Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Oldvfdfull2

Notes

I suggest the note to be removed. The link now points to a login page as the article is not freely available 83.145.67.139 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Perhaps we should forget this ever happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.135.59 (talk • contribs) 08:19, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

This was the straw that broke the camel's back - or in Wikipedia's case, the straw that made anonymous creation of articles no longer possible. I think it is interesting historically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminhill (talk • contribs) 09:49, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he had resigned his job?

Birthday

this page is weakly written, it could stay as trivia but structure should be improved

... age 38 as of 2005 ... why not type born in 1967 instead it's not like he's going to be 12 or 81 next year ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.99.10 (talk • contribs) 09:21, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

If his birthday is after today but before New Year's, he would have been born in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.59.209 (talk • contribs) 10:04, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

Since the birthday is unconfirmed it was removed, Once it is confirmed feel free to re-add it to the article in question! :) Thanks -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his age of 38 is reported in the New York Times article. I don't think that the conclusion that he was therefore born in 1966 or 1967 qualifies as original research. AxelBoldt 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Why is this page scheduled for deletion? This is a small piece of Wikipedia history and outlines real consequences of the user-edit system and has resulted in tweaks to the editing rules. This page whould stand.

--Thomasdelbert 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote to keep it here --RayaruB 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --L1nX 17:20 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a keeper. Baltakatei 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not here. Here. --Mr. Billion 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keeper! --69.19.14.26 11:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is linked from outside, for example from one of the biggest German news magazines (Der Spiegel) in articles about the controversy. If Mr. Chase does not merit an article himself (and there are people with more interesting bios), it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect. However, as we all want to read about Mr. Chase's fate (is he getting back to work?) later, which will not be really a part of the controversy itself, the page should be kept. gbrandt 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the pages are linked - we can make it into a redirect to the controversy article. So people coming thru those links will go to that page. And I feel everything related to Mr.Chase is realted to the controversy as well because that is the reason he has become so famous :-). Jam2k 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of this article

This article was previously listed under Category:Wikipedians. That category is a self-referential category; it is meant to help us organize our user pages, and does not contain encyclopedic content. I have moved it to Category:Wikipedia, which is a category for Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia in the main namespace. Thanks. -- Creidieki 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia history

People who've said this wikipedia history are right when they say this is a historical event in the life of this website and of this siegenthaler incident, As such this needs to be a part of the "Siegenthaler wikipedia controversy" article. Briaboru 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can add your opinion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union?

Was the claim that Seigenthaler had lived in the Soviet Union posted from the same IP? In the same edit? AxelBoldt 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong IP listed?

It seems to me like the IP listed is incorrect, because when I go to user contribs on Wikipedia for that IP I see nothing. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 21:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were deleted. Deleted contributions aren't listed on contribs pages. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 21:53

The relevant portion of the history of deleted versions of John_Seigenthaler_Sr. is here:

 12:22, 6 December 2005 . . Brian0918 (moved John Seigenthaler Sr. to John Seigenthaler Sr./temp: copyediting)
 15:52, 29 May 2005 . . SNIyer12
 08:29, 26 May 2005 . . 65.81.97.208
 13:53, 15 September 2004 . . 65.170.144.130

AxelBoldt 18:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete

Isn't it a bit hypocritical and revisionist to remove this? The fact that it is even a question supports much of the Wikipedia criticisms. In any case, it's part of important Wiki History. Do not delete.

Wikipedia doesn't exist to record its own history, so the question is whether Brian Chase matters to enough people that an encyclopedia should have an article about him. You can have your say here. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should. Wikipedia is too big and important now for it to be able to not consider itself part of the informational milieu in 2005. Many sites mirror it or link to it, and when there's a problem with it, it ends up in (U.S.) national newspapers. Nothing Wikipedia now says can be considered distinct or separate from the things it proposes to document.4.239.99.164 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we have to make sure that articles relating to Wikipedia meet the same notability standards as our other articles. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And making national and local news doesn't fall under that category? --198.110.83.85 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a deletion criterion. So no, that is not the question. --BRIAN0918 13:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that newscasters at sporting events do not show footage of fans that disrupt the games. By calling attention to this hoaxer (even though he may not have entirely realised what he was doing.) it gives others incentive to do the same. APL 03:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently claims that "The source of the hoax was uncovered by Daniel Brandt, who used an IP Locator to track down Mr. Chase". However, the article on Brandt suggests that he found Chase due to his company's website being at the IP address he edited Wikipedia from.

I don't know the details of the case so I'm not going to edit anything, but one of the articles is wrong, and I think it's more likely to be this one.

166.111.43.152 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was removed from the article over six hours ago. Are you sure you are looking at the most recent version? Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This person has been the center of attention of several articles from major newspaper publishers such as USA Today and New York Times. Chase also qualifies for inclusion under WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". There is no doubt that this person is now notorious for what has become a widely reported hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this page should absolutely not be deleted. For one, once all the news surrounding this has died down, it is still valuable information. Oftentimes, events and details will be forgotten with the passage of time. By keeping this article, keeping it up-to-date, and retaining the information, we will end up with an article that has more detail. This man deserves to have a wikipedia entry. In fact, I can think of quite a few articles that should end up on the chopping block before this one. It's historical, it's pertinant to any future talk about Wikipedia, and just because it's about some controversy occuring now doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Ten years from now, do you think people will care about this? I think so. The actions of this man may have far reaching implications in the future. Keeping track of this is important. 160.36.121.50 21:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the issues raised above

Primarily my listing this article as an article for deletion was because this page specifically falls under What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

7. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project 
Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that 
are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate 
new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

News articles should posted on Wikinews not on the Wikipedia. Current events qualify as news even if they involve the Wikipedia. This controversy was majorly overblown as the publisher in question could have simply edited the article removing the vandalism and the matter would have been instantly resolved. Instead he used it as a tool to generate publicity for himself and to attempt to discredit the Wikipedia..

