Talk:John Seigenthaler/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is a talk_page archive covering a period from December 5 to December 6 2005. Click on the first link under the page title to see current discussion, or click the second link for an overview of the archives.

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)

The only thing this raised questions about was Wikipedia's accuracy, and this talk page effectively answers those questions. "It's okay to lie because it's free speech" DOES NOT FULFILL THE PURPOSE OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, and the fact that any of us think it does trashes any credibility the wiki might have had up to this point. Rogue 9 16:22, 5 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". ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 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. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 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. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 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. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 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)
          • Gamaliel, you do not know what the original statement was based on. The fact that the statements did not include citations does not make them false. When something is disputed, it is just that, DISPUTED, not false. The proper course of action in a dispute is to put the burden of proof on the person making the allegations to back them up. Since the original poster is MIA, I agree that the disputed statements should not appear in the article unless and until there is some basis for them. That does NOT make the statements false, libelous, or defamatory, as so very many posters here have wrongly prejudged. FCYTravis, your statement is completely at odds with how the major media outlets conduct business. Articles based on anonymous sources that cast aspersions on conservative figures are commonplace. There have been many high-profile examples of these flimsy stories being exposed as frauds, and there are countless other false stories that nobody managed to prove to be false. So please, spare me your talk of journalistic ethics that exist only in the classroom and clearly not in the real world. You cannot claim that something like this would not be allowed to run, when I see far worse actually running in major media outlets on a regular basis. Far from holding Wikipedia to standards below the National Enquirer, you wish to hold Wikipedia to a more restrictive standard than the New York Times. I would also like to make 1 thing clear: no one here, including me, is arguing that this language should be restored to the article. That is a straw man you keep attacking. As for whether I have ever worked on a libel case, Ianbetteridge, I am working on one right now. As far as libel is concerned, calling the statements in question libel is pathetically inept. The statement that "he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." is the core of this dispute, and it is so vague as to be impossible to disprove. It is possible that the statement is true in the broadest sense: that suspicion was cast upon this man for a brief time by law enforcement and/or the media. I don't know, and neither do you. The statement that "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984." is hardly something that would injure someone's reputation in 2005 (maybe it would 50 years ago), and "He started one of the country's largest public relations firm shortly thereafter." is flattering if anything. Everyone needs to bear in mind that we have the FIRST AMENDMENT in this country. Seigenthaler forgot about the 1st Amendment very quickly when something negative was said about him. He could dish it out, but he couldn't take it. I think giving people who have a personal interest in a given wikipedia article veto power over the content of that article sets a very dangerous precedent. Kaltes 14:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Kaltes, I disagree that it's "so vague as to be impossible to disprove" The statement that "he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Maybe we could never be absolutely sure, that's not necessary, even in court. There are probably records of who the suspects were, and there are books and news publications that can be consulted. The qualifications in the statement that you call the core of this dispute are not enough if the official and major unofficial publications don't support it.
            • Um, y'all it's a lie. Siegenthaler did not move to the Soviet Union, and he didn't start a PR firm. He was the editor, then publisher, then publisher emeritus of The Tennessean up till he started the Freedom Forum. Any newspaper reader in Nashville could tell you that. And you damn well better have some proof that he was "thought to be involved" in the Kennedy assinations, because I call horse puckey. No, this bio was a malicious lie conjured up in some hateful person's fevered imagination. Hamletta 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the information in an article would be expected by many people to meet the standards of an encyclopedia and to be truthful, at least after the quick review of a new article. I was recently referred to Wikipedia by Mike Newman of the Library of Congress for information about Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Mr. Newman said "There is some good information on the history and background of the legislation on the non-governmental but well-regarded wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/McCain-Feingold." It's assumed that the statement "he was thought to have been directly involved..." holds more weight than if it was overheard on the street, and that should be a consideration in determining whether it's libel. I can't imagine Seigenthaler not knowing whether it's accurate, and he obviously believes it's not. If Wikipedia allows anonymous articles and edits, Wikipedia should be held responsible, especially if the author can't be found. I think standards should be higher for articles that could be considered libel, and if anonymous posters are allowed at all, they shouldn't be for such articles. Barry 05:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm an attorney as well. And in our community we both know people who think that not only could they win such a case for Mr. Seigehthaler; they could successfuly defend against him as well. This case wouldn't be about the law; it would be about the lawyering.ChiTwnG 03:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Could he win a case about it now, after he's gone public with the issue and thus spread the possibly-libelous statement much more widely than it ever was on this site? *Dan T.* 14:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
                • ChiTwnG, if you are a lawyer then you can look up the elements required for libel. Libel must be based on a verifiable fact, not an opinion. The verifiable fact must be provably false, even if the plaintiff does not need to prove its falsity. The 1st statement, which is the one people are so up in arms about, is clearly not a verifiable fact capable of being provably false. Any attorney who thinks they would win such a case for Mr. Seigehthaler is a fool. I think it is obvious that Mr. Seigehthaler's attorney is no fool, which is why Mr. Seigehthaler wrote his editorial complaining of his lack of a legal remedy instead of filing the lawsuit I'm sure he wishes he could have filed. The 2nd and 3rd statements are provably false, but then another element of libel comes into play: harm to reputation. I don't see how anyone could argue that in 2005 having lived in Russia and having opened a PR firm could harm this man's reputation. Keeping this language out of the article is a good idea, but wiping from wikipedia's record as though it never existed was a bad idea, especially since this appears to have been done in response to the subject of the article using his lawyer as a weapon when he could have simply changed the article himself. Kaltes 2:36, 5 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.4.30 (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

