Jess 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia evil?

From Seigenthaler's editorial in USA Today:

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."

For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.

So, the way I'm reading this, in his opinion Wikipedia is the problem because it is not autocratic enough. Funny to hear this from a free speech advocate -- I guess he likes free speech in the abstract, but not when it affects him personally. He's taken a piece of forgettable chatter which could easily be discounted, and conflated it into a condemnation of modern collaborative communication and a call to action to suppress it. He also seems to imply that anonymous speech should only allowed when backed by a publisher. What a sad bookend for his legacy. Cleduc 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when has being a free speech advocate meant that you had to advocate making it legal and acceptable to libel others? Gamaliel 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when has accepting libel as unacceptable implied that restrictive measures be put in place so that speech that could be libelous is physically impossible?--Fangz 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation of his editorial. Gamaliel 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So then what is his point? As I understand his argument, WP should either be held liable for its content or it should eliminate anonymous contributions. At what other possible interpretation of his statements should we arrive? Cleduc 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, you COULD get all the feathers back into the pillow, but it would just be a good amount of hard work. In the end, I would guess that because of this event and the subsequent media flurry, about 100 times more people (than in May 2005) now know about (and most likely respect) John Seigenthaler, Sr., than knew about him or respected his life's work. Isn't it funny how being "libeled" can bring you an otherwise unprecedented amount of fame and respect? Thekohser 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Article quality as a rebuttal

• Probably the most convincing argument we Wikipedians could make in our defense is to construct the most authoritative accurate and balanced biographical article ever written about Mr. Seigenthaler. Dystopos 02:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is never going to equal Britannica, but I don't think we should have a biography. I think it should just be a page saying that he has stated he does not want his biography on Wikipedia because he's a crybaby. Although, maybe not in those words. :) Compman 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's good that we at Wikipedia are able to handle criticism in such a mature way. Gamaliel 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia already greatly exceeds Britannica in several measures of usefulness (comprehensiveness, scope, contemporaneity, access and cost). It may never become an authority, as Britannica is. It would be a ridiculous mistake to kowtow to requests to remove accurate and fair material. Fortunately there is little fear of Wikipedia making that mistake. Dystopos 22:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I take no stand on the WP vs. EB debate, but agree completely about defense. Props. Luckily, the attention drawn to this article has already improved it considerably. Heck, we could even go for Featured Article, thought that'd likely be unfeasible. --Kizor 11:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia pages

I externally linked the Wikipedia-namespace articles Wikipedia:Anonymity and Wikipedia:Accountability after the paragraph describing Seigenthaler's editorial. Since the paragraph raises issues both about Wikipedia's anonymity and accountability, I thought that links to Wikipedia's policies on those subjects would be objectively useful, as described in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. (I certainly think the USA Today article would've been better if it referred to those web pages.)

Does anyone agree, or have any other Wikipedia-namespace articles that would be more appropriate? I don't spend much time there, so I'm not that familiar with it. Eliot 02:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I should mention that this is only relevant to the extent to which the paragraph should be there in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it, except that it would just get put back in right away. Eliot 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both of you. Some small "See Also" for people researching this current, albeit trivial, issue would be useful. The Robert McHenry article is facing a similar quandary. Dystopos 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Our policy isn't relevant to his biography, and every page comes free with a disclaimer. -Splash^talk 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That article explicitly states that Wikipedia pages can be externally linked when they are objectively useful, i.e. when they are not a 'self-reference.' My position is that if that paragraph isn't self-reference, then the relevant Wikipedia policies aren't either. (Although as I said, I suspect that paragraph is self-reference. Surely this isn't even close to the most important article this emeritus journalist has ever written. Eliot 12:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The self-reference page probably needs updating to reflect the current prominence of Wikipedia. Today it's inappropriate not to have some self-references in carefully considered situations. Such things as lists of the top 50 web sites are one example, but cases where Wikipedia content is prominent may also need it to be complete and neutral. This is also one case where, unfortunately, some self-reference needs to be considered, since Wikipedia is part of the story. Jamesday 12:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A thought