Then you have the following from the Deletion policy:

Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)

While this achieved a minor notoriety the discovery of this person is best included as a section on the overall controversy page. Not as it's own page.

So it is a valid listing on AfD and I hope this may change a few people's opinions on the subject. Thank you -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not relate first hand accounts, it lists references and the story is no longer breaking to boot. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article no longer qualifies for deletion. What is now up for debate is whether this article should be merged or remain seperate. Hall Monitor 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this page isn't anymore scheduled for deletion plaese remove the "Scheduled for deletion" tag. Thanks.

Yeah, don't delete it, there are much more frivolous articles around, about which deletion is not being discussed Yoink23 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't side completely with Seighetler, your (i.e. SusanLarson) post above suggests you have completely failed to follow the controversy. There are well publisised reasons why he did not edit the article himself. If you aren't aware of them, a little reading of wikipedia would help you to better understand the situation. Also your opinion that the issue was overblown is irrelevant. Whether or not the issue was overblown does not significantly effect it's notability. Personally, although Seighetler was not a good spokesperson, he raised a very relevant issue which many of use Wikipedians have been aware of for a long time and it's disapponting to me that so many wikipedians have apparently failed to understand the issue or why it matters Nil Einne 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

According to MSNBC, this guy thought that Wikipedia was not a serious reference tool? I just have to say that all of the intelligent people I know use this religiously. It really burns me up that this incident could scar the reputation of Wikipedia. This really is a great tool, a resource of knowledgeable individuals sharing what they know with others.

Actually, this comment (about Chase thinking Wikipedia was a "gag site") came from Daniel Brandt, who was never a big fan of Wikipedia. Most likely, he is trying to paint Brian Chase as a "victim" of Wikipedia, a victim who lost his job at the hands of a site that he says appeared to be a gag. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-13 02:38
- Good point. I have not heard Chase interviewed at all, and hence I don't think that we can quote him at all. He may have thought that Wikipedia was a joke site, he might not. Who knows. Until we hear him say it, I don't think we can say either way. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that the new policy is wrong.

Is this not proof enough that the new restrictive policy adopted by Wikipedia, which forces contributors to register with wikipedia before they can create a new article, is wrong. Once you are registered there is no way that someone like Daniel Brandt can find out who wrote the article. Making a user name just creates a level of anonymity that does not exist for a non-registered user whose IP address is visible to everyone. I for example would not like to sign this because it is easer for someone to click on my IP address and leave a message on my IP page and that message is visible to everyone who is on the same IP address. But I'll sign it anyway. --08:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) errr.. I did sign it!!! --156.34.85.70 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this page

I will go over a list of reasons why I believe that this page should not exist. As follows:

Brian Chase is a manager at some kind of delivery service. Distinctly non-notable and doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO
Whilst we could argue that he is notable for being the person who edited Seigenthaler's page and hence has had media attention, there is a great problem with meeting WP:NPOV with this article, since we are solely documenting negative aspects of him. Is it possible to write this article as anything other than an attack page? We should not be writing any article anywhere solely as an attack page.
Brian Chase is not a libeller. What he wrote was not libellous, according to my legal opinion, and according to the legal opinion of experts in defamation law, who have commented about this case. At worst, his offence is in stating that Seigenthaler was born in the Soviet Union, but suggesting that that is somehow harmful is rather ridiculous. As for him stating that Seigenthaler shot JFK - this is not true. He didn't write that. What he wrote was that Seigenthaler was once briefly thought to have done it. This is TRUE. Someone, somewhere, with certainty would have thought briefly that he had done it. Considering the amount of conspiracy theories about JFK's murder, and his association with JFK, someone would have done it. Besides which, Seigenthaler did not sue him. In order for us to accurately call him a libeller, he must have been found guilty in a court of law of libel.
Brian Chase is not a hoaxer. What he wrote stayed up for 4 months. A hoax is something that you write and then laugh about and remove immediately. What he wrote is vandalism. It is not BJAODN level vandalism and hence not a hoax.
There are some question marks about whether he really did it. Whilst he did confess, there is the chance that we got the wrong IP address, and he just chose to take the fall to end the drama.
It is an invasion of privacy to list such an article about someone like this.
What is written here could be cause for a libel suit filed by Brian Chase against Wikipedia. With the media following this story, this is a very real risk, and it is ridiculously risky for Wikipedia to allow this article under these circumstances.
What he did is nowhere near the worst act of vandalism on Wikipedia. The GNAA regularly runs scripts to produce minor little edits everywhere on Wikipedia. There are people like Willy on Wheels and the communist vandal that have done masses of vandalism to Wikipedia. Yet do they have their own pages? Oh yes, on the admin block logs where they belong. Not in the public area like this.