I'm sure if you're prepared to underwrite Wikimedia's potential legal bills, it could be undeleted :) But seriously, the fact that the accusation was potentially libellous should be enough. That's the line the professional, serious publishers draw - and Wikipedia should adhere to the same sort of standards. ianbetteridge 14:50, 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)

Jimbo has stated pretty clearly just above that the offending revisions should not be restored. I've articulated a theory about why restoring them now could bring even greater potential for liability than their presence originally. The current history does not deny his claim, it simply doesn't confirm it because confirmation in that fashion would involve repeating the potential defamation. Meanwhile, correcting an inaccurate statement produced by using a general-purpose template is perfectly reasonable. --Michael Snow 17:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, okay! You guys should understand that I never had the opportunity to be horrified at the deleted version; I seem to have left my admin powers in my other pants. Melchoir 18:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo that Mr. Seigenthaler's original actions in requesting deletion of the material, and Wikipedia's following of this request, were perfectly reasonable, and the fact that such falsehoods remained in the article so long before that time point to a genuine flaw in the Wikipedia process. On the other hand, now that the person involved has made a very public point of it, including reprinting the offending material himself, it would seem to be time to re-evaluate the decision to delete the material from the history; those edits themselves are now part of a public controversy, and any privacy rights Mr. Seigenthaler may have had in the material are no longer applicable now that he's gone public with it. Restoring the history would not be done for the purpose of libeling Mr. Seigenthaler, but for the purpose of making past history that is the subject of public discussion (spearheaded by the subject himself) accessible. If somebody gets libeled here, and makes a private request to have the libel removed, that should be complied with, but if he makes a public commotion about it (as is of course his right under free speech), then he shouldn't then expect privacy or secrecy regarding the material in question. *Dan T.* 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:08, 5 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)

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)

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 

They did not provide a "summary" of the USA Today item. The first one was a test-type edit adding "hello" to the end of the article. The second one replaced the external links and categories with the potentially defamatory text Seigenthaler was complaining about, not a summary of Seigenthaler's column. Gamaliel's deletion of these revisions was legitimate and appropriate, and I'm going to redelete those revisions momentarily. --Michael Snow 16:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting, since I reviewed them before undeleting. Looking now I see that you're right about the content of the second and I wouldn't have undeleted it if I'd seen that. Thanks for removing it again.

What's your reason for wanting the first and third out of the history? Removing those appears to serve no useful purpose other than to conceal some of the history of the article, since they contain nothing unusual. Jamesday 18:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, my rationale (and I suppose Gamaliel's, since he did both the revert and the deletion) was that the revert involved removing both the test and the potentially defamatory text, and it would be in some sense inaccurate to represent it as simply a revert of the test. For example, if you were to run a diff to see what Gamaliel changed without the second revision, it wouldn't really show what he changed. And none of these revisions have any bearing on subsequent revisions, so there's no requirement to include them.

On the other hand, if you take accuracy to mean preserving as much history as possible including vandalism, I can see the argument for restoring the first and third edits. Basically, it's a choice about which kind of inaccuracy we're more inclined to tolerate. But if you want to restore just the first and third revisions of that set, I can live with that. --Michael Snow 19:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Getting this up to FA

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

Lead section needs to be fixed. We have almost nothing on his publications: if someone went to the library, read them and gave us a synopsis of each... that would be good. I think the article needs it. Then I'd submit to FAC! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines are at WP:FA if anyone's not already seen them. The Land 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It needs referencing altogether more thoroughly (imo), too. -Splash^talk 16:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Durick

Seigenthaler supported Tennessee Bishop Joseph Aloysius Durick during the latter's contentious focus on social issues.

What kind of social issues did the Bishop focus on? Leftist (war, death penalty, consumerism, poverty) or rightist (abortion, homosexuality, school prayer) ones? Without that information, the significance of the above sentence remains unclear. AxelBoldt 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was the former: [1]. I'll add it to the article. AxelBoldt 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

WP linked articles before the controversy

I was just curious what WP articles linked to this article before the controversy broke. I found only six so far: Robert F. Kennedy, Freedom Riders, Profiles in Courage Award, John Seigenthaler Jr., John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler Sr.. Liblamb 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Comments On Mr. Seigenthaler's Complaint

A Wikipedia Talk Page Contribution Concerning John Seigenthaler Sr.