What if someone really was involved in something awful like this. After all the news article says that it hasn't been proven, not that it didn't happen. The power of a user created encyclopedia is that anyone can spread information without fear of censorship or legal consequences. Wikipedia can tell stories that other news agencies can't for fear of being sued. It disturbs me greatly that wikipedia has bowed to the pressures of this one man and deleted the earlier edits from public view. If wikipedia censors itself when false information is posted will it censor itself when true information comes out about an evil man and that evil man cries libel and tries to have wikipedia shut down? Like p2p, wikipedia proves that information can not be stopped now matter much power a well connected man has to silence an anonymous detractor. Wikipedia should not help this nut case find his libeler. People need to be able to post without fear or reprisal. Good, Inocent men ignore false accusations. Guilty ones try to silence their accusers. --Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were accused of murder in a worldwide public forum, you'd just ignore it? And then you imply that someone is guilty because he objects to a false accusation? This is absolutely nuts.

Removal of false, unsourced information is not censorship, it is quality control. A legitimate encyclopedia cannot wantonly publish unsourced, unverified, anonymous libel and then complain when someone wants it removed. We shouldn't fear what happened here, we should encourage it, as the end result is a more accurate encyclopedia article, which is what we're supposed to be here for anyway. Gamaliel 06:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, a link to this page is on the main page of fark.com and fark has a history of crashing websites as so many ppl read this website. Have fun with your fancy vprotect :)--Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I was wondering if we were getting slashdotted or the like. Well, they will get bored eventually and find some other bright shiny thing to play with. Gamaliel 06:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I also have to disagree vehemently. Even if it were true, if it's not backed up by other sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, nor do: 'untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".' See: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Eliot 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slashdotted

This article is currently the lead on slashdot. This will not doubt lead to many new editors making improvements to the article that will all need to be subject to the usual scrutiny. -Splash^talk 13:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto - isn't there a special box on the main page you can put up to state this? I remember seeing it before, and I think it's needed. -Anonymous

Fallout

Other news organizations are taking an interest in this. So far, in addition to the original article, there are:

• A false Wikipedia 'biography' sparks reflection (copy of original; China Daily)
• A false Wikipedia 'biography' (copy; First Amendment Center)
• The Danger of Wikipedia (Editor & Publisher)
• Readers Respond to Wikipedia Article (Editor & Publisher)
• Complaints Over Wikipedia Accountability With Bios (Search Engine Watch)
• Wikipedia Is The Next Google (WebProNews)
• John Seigenthaler Sr. Criticises Wikipedia (SlashDot)
• Wikipedia slander? (CNet)
• Wikipedia In Hot Water Over False Bio (TechSmec.com)
• Trust No One (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• A Wicked-pedia (CBS News)
• Journo moans at Wikepedia: Siegenthaler's Lisp (The Inquirer)

Please add to the above list if this spreads. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just calling an edit vandalism does not make it so

I just made a minor change to the article, changing "the article" to "this article" to help clarify that this is the article that Siegenthaler was upset with.

That change was reverted from an anonymous user with the comment, "removing vandalism". Just calling something vandalism does not make it so.

That shouldn't have been done, and probably wouldn't have been done by an established Wikpedian. -Splash^talk 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also possible that it was done in error, trying to revert actual vandalism. When edits are hot and heavy, it can be difficult. -Fuzzy 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with you and above, but, stating that it was "this article" is to make a self reference, something we want to avoid, so the revert was fine. But it shouldn't have been called vandalism, of course. Shanes 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an exceptional case, though. We can't avoid referring to this article when discussing Seigenthaler's criticism of it. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true. We can refer to it in the third person (third article?) though. "The article..." has less of an introspective feel than "This article...", no? -Splash^talk 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We can, and we should. Calling it "the article" instead of "this article" both looks (is) more professional (IMO) and it makes the article better suited for being distributed outside the wikipedia domain, which is something we encourage. If some other encyclopedia want to include articles from us, they are welcome to it and shouldn't need to go through every article to change "this" into "the". Read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for more on this. Shanes 16:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that making the distinction "the biography was not written on this mirror" is as important as explaining "the biography is an earlier version of the article you are reading". Regardless of whether it is copied, it's always true that the questionable material was part of an earlier version of the article being read. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

POV question (as I understand it....)

The statements, which had been inserted anonymously, had been removed by the time he wrote his editorial.