I am extremely concerned about this article remaining. In my opinion, we should not even be stating his name when referring to him. It is legally extremely dangerous for Wikipedia to write something like this. And with a case like this, it wouldn't just be one person being sued for libel, it'd be Wikipedia in total. Its just too risky. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole you raised some good points; however Wikipedia is as libel as an ISP; which essentially means they are not libel. I voted strong keep and that will remain the case until these issues crystalize and/or a good reason to remove the article is provided, and of course Willy on Wheels didn't get Wikipedia on CNN. A significant difference in my book. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "liable". Please don't get confused. "Libel" means that someone lies about you, while "liable" means that you are responsible. You can of course be "liable for libel" lol. Anyway its a typo. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

Wow, the Afd is out of control. I say we ignore the Afd and merge this into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy where it belongs. Oh, it's already there. I've redirected. Friday (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if someone disagrees strongly enough to revert, don't worry, I won't fight over it. It just seems clear to me that the Afd is unlikely to produce a useful result. Friday (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What hiding? His part in this mess is well documented in the article I redirected to. If someone is newsworthy as part of a larger event but not so much on their own, it's entirely proper for them to be mentioned as part of the event, rather than having their own article. Once people start making biographies of him and we have a wealth of sources about him, then maybe he ought to have his own article. Friday (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things: 1) it's not a vote. 2) Yes, Wikipedia is meant to rely on reliable sources. We don't have to be last, but we cannot be first. Friday (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hmm, alright. So we wait until the Afd is closed as "no consensus" and THEN we redirect? Does anyone have objections to that? Friday (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rush? When the Afd is closed we will all have some perspective on this. --JWSchmidt 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be arrogant at all. I was hoping to save some unfortunate soul the effort of wading through the Afd mess and skip right to the result that will eventually come anyway. But, JWSchmidt is probably right, there's no need to rush. It sure seems to me like a talk page is more likely to produce fruitful discussion (resulting, if we're lucky, in a "consensus") than a sock-infested Afd. I consider Afd a very poor indicator of consensus in cases like this, that's why I tried to skip over it and just go to straight to the result. Friday (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shows incredible arrogance that after more than 150 people have either edited or commented on this topic, a new person comes in and unilaterally effectively deletes it by redirecting it to another subject and when that is undone then somebody else redirects and renames the subject. Neither of these two people had previously been involved in the discussion and they probably did not even bother to read what others had already written about these questions. Therefore, I am changing it back to the way it was this morning. Sam Sloan 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd assume good faith. I really was just trying to save time and effort and go directly to the end result. I'm well aware of the ridiculously-large Afd, and I don't see that additional time will improve it. This guy is already covered in the main article, so to me the redirect was a no-brainer. I'll admit it was bold, but I don't see how it's arrogant. I explained my reasoning and didn't edit war, what more do you want? Friday (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD not coming to a clear result means the article stays. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is closed

The result of the debate was The decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes to keep.

After processing 293 total votes

Total Keep: 146

129 Keep

17 Keep/Merge

Total Delete: 46

40 delete

6 delete/merge

Total Merge: 124

101 merge

17 Keep/Merge

6 delete/merge

While this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus it does provide that this article should not be deleted. ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Comments on this AfD

I did the counting and here was the criteria I used.

Removed anonymous votes, Unsigned votes both <s> and {{unsigned}} Unregistered users counted provided they signed with ~~~~. removed votes from very low edit users which were noted by others. removed one vote due to uncivil. Just so no one doubts the fairness of this count I would like to note that the position I voted for lost. The decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes total.

I also made the following personal comment on my first AfD. "Good discussion everyone. Thanks for an informative insight into the consensus process :) Could someone more familer with the process close out the vote officially." and I meant it too :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?

I don't know how the AFD is going to turn out, but in the meantime, it might be worthwhile to choose a better title for this article. "Hoaxer" doesn't seem very NPOV. Anyway, I wish to avoid any disputes by moving it myself, and am not really sure what a better title would be, so figured I'd toss this concern here. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any... alternate suggestions? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 01:33

Under the rules it is not supposed to be moved or redirected until the AFD is resolved. Therefore, the two people who moved it broke the rules. Therefore, it should be moved back to where it was.

I tried to move it back. The result was that Brian Chase (hoaxer) pointed to Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) and, at the same time, Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) pointed to Brian Chase (hoaxer). The result was a stalemate and nothing moved.

There are many possible alternate names, but with nearly 200 people so far participating in this, some sort of vote should be taken and nobody should take unilateral action. Sam Sloan 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly true. A page can be moved during an AFD, provided that the AFD link is updated accordingly, so as not to disrupt the discussion. The article should not be blanked, redirected (because this blanks it), or the AFD notice removed. Other actions are permissible. However, I don't wish to move the page without some agreement as to where it should be moved. And unfortunately, I don't currently have any suggestions. I simply feel that labelling a person as a "hoaxer" for creating a false article on wikipedia under a flawed presumption is, well, somewhat slanderous and PoV. There has to be a middle ground. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any... alternate suggestions? :) Subramanian ^talk 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated, twice, no, not really. That's part of the reason I posted here, to see if people could suggest some alternate suggestions. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