I am not sure which section of this talk page these comments should be added to since they touch on several questions.

The most important is that I fear the admins have been too willing to credit the view that John Seigenthaler Sr. may have been libeled in a biograpohic entry about him that remained online at this site for several months (see "it clearly is false and potentially libelous" elsewhere on this page). Under libel laws, Mr. Seigenthaler qualifies as a public figure -- the presence of a biographic entry about him in the Wikipedia is sufficient evidence of that. In that connection, the only way that any statement about him could qualify as libel would be if it was made with malicious intent, and even then many court rulings support the view that malicious statements about public figures do not qualify as libel.

The second is that a link to Mr. Seigenthaler's USAToday article should be added to the external links section (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm). The issues the article raises in connection with the Wikipedia are too important for that link not to be added to the page. The third is that, as a result of the controversy, a copy of the Wikipedia entry that Mr. Seigenthaler has taken exception to should be accessible in its entirety in as much as he has made a number of statements about it, not only in his USAToday article but in various television appearances as well.

Finally, I can not help but suspect a bias on Mr. Seigenthaler’s part in his persistent agitation in the media about the issue. As other contributors have observed, there were and are many opportunities for someone in his position to correct an entry that he believes to be erroneous. Mr. Seigenthaler is a veteran newsman, and his name ranks as one of the great names in American journalism in the late 20th century. Having had 15 years of reporting and publishing experience myself, I can not help but think that he must be aware of something that anyone with small town reporting experience learns early on, which is that the more you stir something, the worse it stinks. I would never have learned of this issue had I not seen him on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show this evening complaining about it. Considering that that issue appears to have been resolved to his satisfaction two months ago, I find his continual agitation noteworthy. It brings to mind something my grandmother used to say, which is that it is the dog that has been bit that barks the loudest.

I do not have any reason to suspect any involvement by Mr. Seigenthaler in the Kennedy assassination, nor do I believe that he resided for an extended period of time in the Soviet Union, which is another assertion that he claimed in the USAToday article that the Wikipedia made about him. I leave it for others to contemplate how the latter assertion qualifies as something "negative said about me".

Instead, I suspect in part that his vanity may have been piqued that the entries remained online "for 132 days", according to Mr. Seigenthaler, without anyone taking any particular notice of them. Other writers, I suspect, would have characterized that time period simply as several months.

"I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about ‘the wonderful world of Wikipedia,’ where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference ‘facts,’ composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge - and sometimes by people with malice," Mr. Seigenthaler wrote in the USAToday article that was published online on Nov. 29, 2005. "Naturally, I want to unmask my ‘biographer.’ And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."

"Weeks", Mr. Seigenthaler? Weeks?

One wonders what crevice Mr. Seigenthaler has had his head up for the last few years.

In as much as Mr. Seigenthaler has failed in his efforts to "unmask" any Wikipedia contributor, much less talk to one apparently, characterizing some Wikipedia contributors as "people with no special expertise or knowledge ... people with malice", qualifies as an unfounded and potentially defamatory allegation. In addition, characterizing the Wikipedia as an "irresponsible research tool" clearly qualifies as a malicious and defamatory statement in light of the efforts that the operators of this website have made during the couple of months prior to the publication of that opinion to satisfy Mr. Seigenthaler’s complaint and to cooperate in his efforts to remedy it.

Mr. Seigenthaler is a pillar of the old, alarmingly centralized and bureaucratic journalism community, whose circulation, and consequent advertising revenues, has been deeply bitten by the internet alternative. It does not surprise one in the least to see him exerting himself to find a punitive way to make a sanguinary example of an unknown internet user and the website that published that user’s statements.

Mr. Seigenthaler’s comments in USAToday make it clear that his desire goes far beyond remedying a couple of unfortunate statements that seem to have been read by hardly anyone before he began using the mainstream media to publicize them. He is mounting a campaign to discredit the Wikipedia and possibly the entire internet.

In closing, I am very aware of the important issues that Mr. Seigenthaler has raised. The liberty that the internet has opened up across the globe does call us all to special responsibilities when considering the consequences of what we post online. But the sight of a pillar of the old unresponsive corporate journalism community complaining continuously about the new media comes across as narcissistic whining and self-interested defamation.