Why is it relevant, or NPOV, to include the clause had been removed by the time he wrote his editorial. I think it is sufficient to state, as had been already stated, that the statements had been up from May to September. I think it is irrelevant to point out that they were removed before his editorial was written. I believe the intent of pointing this out is to denigrate Seigenthaler's claims an is not an NPOV clause.

jerry 15:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is verifiable fact, thus cannot be someone's POV. It is only your personal judgement (i.e. you POV) that it is included for denigratory purposes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to mention it, to me. -Splash^talk 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course my thoughts are my POV, that's why I wrote, "I believe...."

And okay, that the statements were taken down before he wrote his editorial is a verifiable fact, but how is it relevant to Seigenthaler's biography, how is it not redundant with the already posted dates of the defamatory statements, and how is it relevant to any controversy on the accuracy of the Wikipedia?jerry 15:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this statement is notable either, and it isn't NPOV unless we include "although some mirrors of Wikipedia continued to display the false claim until November 30". ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the entire paragraph is non-notable and only included here out of Wikipedic myopia. Why did the mirrors remove it? Under legal threat, or following Wiki's lead? -Splash^talk 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about that too. My guess is they were either contacted by the Wikimedia Foundation or by an associate of Seigenthaler. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for FBI stuff

Could we have some sources e.g. the media for the FBI stuff, please? -Splash^talk 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This reference may be added when the article is unprotected: "'Not Entirely Pure'" by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, August 25, 1977. Varizer 15:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Got a link? -Splash^talk 15:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

NYT archive stuff is, I believe, subscriber only. Point the online crowd to their nearest library :) - ianbetteridge

Snipped stuff

I removed a section that tried to deal with the Wiki controversy by saying "Some people think ... however, ... most think ....". That's not NPOV, it's waffle.

We probably need to link to some on-Wiki discussion of the impact of the Siegenthaler article rather than try to summarise it on this page. The Land 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not. That's an overt self-reference. Summarising it here is exactly the right thing to do. -Splash^talk 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content. - from Wikipedia:Avoid self-references

I think it's appropriate for this article to refer to the Wikipedia ontroversy. I don't think it's appropriate for it to refer in a manner that mainly consists of weasel words. The Land 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what the document says, I wouldn't cite it otherwise. I didn't say we shouldn't refer to the controversy. But we don't need to link to internal Wikipedia discussions of the article which, frankly, have nothing at all do with the controversy. The controversy is entirely external to the Wikipedia community who have and are happily rewriting/reverting as needed. Noone inside Wiki is disagreeing over this article.-Splash^talk 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Are you saying we can't write neutrally about the controversy? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you jumping in without reading the discussion properly? -Splash^talk 02:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take your point. Thanks! (Though I'd point out that this is Wikipedia and, therefore, has controversies about everything on principle). The Land 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes,....in an evil moment, I thought about nominating an nn journalist for deletion, just to stir things up a bit...-Splash^talk 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, the article is about the individual the bio is written about, not any sort of diagreement about his views. Nonetheless a very controversial position is put forward by the individual in this article. Perhaps this section could be trimmed and moved to an article about the controversy over community-created content such as Wikipedia? It's patently non-factual to claim that there is no controversy. 134.50.7.201 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, actually, although it might at present fall foul of the rules prohibiting original research. On your other point, The Land was referring to controversy within the Wikipedia community. There isn't any. There's just some alerts of the new status of the article, and this talk page which is concerned with discussing the article. -Splash^talk 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the controversy is rather overstated and misconstrued. Slashdot may be getting excited over this, but to judge from the village pump, Wikipedia is mostly in agreement with Seigenthaler. To most of the outside world, the main controversy is over Wikipedia's accountability, not Seigenthaler's criticism. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's significant that the subject of the article (in his own article) implies that there should be some sort of governmental/legislative remedy to these issues. Perhaps the controversy was misconstrued, but there is definite disagreement over the position which the individual takes with how the problem of inaccurate edits to articles should be addressed. (Sadly, I think this article may need to be locked temporarily -- not because of the controversy but because of the ridiculous amount of vandalism happening at the moment.) 134.50.7.201 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry: it takes a lot more than this to even make a bump in the background noise. Plus, at least some of the edits are good. -Splash^talk 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to the people who have more time than I do to revert the vandalism. (I'm a Wikipedia novice, can you tell? I really want to contribute though.) I've been catching some, but I need to go eat. =) 134.50.7.201 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is significant, but his objection is that everywhere except online, libel can be effectively prosecuted. One would expect some legislative remedy to still exist, but that recourse has for some reason been lost. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 18:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only is this not libel, technically, it's not even false.