(Yes, this is somewhat reduntant with the Afd, but I'm assuming we're headed straight toward "no consensus" there.) Since the only content in this article is about his involvement in the John Seigenthaler thing, how about merging this there? Sorry for redirecting previously without discussion; it seemed like the obviously right thing to do to me. To me, the question is, does this guy have "notability" (or verifiability, if you prefer) outside the Seigenthaler affair? It looks like the answer is no, so he should be mentioned in that article, as he already is, and he does not need his own article. Friday (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried and cannot figure out how to move the history. Visiters here need to know that there have been more than 120 edits and nearly as many comments, so that they will not repeat something that has already been suggested and rejected many times, as the poster above does again. Sam Sloan 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that it's been suggested and rejected. In fact, I see no discussion of merging at all, here on the talk page. That's why I posted the above. Am I looking in the wrong place? Friday (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be separate because what Chase did makes him nottable,. His actions, judging by the papers, is far the biggest thing that has happened to wikipedia, and this makes him nottable. While I understand someone putting an Afd on the article over 100 people and the largets number of opeople wanted to keep this article, IO gueress confirming Chase's notability, SqueakBox 15:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What he did was cause the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. That's all we have on him. Unless he writes a famous opera or flies to the moon, that seems like all we'll ever have on him. So, I still don't see a reason for his own article. Friday (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph to the Brian Chase article that sets forth his newsworthiness and narrates his role as a "fifteen minute newsmaker," his impact on Wikipedia, and his potential to become a public figure. // NetEsq 11:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, the best argument we have so far is based on his potential to become a public figure. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so why don't we merge for now, and if/when he becomes a public figure and we have verifiable facts NOT related to the Seigenthaler thing, he gets split off into his own article again? This is the way things are normally done, and it generally works just fine. Keep in mind, this is Wikipedia, not Wikinews, and people who are players in a newsworthy event don't automatically need their own articles independant of that event. Friday (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed? I still oppose merging, as do others, SqueakBox 16:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not much has changed. The merge is still IMO the completely obviously right thing to do. However, I'm glad to have, for the first time, an argument for not merging that is NOT related to the Afd. This argument runs contrary to WP:NOT, though. But at least it's not the same invalid "the Afd permanently prevents normal article editing" argument. Friday (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely redundant. Let's merge! Kaldari 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

Whilst this guy obviously released his name voluntarily to the press, and hence reprinted it is valid, I question whether we really should be releasing his private details in this article. I made a "bold" removal there on that basis, as it is not necessary in establishing the facts of the article, and only serves to invade his privacy and potentially set him up for further personal distress (and also potentially to legal problems for Wikipedia for doing that - if breaking the law is relevant to people here). If you really strongly disagree, then put it back in, but please provide reasons. Note that this guy didn't defame Seigenthaler. He allegedly defamed him. We cannot say that he did (or libelled, or slandered) until it is proven in a court of law. Also, we should note that there is no absolute proof that he did it. Okay, he confessed, but there is a very real chance that this is a false confession. So just be careful there. Even if you think that this article is sufficiently notable for its own entry, and you personally believe that it will still be notable next week (who knows, it might be!) the legal concerns for having this article in existence is very strong. I think that everyone contributing to it should be extraordinarily careful with what they say. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

What Chase did is vandalism. this is the common usage word for that kind of behaviour so it is important that that is how it is described in the article. Hence my changes, SqueakBox 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. At this point, we are not allowed to read what Brian Chase actually wrote. Also, it seems that Seigenthaler really did know Robert Kennedy and probably John F. Kennedy personally. Thus, it is possible that Brian Chase had some basis for believing whatever it was that he wrote. Until we are allowed to see what he actually wrote, suggestions that this was a hoax, a prank or even vandalism are just speculations. Sam Sloan 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read it, it said he was implied in the assasination but "Nothing was ever proven"; implying he had a role and the evidence was merely insufficient. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Seigenthaler quote it in the USA today article? Or is there a question that perhaps Seigenthaler was misquoting what Chase wrote? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of it all. Now that Brian Chase has an article about himself, he (the Brian Chase article) is vulnerable to vandalism. GoodDay 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it vanalism is inaccurate. He did not destroy any property...to say he defaced property is a stretch. Abuse is an accurate description. B Cas 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I stand corrected. His biography-article is (ironically), vulnerable to editoral abuse. GoodDay 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