The spectacle of a man who has spent his entire professional career in the arena taking exception to something that somebody wrote about him certainly gives one pause. That he is apparently seeking to bring the substantial resources of the federal government of the United States to bear on that writer gives one pause for alarm. Marcopolo

• Note that the above contribution was made by an anon, who simply added a fake signature for a user who hasn't edited since July 2004. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 07:12

• This is actually me, Marcopolo. I logged in properly at first, but the cookie apprently expired. In addition, I do not know the proper method of signing these contributions since it is only the second one I have made. Please excuse me. Brian, review the User link you cited above, you will hopefully find these minor edits listed. In addition, I hope this gets it (Marcopolo 07:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)).

Marcopolo thank you for reexamining the purpose to Seigenthaler's article. Most editors were locked into sympathy for him and didn't realize that Seigenthaler did not set out to just tell about a personal experience, but to lead a campaign to discredit Wikipedia. He wants the public to reject Wikipedia as an adaquete source. We should also, then, see him as another Robert McHenry. Lotsofissues 12:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence? that his article was part of a 'campaign to discrecit Wikipedia'? Let's not kid ourselves here. The Land 12:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

From his editorial: "I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool." This is no idle desire as he makes the cable circuit warning ppl that Wikipedia is not a good research tool. Lotsofissues 12:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he has a campaign, per se. He's simply broken open another pillow in response, and the news media is only too happy to spread the feathers. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That Siegenthaler is biased against wikipedia is transparently self-evident; he was denigrated on this site, and thus it is understandable. What's more, he's right (if perhaps a little overzealous). Wikipedia is a highly flawed source, and it is an irresponsible research tool. I say this, and I love Wikipedia. Because anyone can change any article in any way and for any purpose or agenda, it can never be an adequate source. What it is is a good starting point for research, or a good place for a quick (but not fully trusted) piece of information, especially on topics not typically covered in encyclopedias like TV shows and other pop-cultural phenomena (it actually excels at this). Siegenthaler appears to simply want people know that this site in particular (and the internet in general, as seen be the numerous mirror sites that picked up his faulty bio) is particularly prone to misinformation and outright falsehoods and that as such it should not be blindly trusted. Other than that, he seems to want to hold the anon editor responsible, but is unable to. Whether or not many people have read the article is irrelevent; he has been maligned. And moreover, some have suggested that if it had been a more important person it would have been more quickly changed. Most likely true, but that does not change the fact that for any misleading or false claim on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) several people will likely read it--many, or even most, unquestioningly--before it is changed, even if that occurs relatively quickly. This is a real problem. What Siegenthaler is trying to do (other than clear his name) is raise awareness of this problem. Writing off his article as biased does not help that problem.

There are still mirror sites with the original bogus article out on the web. Here is a screen shot of one: [link removed] Who at Wikipedia is responsible for getting the mirror sites updated? 4.230.171.246 17:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We no longer host the bogus information. It is the mirror site's responsibility to remove it, since in their case, it is libel and could be brought to court. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 18:09

Wikipedia is distributed freely without any update requirements. Hundreds, if not thousands, of sites unaffiliated with Wikipedia publish our content. Many probably will never update their older versions of the encyclopedia; and, so these misrepresentations will float forever (fortunately at the unfound bottom of search results). Lotsofissues 18:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Marcopolo wrote: "Under libel laws, Mr. Seigenthaler qualifies as a public figure -- the presence of a biographic entry about him in the Wikipedia is sufficient evidence of that." WP's policy (or lack thereof) on notability-as-a-prerequisite-for-an-article, and how Articles for Deletion works in practice, makes the foregoing statement laughable, for better or worse. I think whether Mr. S is a public figure is arguable, but I know for sure that lots of non-public figures have a "biographic entry" about them; some were put there by the subject (or his/her fans) out of vanity; some were put there out of malice toward the subject of the article. The "presence of a biographic entry about" Mr. S has almost no probative value on the question, imo. --FRS 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate smugness in others, and I hate it even worse in myself. Being a bit stimulated by John Seigenthaler Sr.'s appearance on television Friday night, as well as a long-time enthusiasm for the Wikipedia and all that it represents, I pressed my argument farther than research and reflection would have supported.

Although I still believe that the inclusion of a biographic entry on in the Wikipedia qualifies as 'evidence' that Mr. Seigenthaler is a public figure, I concede that the comments made by FRS on this question have at least equal validity.

Those comments prompted me to consult the 'Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual', which is a standard resource consulted by working reporters with questions about libel and related issues.

In 'New York Times v. Sullivan' (1964) and in 'Associated Press v Walker' (1967) the U.S. Supreme Court extended some broad protections to news organizations in connection with reports about public officials and public figures. In the years afterward, however, the courts have focused those protections more narrowly. In 'Gertz v Robert Welch Inc' (1974), the court essentially ruled that being a prominent lawyer did not automatically qualify an individual as a public figure. Other subsequent rulings appear to have broadened the distinction between being a prominent person and being a public figure, and generally narrowed the category of public figures.