Read the sentence more closely (ignoring the Russia bit for now, for the sake of argument): "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." This is poorly written, misleading, and violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, but as long as the person who wrote it believed it at the time that they wrote it (thus satisfying the requirements of the passive voice),, then the sentence is literally true. Of course it's good that it's gone, but for Seigenthaler to prove that the sentence is false, he'd have to prove that nobody ever considered him to be involved in the Kennedy assassination. --Arcadian 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ahh - Good Point --Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 18:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely it is false and it is libel. The requirements of libel aren't negated by saying "he was thought" and "Nothing was ever proven." It's connecting with a falsehood. Have you taken a media ethics course? If a newspaper publishes an article saying "Kit Bond was thought to be a mass murderer. Nothing was ever proven," they will have their ass sued off. Libel is "a defamatory falsehood." The passive voice saying "he was thought" in an encyclopedia creates the implication that it was a widely believed and credible allegation. Neither of those are true, and they're certainly defamatory. Hence, libel. FCYTravis 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am a lawyer, and FCYTravis, you are wrong. Arcadian is correct. The statement at issue is literally probably a truthful statement. I do not find it hard to believe that suspicion might have been cast in the person's direction for a brief period of time. Police and others often consider a wide range of possibilities. The only verifiable statements are whether he lived in Russia, and whether he started a company. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these things are false. As a matter of fact, based on what I have seen, I do not think removing the allegedly defamatory content was appropriate. The only basis for the removal was the subject of the article's word, and his word alone. The content should be referred to as ALLEGEDLY defamatory. Your knowledge of the law, by your own admission FCYTravis, is derived from a media ethics course. You do not know the law. Implications are not created. That is your own personal opinion. People cannot be sued successfully for the assumptions that people like you make about what they write. If John Seigenthaler attempted to sue, he would almost certainly lose. He would probably not even succeed in unmasking the identity of the poster. This is precisely why he chose, instead of resorting to the legal process, to attempt to defame this target of his hatred in the national media. Since he could not attack the safely anonymous (thank God) poster, he instead chose to attack wikipedia itself. A lot of people did the cowardly thing and bowed to everything this guy said. People are ASSUMING the language at issue is FALSE when the truth of the matter is that the language at issue is DISPUTED, not false. Kaltes 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's false when it's a completely unsourced accusation backed up by not a single fact or reference. I believe the technical term for that is making shit up. It isn't cowardly to remove that material, it is just part of quality control in a legitimate encyclopedia. Gamaliel 01:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Kaltes, have you ever worked on a libel case? I've worked in the media for ten years, and I know for a fact that no media lawyer would ever allow a statement like the one originally made to run, as it would almost certainly mean being dragged to court. If we allow statements like the original quote to stand, we are holding Wikipedia to lower standards than the National Enquirer. Would you think that was a positive thing? ianbetteridge 12.46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Kaltes, regardless of whether or not you believe it's libel, such an accusation would be treated as potential libel by any major newspaper, and not allowed to run. It is unethical at best to publish unsourced, anonymous statements that cast aspersions on someone without any particular evidence of their veracity . This is not "investigative journalism" with Deep Throat sources. If something isn't referenced, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I strongly suspect that there *are* no reference, and that it was just quite literally made up from whole cloth. FCYTravis 01:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Make it clear that ANYONE can edit Wikipedia

I think it is time to have the words "that anyone can edit" appended to the phrase "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top of all Wikipedia pages, not just the Main Page. This would be a subtle reminder that (1) what you are reading could be the product of anyone at all, and (2) if you think it is incorrect, you can correct it.--71.244.219.227 18:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Doens't the Edit This Page button do that? The Land 18:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not in the Printable version.--70.106.218.102 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Quit being naive!