After a huge Afd with a clear keep consensus one editor decides to redirect the arrticle. What gives? We muswt respect the consensus in this case, SqueakBox 14:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm going to redirect this (again). There was no "consensus to keep", there was merely no consensus to delete, and I'm not deleting anything. A merge is a form of keep. Having an article that just restates the contents of another article is stupid and counterproductive. Find me a single fact that's in this article that's not at the Seigenthaler controversy page (and if you can then add it to that article, don't revert this one). -R. fiend 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to keep. Apparently you don't like consensus. Why not learn to live with it, SqueakBox 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The consensus was to keep." Bullshit. I urge you to look up what a consensus is. Less than half the votes were to keep (many of them invalid, by the way). If 50% is a consensus then we're going to start seeing a lot more AFDs closed with consensus to delete. To quote the closer: "this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus." In any case, it doesn't take an AFD to merge an article. They can be done at any time, and should be done with any article that is 100% redundant. The people who voted to keep got their way. The information is kept at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, where it belongs. So quit whining. -R. fiend 15:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not at the now protected Siegenthal article, Stop attacking me as personal attacks will not help your argumment, more they will hinder it, I DON'T WHINGE!!!!!SqueakBox 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, that must be the longest AFD in history. Anyway my two cents is that there is no clear consensus either way. I'd be inclined to keep by default for now, and maybe revisit this in a couple of months when things have died down and we gain some perspective with another AFD. After all the information should remain either way. the wub "?!" 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should at least wait until the Siegenthal article is unprotected, SqueakBox 15:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is the right thing to do here in my opinion. It's not going against consensus to make an edit to an article after it's been Afd'd. No one has given a reason why not to merge it in the couple days that the suggestion has been on the talk page. I don't see how making the redirect is "against consensus" at all. Friday (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a sneaky way of deleting, sneaky in this case where an Afd was rejected and apparently thosewho wanted it got rid of are refusing to accept consensus and are now using this back door method, SqueakBox 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect is a sneaky way of deleting"??? Where do you get such asinine ideas? All the information is still there, whether it is redirected or not. -R. fiend 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people talking about the Afd instead of talking about the article?!?!? The Afd was pointless, and it've over now. Can we get back to making an encyclopedia? No one has addressed the points about why this shouldn't have its own article. He's a player in a larger controversy, and that's all we know about him. Merging helps keep things where they best belong and provides context. Friday (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd was not pointless. That is your interpretation. The consensus was to keep, which means people want the article. Editors who hate consemsus when it means they don't get their way should learn to accept no getting their way. This brings the whole Afd process into disrepute, SqueakBox 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "pointless" is just my opinion, sorry. The Afd was closed as a "keep", although it was most accurately a "no consensus". But, we have WP:DRV for talking about Afd's after the fact. Can we talk about the article instead of about the Afd, pretty please? Without worrying about rules and procedures, is there a reason the encyclopedia is better with this as a seperate article? Good reasons for merging have been given, and nobody's refuted them. Friday (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for fuck's sake quit cut/pasting this article into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. If it's redundant in it's own article, don't you think it might be redundant in the other article too? Do you want Wikipedia to look like it's edited by 10 year olds who can't form a cohesive article? -R. fiend 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. This kind of comment is really uncalled-for. Friday (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that posters here should be civil, but you have repeatedly redirected this article after being told by several different editors not to do that, so it is understandable that you have made people angry and annoyed. Sam Sloan 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The one redirect I made during the Afd was a bad idea; I've admitted that. It was promptly reverted, and I didn't do it again. I already said sorry for doing it in the first place; I should have known it wouldn't fly while the Afd was happening. The second redirect I did was after the Afd was over, so I see nothing wrong with it. There's nothing about an Afd that is meant to prevent people from making edits to the article after it's over; that would be bizarre and unworkable. I don't think doing a redirect again a few days later should be described as "repeatedly redirecting", particularly when I made an argument in favor of a merge on the talk page a couple days before. Nobody gave a reason why the merge shouldn't be done. Friday (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, as usual. Many users have given good reasons why the two articles should not be merged or redirected. Have you even bothered to read the lengthy discussions about this? Here is one especially good example from a user in Germany.

This page is linked from outside, for example from one of the biggest German news magazines (Der Spiegel) in articles about the controversy. If Mr. Chase does not merit an article himself (and there are people with more interesting bios), it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect. However, as we all want to read about Mr. Chase's fate (is he getting back to work?) later, which will not be really a part of the controversy itself, the page should be kept. gbrandt 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Sloan 16:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best reasoning, really. It even says "it should at least be merged with the main page about the controversy and fitted with a redirect", which is exactly what happened. I'm sure whether he does get his job back is of interest to no one except himself, his family and friends, and some wikipedians, who are the only ones interested in this guy, and a note as to whether he does get his job back would be fine to include in the controversy article. What would it take, 4 additional words? "He was later rehired" or "he was not rehired". Hardly worth a separate article. In fact, 170 votes basically say that this should not be a separate article (187 if you count the "keep and merges", and I haven't checked to see if the many "keep or merges" that were listed under "keep" for whatever reason wre counted as such). There is not really any good reason for this not to be redirected. It's entirely redundant. since when is redundancy a good thing? -R. fiend 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chase is the subject of a front page article in the New York Times, plus articles in Der Spiegel, BBC News and many other major media around the world. Thus, he has become a public figure, a media personality. This affair may be embasassing to Wikipedia and you may want to hide or bury it, but there can be no doubt that it meets all the criterea for inclusion here. Sam Sloan 17:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can say that a redirect to a better, more complete article is an attempt to "bury" anything. I'm not trying to "bury" anything. I certainly think everyone who considers themself a serious contributor to wikiepdia should read about this and see what happens when wikipedia bites off more than it can chew. And please point to a news story, any news story, that is about Chase and not about the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The controversy is what is notable, and, had I been around for its AFD, I would have voted to keep it. Now, has Chase made any public appearances? Or even any public statements beyond his confession/apology? Has he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor or anything? When he does, we might start to make a case for a separate article, but even then, everything will still be in reference to the greater controversy. When he writes a book about his experience (or anything else) and it becomes a bestseller, then we will have a good reason for a separate article. But still no one has given any good reason why an article that 100% repeats the content of another article is even slightly beneficial. Can you explain why it is? -R. fiend 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well wait a week and put another Afd on it, expressing your reasons. I don't think this article should be repeated at Siegenthal, and when it is unlocked I will edit that article to make sure there is no duplication. It seems to me the real problem at the moment is that that article is locked, and hopefully will be unlocked soon. A lot of people have argued to keep the article, more than argued for any other position on the Afd, and we need to respect that, SqueakBox 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an AFD because I don't want the thing deleted. Why is that so hard to understand? I just think this tendency for wikipedia to have 5 articles where one will do is a problem that makes the entire project harder to monitor. -R. fiend 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in principle I agree with you, but it seems to me that this is a case where a separate article is justified because I do believe he is nottable enough, and that the community consensus backs this. It is certainly possible to Afd an article asking for it to be redirected. i did this to an article the other day, not because I couldn't have done the rediurect myself but because I thought the input of other editors would be valuable in deciding whether or not the article should be an article of its own in the mainspace or not, so I would say you could do an Afd asking for it top be made into a redirect, SqueakBox 17:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not what AFD is for. It's called Articles for deletion, after all, and such nominations usually get a "what did you bring this here for?" at some point. Redirects are best addressed through discussion pages, as well as merge templates, and, if need be, RFCs. In any case, I have no desire to reopen that can of worms by even mentioning this article at AFD again. I'm still waiting for a reason why a redundant article is necessary. I'll add a merge template to this article and see what that does. -R. fiend 17:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that has never been my experience of Afd, indeed in my exoperience Afding for a redirect is entirely legitimate. A merge request is fine. My argument is that he is nottable enough to have an article given the enormous impact his actions have had on wikipedia. certainly in the UK they have given wikipedia a publicity impetus which wikipedia has never had before, and it is a genuine story. There is the issue of whether he is going to lose his job, as I heard he resigned in embarrassment, and I am sure we can improve the article rather than redirecting it, SqueakBox 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to weigh in here as well. I feel that the article should be merged with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Actually, it's already all but duplicated there anyway. The subject of this article isn't inherently notable; vandalizing a wikipedia article does not make a person notable. I do grant may be worthwhile to leave the article for now and make a decision in a few weeks, after the press dies down a bit. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Statement by Brian Chase true?