I submit that the question of whether or not the presence of a biographic article in the Wikipedia qualifies an individual as a public figure would have to be settled by a court and that the court's decision would hinge on the quality of arguments and the supporting documents submitted by the attorneys arguing the case. Still, it appears that legal precedents do not allow any publication to convert a private individual into a public figure simply by writing about them.

In cases involving public figures, the courts have also drawn a distinction between the public and private portions of an individual's life.

So allow me instead to note simply that having served as an assistant to U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy would qualify Mr. Seigenthaler as a public official during that period, and that the courts have treated public officials as public figures for these purposes. In addition, I would argue that the nature of Mr. Seigenthaler's career in journalism justifies categorizing him as a public figure.

According to my copy of the AP Stylebook and Libel Manual, "The courts are saying that public figure means people who seek the limelight, who inject themselves into public debate ..." I believe that a cursory review of Mr. Seigenthaler's career, as well as citations of his writings on the internet amply validate the assertion that he is a public figure.

Two additional considerations came to my attention while reading about these questions. One is that since the Wikipedia is not an on-deadline publication dealing with breaking news, its contents can be held to a more reflective standard. The other is that statements made about a public figure can be judged according to their relevance to the individual's public role.

In that last connection, any statement made about a possible role by any individual in Kennedy assassination would likely be evaluated in connection with the activities by that individual that qualify him or her as a public figure. Consideration of that question, however, would best be dealt with under another subject heading. Marcopolo 07:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI - John Seigenthaler Sr., Norman Rothman & the House Select Committee on Assassinations

Having interjected myself into this ongoing debate about John Seigenthaler Sr. and the Wikipedia, I was motivated today to do some research. I do not know if anyone has shared the following information, so forgive me if it is old news to the community. In addition, much of the following is provided as information only; I have no opinion about any possible issues that may be connected with it.

Firstly, please allow me to quote the following from an article authored by Mr. Seigenthaler and published by USAToday --

"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."

- Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. ...

-- I do that because I wish to make reference to the statement concerning a role by Mr. Seigenthaler "in the Kennedy assassinations" and hope that quoting him on the subject would avoid possible concerns related to defamation. I am reasonably certain that an individual can not legally defame himself.

As I read over the entries on this talk page, I note that all of them are concerned with the Wikipedia, with its role and standards. On the one hand I think it highly laudable that members of this community would rigorously critique its work. But I also wonder if this debate has not been one-sidedly narcissistic.

From the time I first became aware of the controversy over Mr. Seigenthaler's biography (admittedly only about a day ago), I have been curious as to why someone, even someone seeking to say something unfavorable about Mr. Seigenthaler, would link him to the Kennedy assassination.

So I looked into it and found something in the report of the House Select Committee On Assassinations (HSC) that got my attention.

During the 1970s, the HSC was established by the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate the assassinations of former President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In 1979 the committee issued a very lengthy report of its findings.

Volume X, Part XIII, deals with "544 Camp Street and related events'. Among those related events are the involvement of various organized crime figures with U.S. government attempts to assassinate Cuban President Fidel Castro.

A portion that reads as follows --

4. RELATED ORGANIZED CRIME ACTIVITIES

The committee reviewed additional evidence that raises the possibility that various organized crime figures were involved in attempts to assassinate Castro that were unrelated to the efforts of the CIA.

a) Norman Rothman

To ascertain more information about organized crime's knowledge about Castro assassination plots, the committee investigated Norman Rothman, who was active in operating various casinos in Cuba before the Castro takeover and who consequently maintained associations with organized crime and the Batista regime.

At various times, Rothman served as manager of the Sans Souci and Copacabana Clubs in Cuba representing the interests of the Mannarino brothers of Pittsburgh.(254)

FBI files on Rothman indicate that a proposal to kill Castro was allegedly made to Rothman as a "quid pro quo" in which Rothman expected to avoid imprisonment for a 1960 gun running conviction.(255) During an FBI interview, Rothman stated that he had been in "personal contact with White House attorney Harry Hall Wilson, as well as Assistant Attorney General John Seigenthaler, both of Washington, D.C." and members of the Kennedy administration.(256)

In a deposition to the committee taken in Miami on April 16, 1978, Rothman expanded on this theme to include a series of mysterious telegrams summoning him to the White House for a series of two or three meetings that began in Attorney General Kennedy's office with members of his staff and continued in a conference room where Rothman's assistance in providing contacts inside Cuba was explored.(257) At the last meeting Rothman says that:

One of them happened to discuss (the assassination of Castro) with me, but not in a technical way. You know, just in a casual way. That is about it. I cannot for the moment remember it word for word because it is too far back. (258)

The evidence suggesting such an approach to Robert Kennedy is entirely uncorroborated and makes little sense when viewed in light of the Justice Department crackdown on organized crime. Further, it seems extremely doubtful that any meeting with Rothman on this topic would have occurred at the White House. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that any such event ever occurred.