Ugh, at least the discussion here is not as bad as on Slashdot... but come on, this is bad news for Wikipedia. Running around pretending that this stuff isn't a big deal isn't going to solve anything. You can't defend vandalism. You can't defend bogus claims and still pretend to be an encyclopedia. And yet, I come here, and that's exactly what I see. The old "well, why didn't you edit it" excuse. Well damnit, if everyone already knew everything, and could fix any problems in the article when they saw them, then we wouldn't need any encyclopedias! The whole point is that you meet at least some level of credibility. This diminishes it greatly. If the problem continues to be ignored then Wikipedia will become just a worthless sideshow.--72.19.75.72 18:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It won't if you help us edit it. -Splash^talk 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been a reasoned and balanced discussion including critique of the weakness of the all edit system. Charging people being naive and ranting doesn't add anything to the discussion. The subject could have edited the article himself. In fact it seems logical that no one is a greater expert on John Seigenthaler Sr. than John Seigenthaler Sr. It is Not an unreasonable burden or expectation to have him correct the information if he finds it inaccurate. It is also a critical component of the utility of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean his pursuit of libel isn't also appropriate. If he chooses not to change the information when he is aware of it's existance and chooses to leave the information as is he through inaction is also contributing to the inaccuracies he is decrying. ( I did not look to see if he did or did not leave the article as he found it) No one is defending Vandalism or "bogus claims" as a valid and accepted behavior. Rather they have aknowleged that they exist and are currently unavoidable evils that need to be dealt with as part of the project. Finally I find it highly ironic that the nature and tone of your criticism erodes the quality of the discussion you find to be lacking in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.4.30 (talk)

He did correct the information. There's an edit in the history (since deleted along with every other edit prior to October) which I believe is his. Even if he hadn't, he still filed a complaint with Jimbo. Regardless of what he did or didn't do, we shouldn't blame the victim and say, "Sorry, it was unavoidable". Gamaliel 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so next time one of you little trolls falsely accuses one of you other little trolls of something, the accused just gets on the phone to Jimbo and Jimbo will sort it. This is my last post at wiki*. Cyas, been fun while it was good. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspect

When someone is murdered, everyone around them is a suspect. I don't see how this would be so horrible to anyone's reputation. It's not like it accused him of the murder. Hackwrench 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler is far from the first victim of anonymous defamation

I've only been here a couple of months and can count at least three others:

Norwegian PM falsely accused of doing time for pedophilia--posted for about 22 hours before deletion

Embarassing misinformation that was posted for six weeks and made its way into a Swarthmore College press release

Current WP editor falsely falsely said to be former member of SDS by anon IP on 6/12/04; claim is not removed until 8/17/04

I agree with Wrolf, " only registered users with confirmed e-mail addresses should be allowed to edit. We cannot expect responsibility with no accountability." --FRS 01:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of merit in this idea, but this isn't the place to debate a major change in Wikipedia policy. Please try the mailing list or the Village Pump instead. Gamaliel 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

well, to toss in my fraction of a cent, i wrote up a semi lengthy screed about this problem, on my user page. have a look if interested. Anastrophe 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Undeletion

Can the much discussed deleted revisions please be restored? It would be interesting to be able to view them in historical context and I don't think anyone could claim that the site is spreading libel as it has been proper, it would just be visible. This would allow for linking to the revision in question in the article allowing readers to see the text for themselves. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The revisions were deleted by an administrator at the direct request of Jimbo. I don't think anyone's going to restore them without his okay. Besides, there's nothing in there that isn't already in the USA Today article. Gamaliel 01:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

All the more reason why they should be restored. Retractions have been volunteered by many here. The public at large need to understand that wiki is not static, and anyone can edit. Publishing something on wiki is not equivalent to publishing it in a book or magazine. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's absurd. We are not a news source! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Aevar here, but Gamaliel is right, no admin is going to overrule a direct request by Jimbo. (Though he ought to have done the deed himself rather than by IRC-proxy.) -Splash^talk 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ævar. The USA Today article was written by Seigenthaler himself; how do we know if it's an accurate quote? Perhaps it was selective: was there a stub notice on it or not? Melchoir 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler quoted the entry accurately and in its entirety. There was no stub notice, though what difference that would make I don't know. Gamaliel 02:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be better if it was in plain sight so that everyone could verify that? I really don't see what the big deal is, what reasons did Jimbo give for why these revisions had to be deleted? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Gamaliel. Of course I trust you, but I still support an undelete. I wondered about a stub because it seems to me that Seigenthaler overreacted to an obviously inadequate version of this article. If there had been a stub notice, he might have reacted differently. Speaking of stubs... We've been listed on Fark and Slashdot, and a whole lot of people have seen only the modern form of this article, which contains lots of information and references. Many of them might be under the impression that the accusation persisted within a reputable-looking article instead of in the stub that it apparently was. I think this distinction should be a matter of record; it is certainly nothing to hide. Melchoir 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article will not be restored. The reason for the deletion is that an anonymous user posted something that was at the very least deeply offensive and possibly even libelous. Preserving a complete history of every idiotic thing that has happened in Wikipedia is not part of our mission. If anyone is concerned about the history of the world, well, of course the deleted revisions are still there in the database (in deleted format so that they are not published).