Here is part of what Brian Chase wrote:

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. 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."

Now, it is a fact that John Seigenthaler Sr. was the Assistant Attorney General under President John F. Kennedy. It is also a fact that just about everybody of significance in the entire world has been at one time or another accused of involvement in the Kennedy Assassination. Therefore, it might be true that somebody, somewhere said that John Seigenthaler Sr. was involved. Brian Chase covers himself by stating "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved". I suspect that he can provide some source, however unreliable, for this assertion.

Next, John Seigenthaler Sr. says that although this had been posted for four months, he did not know about it. I doubt that this is true. Pop the name John Seigenthaler Sr. into any search engine, and the Wikipedia biography will come out on top. So, he probably did know about it.

Thirdly, rather than simply delete the false statements in the article, as he easily could have done, he wrote to the founder of Wikipedia demanding that the entire article be deleted. Since John Seigenthaler Sr. clearly is a public figure, this demand was refused for a time, and properly so.

Finally, John Seigenthaler Sr. chose to write an article about it in USA today. So, it is clear that he chose to publicize the incident rather than quitely remove it. I know that I had never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. prior to this incident and I doubt that many other readers had. He has become famous or at least more famous, because of this controversy.

I think that this raises questions which ought to be addressed. Sam Sloan 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<< John Seigenthaler Sr. chose to write an article about [the vandalism of his Wikipedia article] in USA today. So, it is clear that he chose to publicize the incident rather than quitely remove it. I know that I had never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. prior to this incident and I doubt that many other readers had. He has become famous or at least more famous, because of this controversy. >>

I, too, question Seigenthaler's choice to publicize the vandalism of his Wikipedia article rather than simply quietly see to its removal through the powers that be. Clearly, he had something to prove about how wicked-da-pedia is. However, that issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the article about Brian Chase, who -- incidentally, would properly be described by an article entitled "Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster)." Should not the discussion about Seigenthaler's self-aggrandizing publicity be moved to the Talk page of one of the Seigenthaler articles? // NetEsq 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with certainty that it is true that *SOMEONE* once thought that he was involved. As you say, everyone involved with JFK was at one point suspected. There were hundreds if not thousands of people who were suspected.

The only libellous thing was saying that Seigenthaler was born in the Soviet Union. That is untrue. However, suggesting that that could hurt his reputation at all is silly. Its factually inaccurate, but it doesn't hurt him.

If I put in to someone's article "He was once briefly thought to be gay" then its not libellous. Its the same kind of thing. Practically everyone at some point has been accused of being gay. It is probably non-notable and not appropriate for the article, but its not libellous. There's a difference. You could add to Arnold Schwarzenegger's article that "Scwarzenegger was once briefly thought to be gay" and he couldn't sue you for it. But it'd still be vandalism though. Big deal. Petty vandalism. That's it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A better name for this article

I think the most appropriate name for the Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) article would be Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster). He doesn't qualify as a hoaxster, nor does he really qualify as a vandal, as he purportedly assumed that Wikipedia was a "joke sight" and consequently attempted to use Wikipedia to perpetrate a private prank. // NetEsq 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like thaty at all. Do we call the many vandals here pranksters? No. Wikipedia says we should use the common name, so I would like to see it called Brian Chase (Wikipedia vandal) as vandal is clearly the common term, and as it is very important to be neutral in this self-referencing article, we should gop for it and do so, SqueakBox 19:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming this article to Brian Chase (Wikipedia vandal). Hall Monitor 21:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just have Brian Chase (delivery guy)? That's what he actually does. His occupation isn't to disrupt Wikipedia. He did it once for 2 minutes. So what if he's famous for 2 minutes worth of work? Its not his occupation. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's not notable for being a delivery guy, he's notable for being a hoaxer. --RayaruB 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<< Why not just have Brian Chase (delivery guy)? That's what he actually does. >>

Not anymore, it isn't. So why not have Brian Chase (former delivery guy come fifteen minute newsmaker who lost his job because of a prank perpetrated via Wikipedia)? // NetEsq 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many possible names, several of which might be better. However, I feel that now that more than 150 registeed users have edited this page, plus thousands have obviously read it, plus it has been mentioned in the International news, including Der Speigel and BBC News, that it is too late to consider any name changes.