-- I like a good Kennedy assassination yarn as much as the next guy, but I am not an enthusiast in that regard. My own view of the matter is that we will never really know why the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963, happened. I mean that in an epistemological sense that raises the question, If you believe something that turns out to be true, but you believe it for reasons that turn out to be false, can you be said to actually know the true thing you believe? Everything I have read about it seems to lead into a dark uncertain maze from which one never emerges into the light. So I am not promoting any view of the assassination here.

In addition, the HSC concluded that it was "extremely doubtful" that Mr. Rothman's White House meeting ever took place. A careful reading of the report, however, sheds no light on whether or not Mr. Rothman ever met with Mr. Seigenthaler. Mr. Seigenthaler's name does not appear on the list of witnesses interviewed by the committee. And I have found no indication that Mr. Seigenthaler ever commented on the report in any other context. Perhaps it is time he did so.

I do not imagine that any of the above demonstrates anything broader than what it plainly says. Still, I think it is at least worth taking note of in the context of this discussion, in relation to the question of why someone might have written what was written in the first place, as well as the question of why Mr. Seigenthaler has reacted so strongly. I offer it as information only.

(The HSC Report is archived at numerous websites.)

Marcopolo 08:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Any attempt to argue that the bogus bio was made in good faith with respect to the JFK and RFK assassinations is outrageous. Besides the fact that no assassination researcher has ever shown the slightest interest in John Seigenthaler, how do you explain the other portion of the bogus entry? That other portion reads, "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 firms shortly thereafter." John Seigenthaler was not in the Soviet Union at that time; he was publisher and president of the Nashville Tennessean. Secondly, he did not start a public relations firms. There is a Seigenthaler Public Relations in Nashville. But it's the wrong Seigenthaler. That family firm was started by Tom Seigenthaler in 1972. Today it has 20 employees and is run by three of his four daughters. John Seigenthaler, Sr. has just one son. 4.230.183.102 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of Marcopolo's research, I changed the sentence "contained incorrect statements to the effect that he might have had some involvement" to what I feel is the more accurate and less POV "contained statements to the effect that he once had been suspected of involvement". --Arcadian 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think that it would be appropriate to boil down Marcopolo's research into one sentence for inclusion in the article. (To address the strawman -- I'm not saying he was involved in the assassination, and I'm not saying we should say he was involved. But the legal claim against Wikipedia is that no one ever believed that he had any involvement, and we now know that claim to be false, so it would be helpful to Wikipedia to document these propositions an NPOV manner.) However, this is obviously very controversial, so instead of putting it in myself, I'd rather see what other people think.--Arcadian 23:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Marco polo hasn't found anything to implicate Seigenthaler. The report was sloppy enough to identify Seigenthaler as an Assistant AG. He was an aide to Kennedy not a high ranking government attorney in charge of a section of the Justice Dept. They were off. Lotsofissues 00:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I understand how someone might conclude that, I was not arguing "that the bogus bio was made in good faith". At this point, the only thing I am doing is examining the questions raised by the entry to see where they might lead. I am, hopefully, not at this time arguing anything as I think for me that would be premature. All I am doing is looking for any information I can find that would shed light on the question of how the entry came to be included in the Wikipedia in the first place, including any information that has bearing on whether or not anyone might actually believe any of it.

I have not found anything that would implicate John Seigenthaler Sr. in either Kennedy assassination, nor do I expect to. And I believe it would be premature at this time to make any reference to the HSC report in Mr. Seigenthaler's biography.

I do, however, have some thoughts about how the section relating to the current controversy ought to be provisionally revised and am making the revisions. I do this with considerable trepidation and invite the wranglers to revert any changes I am proposing if they think them inappropriate.

When dealing with sensitive matters of the sort relating to this issue, my experience persuades me that there is some risk in paraphrasing, as paraphrasing may introduce other unintended concerns. In this instance, I think the best approach would be to quote the questionable wording, with the qualification that it was withdrawn because its factuality could not be supported or was demonstrably untrue.

I am also introducing a new subject heading which may seem premature now, but I suspect will prove to be appropriate during the coming months. Please note that the statement "Nothing was ever proven" could be considered true on several levels, some of them entirely philosophical. Marcopolo 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Template problem

I removed the {{note}} and {{Book reference}} templates from the article. I have several problems with them. First, they do not follow either MLA or APA style. Second, and more importantly, the wikify the names of every author and impose an arbitrary formn at that does not have community consensus and does not allow for flexibility. --Neutrality^talk 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no community consensus that we must follow "MLA or APA style", and even if we did we could just modify the templates. The point of using templates is to have a standard format, which we can change at one central point. The {{note}} tags allow direct click-through to the footnotes and back to the text. And I don't see why author's names should not be wikified, except the article subject himself, which makes the name appear in bold, but maybe the template can be modified in that respect too. Varizer 21:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You should change the templates, not rip them out. Ripping them out makes formatting each of them much more time consuming. {{sofixit}} is what you're looking for, rather than your rollback button, Neutrality. -Splash^talk 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. That's not the most constructive way of dealing with referencing issues! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal bloggers on the case

Most of them agree with some of us that Seigenthaler, wronged though he was, could have handled this a lot better (This is reposted from the discussion at the Village Pump.