I do not think Mr. Seigenthaler overreacted in anyway. When he contacted me (a couple of months ago) and I looked at the article, I was horrified and had it deleted immediately. (Why did I not do it myself? Because I was rushed for time and I'm relatively clueless about how to delete just some revisions and not others. Someone did it for me as a courtesy and as a matter of speed.)

I totally fail to grasp why anyone thinks it is a good idea to attack Mr. Seigenthaler over this. He, like us, is a victim here -- a victim of a very deeply offensive vandal. He is not our enemy. Our enemy is those who think it is perfectly ok and no big deal to accuse someone of being suspected murder without any evidence at all and in fact contrary to fact.--Jimbo Wales 05:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the original post was vandalism. It was an attack page and should have been speedy deleted on that basis. The other users who subsequently edited it probably did not know that the information contained therein was inaccurate. (Saying that someone was suspected at some time of complicity in the JFK assassination is not particularly remarkable - dozens of public figures alive at the time have had that accusation leveled against them by some nut.) This slipped through the cracks because it was a bit more subtle than most of the obvious attack pages we see (many of which are tagged and deleted within 5 minutes). I agree it was offensive. I completely disagree that it rises to the level of actionable libel in the United States, which is deliberately made a very high barrier to meet in order to avoid chilling effects on the press's Constitutional rights. Firebug 05:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It might not have given him a cause of action against the Wikimedia Foundation at the time, which is undoubtedly a reason why he didn't sue. But undeleting now could well clear the barrier to which you refer, for the reasons I explained below just prior to your post. --Michael Snow 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that a board member or employee of the Wikimedia Foundation will restore them. I assume that the CDA would protect the Foundation from the acts of others. Recall that in a prominent case involving AOL, AOL employees repeatedly stated that AOL would remove defamation but AOL did not do so. Jamesday 12:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If we know that something is potentially defamatory and the subject has complained about it directly, it should absolutely stay deleted. Undeleted revisions stored in history are accessible to the public just like the current revision. So that could qualify as perpetuating a defamatory publication deliberately and with knowledge of its falsity.

Significantly, for a public figure (as Seigenthaler arguably is for these purposes) to prevail in a defamation case, they generally need to show malice or at least reckless disregard for the truth. Under these circumstances, restoring the history would potentially be handing Seigenthaler exactly the evidence he needs for a successful lawsuit.

In case it's not clear, the deleted revisions should definitely not be restored. Nothing requires it, and doing so would be directly contrary to Wikipedia's best interests. I would look for immediate and serious consequences against anybody who decided to undelete them. --Michael Snow 05:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems most unclear that there should be serious consequences, provided that there was a suitable reason, in this matter of significant public debate. For example, restoring the revision just prior to the removal would support Mr. Seigenthaller's claim about the previous content, instead of denying his claim with the current history. I would be interested in Mr. Seigenthaler's view on this particular possible restoration, since I'm not keen on contradicting his claim in any way. However, a similar effect might be obtained by an admin posting the relevant difference between the two revisions (briefly undeleting for that purpose). I just removed the inaccurate claim that the history was complete from the top of this page, for that reason. Jamesday 12:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation help

I've found some wire articles published in the NYT on the freedom rider incident. How would I cite those articles (no author) following our current note format? Lotsofissues 01:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think sourcing them to the Associated Press (or whatever wire service the story is bylined under) is appropriate. Often, that's how wire service stories are run. FCYTravis 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just miss out the firstname and lastname parameters (the template appears to be intelligent), and do it as usual. -Splash^talk 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal Warning