Sam Sloan 14:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree, Sam. Wikipedia rules state we are allowed to change the name, and if the BBC etc want to comment on that, no problem, SqueakBox 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Being a wiki, nothing is ever set in stone. Since people obviously want to keep this article (the notability reasonign is beyond me), it should at least follow naming conventions and other policy here. If not merged, it should be located at Brian Chase (vandal). WP is not self-referential. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, certainly oppose just "vandal". That's very misleading, and far from neutral. If I saw that I'd expect the article to be about a guy who trashed cars or something, not wrote a joke article which some users (for some reason) have actually defended as being mostly true. Self-reference is not a problem in this occurance; anyone who says it is is misinterpreting the guidelines. Wikipedia can be mentioned in wikipedia. If not Jimbo's article would be a very strange read, as it tried to dance around what he's famous for, without mentioning it. I imagine if there was another famous Jimmy Wales with an article his would be called "Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia founder)" without any problem. It's not like the article says "Why don't you check out a few other articles we have here at the Wikipedia?" which is the sort of self-reference we want to avoid. We needn't start mentioning "The-online-encyclopedia-who-must-not-be-named". -R. fiend 23:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Lord Voldemort said about nothing on wikis being set in stone, but I still prefer the title Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster), or (if you wish to avoid a self-reference to Wikipedia) Brian Chase (wiki prankster). // NetEsq 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Brian Chase (internet vandal)? SqueakBox 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was better than the current title, too. Support move. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Squeakbox says, "it is very important to be neutral". "Vandal" does not strike me as terribly neutral. I'm not really sure what's wrong with the current title. -R. fiend 18:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, what he put really wasn't a "hoax", so to call him a hoaxer is wrong. Second, Wikipedia is not self-referential, so having "Wikipedia" in the title is probably not good either. I don't think vandal is POV, I think it is factual. Someone who vandalises is a vandal. There is no POV in stating facts. What about Brian Chase (guy who puts misinformation on Internet sites)? I think calling him an Internet vandal is perfectly NPOV. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the guy admitted he did it as a joke, so I think calling it a hoax is pretty accurate. And self-reference is not a problem if the article is about wikipedia; we do have a Wikipedia article, need I remind you, and the main article (which this one should redirect to, in my view) is called John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (there's that W-word again). I see no problem with the title as is (and if it's redirected, it's even less of an issue). -R. fiend 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree it should be redirected somewhere, but it isn't really a "hoax". Maybe it should be Brian Chase (Internet jokester)? Then again, I'm not exactly sure these people understand the concept of notability. Oh well, I'm done with this article for awhile. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current article title, Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer), is just fine in my opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Settling the merge issue

Since AFD is not for settling merge issues, bringing the issue there is stupid. As the vote on deletion resulted in no consensus, the article was obviously not deleted. The merge issue is unsettled, despite claims by a few editors (some with a couple weeks worth of contributions) that there was some sort of consensus that the article not be merged. So let's just have a vote here. Majority rules. This is NOT about deletion, so people, please leave all spurious arguments about deletion, AFD, etc at home. (I'm sorry it's come to this.)

Arguments Pro/Con

(please keep this about content not about AFD)

Arguments for merging:

The article is completely redundant, all the information is already included at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
Having multiple articles that repeat the exact same material is detrimental to the project. Done on a large scale is greatly increases the number of articles that need to be monitored for vandalism, without adding anything to Wikipedia.
The event was started by Seigenthaler himself. If not for his involvement, this would have been run-of-the-mill hoaxing that happens every single day and we'd never know who did it. (This is really a response to the "don't merge" argument #5, rather than a reason to merge.)

Arguments for a having separate article:

Figure is notable enough to warrant an article.
Consensus of the AFD discussion was to keep the article, not merge. I question the statement that Afd's are not for redirecting as it is anopther form of deletion.
Arguments are to be about content, not about AFD. And there was not a consesnsus to keep! Stop making things up. -R. fiend 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If you are a merger please stick to your side of the argument, SqueakBox 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this article overlaps in Seigenthaler the content should be removed from that article.
Chase may become significant outside the Seigenthaler affair.
This entire notable event was precipitated by one person, the subject of this article. Precedents: separate articles for W. Mark Felt and Deep Throat (Watergate); Ernesto Miranda and Miranda rights, etc.
Categories such as Category:1967 births, Category:People from Tennessee, and Category:Hoaxes would be lost.