BTW, here's a blawgger, Daniel Solove, who says exactly what I've been saying:

I certainly am sympathetic to Steigenthaler's [sic] plight, but his essay demonstrates how he attempted to take the wrong approach. First, the minute he found the false information on Wikipedia, he could have corrected it himself or had a friend do it. However, I don't know what process is available on Reference.com or Answers.com for making corrections. Second, if he wanted to sue the author of the entry for defamation, he could have done so by first filing a John Doe lawsuit in court. Courts provide special protection for anonymous speech, but that protection isn't absolute. For example, if Steigenthaler can establish a case sufficient enough to withstand a summary judgment motion, he will be able to unmask his defamer.

And another:

As an old-media guy, the nature of editors at Wikipedia is probably completely alien to Seigenthaler. The ability of Wikipedia, like the blogosphere, to self-correct is proportional to the number of eyeballs that view the page with sufficient interest to do something about it. Also, he is understandably upset. He was one of RFK's pallbearers and this scurrilous attack must be especially painful. But that last sentence was still jarring, coming from the founder of a center on the First Amendment.

Same blawg, later post:

Congress and the Courts weigh the privacy concerns of the users, but they are not absolute protections. If Seigenthaler wants the name of the anonymous Wikipedia editor badly enough, he can file a suit, and he'll get it if the Court says it's appropriate. In this case, the identity sought would be of the actual defendant, not a witness, and even though he's a public figure, the stuff posted to Wikipedia could be within the standard set by the court.

...

Populated by?!! Like many of the critics of the new media, Seigenthaler is ready to paint with a very broad brush ... this is like saying newspapers are populated by lying fabricators because of Jayson Blair, Walter Duranty , Mary Mapes ... oh, never mind.

Seigenthaler gets some slack for being distraught ... yes, it's a lot easier for me to be high-minded ... I wasn't accused of being a murderer. But he had a golden opportunity to explain why protecting speech is worth the cost of having to protect the due process rights of even those as warped as whoever posted his now-deleted Wikipedia entry ... and he whiffed on it.

Daniel Case 23:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Daniel, but I'm not a lawyer, so it isn't a blawg, I guess (I'm a biochemist) JimHu 02:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered. Nevertheless, you write like one when you need to. Daniel Case 06:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Prestige Raise

Seigenthaler is the worst reputation challenge we have had to ever face. In response, I think we should create a project devoted to inflating Wikipedia's prestige.

Some ideas:

1. Get Guiness to certify us as the largest encyclopedia ever created
2. Ask someone to nominate us for a Nobel Peace Prize or Literature--or both. Any member of any national legislature or professor of social science can make a valid peace prize nomination. Any professor of literature at any university, anywhere can nominate literature prize candidates.

Lotsofissues 00:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• The mission of Wikipedia is to provide a useful resource, not to campaign for prestige. Users should be made aware of the mechanism that creates this encyclopedia, and articles like Seigenthaler's tend to create more attention, and, as a by product, more participation. It's not a blow, it's an opportunity. Dystopos 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't maintain the myth of good quality -- how can we expect to grow or keep current visitors? Lotsofissues 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate article on this?

I think there are enough issues that a mere two grafs in this article won't do it. How about a separate article ... something like John R. Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? Daniel Case 06:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. Maybe if he actually starts throwing lawsuits it'd be worth more discussion, but even then I think we should wait until there's a section on the subject before we consider splitting it off into a whole separate article. Bryan 10:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Article now created. The event is notable, and the contents of the article are all verifiable and cited. Perhaps much of the discussion should be moved there. --EngineerScotty 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Why don't we just move on?--BorisG 11:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If the incident hadn't become a public controversy, the incident would not be notable nor verifiable, and no such article should exist. Given that it now is a public controversy--largely due to Seigenthaler's own efforts--it is appropriate for Wikipedia to comment on it. There, rather than here, is probably a better place for comment. --EngineerScotty 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reminder about Use of Talk Pages