You are all quick to call it "libel", and label "the defamer", when it hasn't been through a court yet. No wonder this place has problems. I am not defending what was written -- I haven't read it -- but if this case shows anything, its that Wikipedians need to be judicious about the language they use when labelling others and labelling the actions of others. Sure, defamation cases frequently involve reversed presumption of innocence, but are you all sure that applies here at this stage? I doubt it. I doubt you even know what I mean. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, what was said *was* false, *was* defamatory, *did* identify its subject and *was* published on the Internet. That spells libel to this journalist. Besides, whoever created the vandalous libel is anonymous, so the second leg of the libel stool - identification - is not present. Defamation, identification, publication. FCYTravis 02:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Times v. Sullivan requires more than that for a successful libel claim by a public figure, which Seigenthaler is. Secondly, the original claim, according to the Siegenthaler article, was that he was purportedly "thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations". Kennedy assassination theories are a virtual cottage industry - has any major public figure not been implicated in them by some individual at some time? The original article quote does not claim that Siegenthaler was involved, only that someone "thought" him to have done so, and also noted that "nothing was ever proven". Siegenthaler would have a hard time making out a court case that he had been libeled by a JFK assassination theory. Did any of the literally hundreds of other people who were accused of complicity in the JFK assassination by far more widely distributed means ever sue the authors of those works? Firebug 04:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Firebug. Plus, what nobody is mentioning is the opening phrase: "For a brief time". By any reasonable interpretation of that phrase, the author meant that in 2005, nobody thought Seigenthaler was involved. How can complete exoneration possibly be defamatory? --Arcadian 04:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read it, and it was defamatory. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Decade divisions

I don't like them. Can I remove? Lotsofissues 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs some structuring, but I'm not sure what the best structure is. It is a bit too long to have no headings at all. -Splash^talk 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, decades are not the best. Shouldn't it be better to do it via significant eras (wrong word, I know) of his life? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, something like that is probably better. He's been a journalist for most of his life, though. So perhaps divide it up by pre-politics, politics and post-politics? Or something. -Splash^talk 02:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove them and allow someone's creativity to take over. Lotsofissues 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't leave us with a structureles document. This is a sort of {{sobreakit}} approach. -Splash^talk 02:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks better...don't revert. IT LOOKS CLEAN. Lotsofissues 02:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page, intending to remove protection in a day or so. Please feel free to remove the protection once it's no longer quite so prominent. Jamesday 12:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Three 30 November edits restored to history

I've just restored three edits from the deleted article histrory because they appear to have been inappropriately deleted from the history. They appear simply to have provided a summary of the USA Today item. The edits concerned are:

20:32, 30 November 2005 Gamaliel restored "John Seigenthaler Sr." (33 revisions restored) 
20:31, 30 November 2005 Gamaliel deleted "John Seigenthaler Sr." (cleanup history) 

Page history

20:07, 30 November 2005 . . Gamaliel (Reverted edits by 155.247.222.210 (talk) to last version by Gene Nygaard) 
20:05, 30 November 2005 . . 155.247.222.210 (External links) 
20:04, 30 November 2005 . . 155.247.222.210 

The controversial ones are not restored and are:

22:26, 7 October 2005 Essjay restored "John Seigenthaler Sr." (2 revisions restored) 
22:24, 7 October 2005 Essjay deleted "John Seigenthaler Sr." (Delete per Jimbo in IRC) 

23:54, 23 September 2005 . . W.marsh (Reverted edits by 63.163.57.36 to last version by 69.172.115.157) 
23:53, 23 September 2005 . . 63.163.57.36 
11:06, 23 September 2005 . . 69.172.115.157 (This is the correct bio. The previous entry was bogus.) 
21:52, 29 May 2005 . . SNIyer12 
14:29, 26 May 2005 . . 65.81.97.208 
19:53, 15 September 2004 . . 65.170.144.130 

The earliest three appear to contain the material of the USA Today piece; the following three contain what initially appear to be possibly copyright infringing biographical material (if the contributor was not the copyright holder or licensed poster of the material). Jamesday 12:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This should be UNBLOCKED

Vandalism has not been overwhelming. Waste of precious traffic needed to improve this article. Lotsofissues 13:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting this up to FA

What is required. Lotsofissues 14:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)