Category:Hoaxes can be placed in the Seigenthaler article. 1967 births is speculative and should be there anyway, and little is lost if Chase is not in the Tennessee category. Gamaliel 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Merge/redirect (merging has been done)

R. fiend 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The only verifiable info we have on Chase relates to the Seigenthaler thing. I don't get how this was ever controversial. Friday (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. Chase has done nothing notable that is not part of the controversy. The AfD merely prohibits deletion of the information and does not prohibit merging. Gamaliel 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Gamaliel and Friday. Create a redirect to Seigenthaler controversy. --Fang Aili 22:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. How anyone could think this person merits an article of his own, beyond the article about the hoax he precipitated, is beyond me. --Srleffler 14:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a separate article

SqueakBox 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jokestress 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hall Monitor 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SpinyNorman 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - the idea that Chase "has done nothing notable" or "is not part of the controversy" is demonstrably untrue.[reply]

Comments

Reason #1 for not merging sure looks wrong to me, based on the content of this article being exclusively about the Seigenthaler affair. #2 is based on a misunderstanding of Afd. Also, it would be helpful if people on either side would explain their reasoning instead of just "voting". Friday (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may comments about reason 3, obviously we can't remove all the redundant information from the article, he's part of the controversy and has to be mentioned in it. Would it be preferable not to mention his role at all and just include him as a see also link? also the idea that "redirection is a form of deletion" is utterly insane, and runs counter to official deletion policy. -R. fiend 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of categories is insignificant. Category: Hoaxes could stay, the others are pointless anyway. 1967 births is a bad category anyway, as it's based on an estimate. -R. fiend 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First I have had that the idea that "redirection is a form of deletion" is insane. Is that policy or opinion? SqueakBox 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the deletion policy. -R. fiend 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave other people's comments intact. This is a talkm page and other than personal attacks nobody has the right to interfere with the comments of another. I would prefer to see the mergers stick to their own arguments and not try to contribute to the separate article reasons, SqueakBox 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jokestress 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FWIW, the "future significance" argument WAS given by someone else on this very talk page. Maybe it should be reworded more neutrally instead of removed altogether? Also, can anyone explain why a past Afd is meant to bind our hands on how to edit the article afterward? Friday (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on the "arguments for merging". #1 is a strawman. The redundancy exists only because those who argue for a merge have created it. This issue could easily be resolved by removing the redundant information from the Seigenthaler article. Argument #2 is redundant to #1. #3 is factually incorrect. Seigenthaler may have started to controversy, but Chase was the one who committed the act that led to the controversy. Ergo, that is actually an argument in favor of a separate argument, not against it. The only question of any relevance is whether or not Chase is sufficiently notable to warrant an article and there is no question about that. The fact that he's mentioned in the Seigenthaler article is evidence that he's notable. Oh, and the most important issue of all is that this has already been decided. This latest to-do is just a bunch of people who didn't like the way the last vote came out looking for another bite at the apple. --SpinyNorman 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to the person(s) who keep claiming that there was no consensus against the merge... I direct you to the above section entitled "AFD is closed". The final vote tally was Keep: 146, Delete: 46, Merge: 124. That seems, to me at least, to indicate a clear consensus that the article is to be kept and not deleted or merged. --SpinyNorman 01:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I advise you to look at the wikipedia guidlines for what constitutes a consensus. <50% is never sufficient. In addition, yes, one could remove the redundant information, but it would serve no purpose. It would weaken both articles. One could turn any article into 4 or 5 by turning every proper noun mentioned therein into a separate article. All that does is aid wikipedia in the race to one million "articles". One shouldn't send in 4 articles where one will do. -R. fiend 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most original argument to overrule a majority vote that I've seen in a long time. If more people vote to do A than to do B or C, how can anyone seriously argue that A isn't the thing to do? --SpinyNorman 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia does not run on simple majority votes. Wikipedia works on "consensus". --Srleffler 14:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon further reflection, all the information was redundant all along (except for a single fact). There was no plot by mergists to do make it so. The moment the Chase article was created it contained no new information, just the same stuff repeated with slightly different phrasing. Absolutely pointless. -R. fiend 03:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, so you've said - on many occasions. The fundamental problem here is that more people disagree with you than agree with you and there's really no way around it. --SpinyNorman 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else find it kind of amusing that someone who's been editing for about two weeks is lecturing several admins (some of whom have been here closer to 2 years) on how wikipedia works? And as for disagreement, well, as has been said, people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitlied to their own facts. People can "disagree" by saying that merging is deletion, or the article was not created as a complete redundnacy, but that doesn't make it any closer to the truth. -R. fiend 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend, please refrain from personal attacks against other editors, and don't bite the newcomers. You can make your points by arguing from your side and without denigrating other views or editors. Jokestress 16:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are very experienced editors on both sides of this debate. Having admin powers gives zero extra weight to someone's argument as admins are prohibited from using their admin power on this page when they participate in it as regular editors, so to characteirse this debate as experienced admins against newbies or anything remotely like that is simply false, and I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve in doing so, SqueakBox 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpinyNorman, based on what you're saying, it doesn't look to me like you're understanding the issue here. Nobody is trying to remove information about Chase. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how to organize the encyclopedia. This guy is a player in the controversy. The only information we have on him relates to the controversy and is already covered in that article. His info is only relevant in the context of the controversy. If he records a hit record next year, he'll need his own article then, but let's wait and see if that actually happens, alright? Also, nobody is talking about "overruling a vote". The Afd is over and done with; it's not relevant to the question of whether to merge. Friday (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]