• Just a reminder. We need to use this page to collaborate on the content of the article John Seigenthaler Sr., not just to vent our spleens about Seigenthaler, Wikipedia, and each other. (Reference: Wikipedia:Talk pages) Dystopos 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not venting my spleen. If I was, I assure you my entries would have been far more profane. Wikipedia has serious problems, and if they're to be fixed they need to be discussed. This article is simply the nucleus of that discussion right now. I maintain that the content of this talk page illustrates serious flaws in Wikipedia's structure. If discussing such is verboten then this encyclopedia is beyond saving. I really don't want to have to come to that conclusion. Wikipedia could be great, but we're holding ourselves back. I'm simply trying to help. Rogue 9 19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's great, and I'm not making accusations -- just reminding us about the policy for talk pages. The discussion, except as it contributes to collaboration on this article, needs to be moved to the Village pump where it can be viewed by a greater sampling of WP editors and can be archived in the context of improving the encyclopedia. Dystopos 19:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Seigenthaler?" I don't watch TV or anything, so I've never heard it said aloud. --Foofy 16:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

SEE-GEN(hard g)-thal-ur

So the IPA is probably something like /'sidʒɛnθælɚ/? Wow, that looks complicated... --Foofy 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Dystopos, why did you remove this? It is a valid question.) --Foofy 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't think that I had.. I must have overwritten it instead of creating a new section. Sorry. Dystopos 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No worries. :) --Foofy 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Why's this page protected? I can't see a consistent pattern of vandalism or edit-warring... I may be thick, but. The Land 18:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The protection was made in consultation with Jimbo in preparation for theh upcoming CNN interview about the article. Danny 18:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, guessed it might have been something like that... The Land 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

<Sigh>Why isn't this kind of thing mentioned by Jimbo on-Wiki? Why must we guess through proxies and implications? -Splash^talk 18:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I second Splash's sigh. I was just about to unprotect it since no reason vere given in the summary and there isn't any vandalism/edit-waring in recent history. I also think the reason for the protection is silly. And at least we shuldn't lie about it by having a that protected tag there. We aren't protecting it becausee of the reason stated in the tag. We're protecting it because Jimbo is on CNN. Maybe we need a new protection template. "This article is protected because Jimbo is on CNN". ;-). But protection without a tag is better, IMO. Did Jimbo ask for the tag to be there as well, or isn't the article much nicer to show off on TV without that ugly template? Shanes 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Third sigh. We should be able to expect to hear about intended changes at Wikipedia:Village pump (news), where they would receive proper attention and discussion. Did he ever bring up the new policy of forbidding anonymous editors from creating new pages? Isn't a lesson to be drawn from the Seigenthaler and Curry incidents: there may be too little accountability for individual editors, whose actions may receive inadequate attention? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

...right. I think this latest development (unilateral deletion of the entire article) is the most bizarre and disproportionate response by Jimbo I've ever heard of. Why should Wikipedia continue to entertain Jimbo's dictatorial abuses of power, which seem motivated by a profound distrust of the project? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The admin have temporarily deleted the article to remove the bad edits. Due to technical difficulties, they're having some problems restoring it, but it should be back up as soon as possible. // Pathoschild 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

CNN Interviews

For the record, Jimbo is not talking to Seigenthaler, but each is talking to the interviewer, although with some leakage. Seigenthaler, by the way, states that some minor and "inconesequential" accuracies have already cropped up in this new post-fiasco article. When pressed by the interviewer, he said that he and his similarly-named son have been confused in the body of the article a coupla times. (Mind you, if he's so concerned about getting this right, why doesn't he edit it himself?) Bill 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone please put up a link to the CNN page that has the interview transcript into the article's External Links... Jam2k 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Finding the vandals

Will you try to find the vandals, and stop them?

The external vandalism stopped a few days ago. I doubt there's much hope, however, if Wikipedia is willing to allow vandalism by its own founder, as happened today. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear that that Mr. Wales took any action with this article, or that those actions could be called vandalism. To address the first question, I doubt we would go beyond the normal procedures for dealing with vandalism. (Wikipedia:Vandalism) Dystopos 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why blanked?

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

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

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

Should Wikipedia be distributing in permanent form?

What must be cosidered here, is not just the fact that such a character asassination of John Seigenthaler occurred on this website, but as reported by CNN [2] and other media outlets, Jimmy Wales announced in early November that the content from this Web site was going to be made available in print form and burned onto CDs and DVDs. What would have happened if Seigenthaler hadn't caught this? What about others who might have been similarly attacked or articles where the content is filled with fabrications and have not yet been discovered? An article that can be edited is one thing, but should Wikipedia be distributing in permanent form (book/CD) something that has had no verification of any kind? - Ted Wilkes 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia policies. Dystopos 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation Could Help

In order for Wikipedia to be considered a reliable source for any information, articles should be cited to verifiable publications, authors, etc. IMO, this issue could have been evaded if the the original information on him were cited. The malicious author would not have been able to cite information that he/she has conjured up. Citing would also allow others to research and double check on the facts. In the academic world, citing is what journalists call investigative reporting and fact checking. My two cents. --speedoflight | talk to me 08:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is the anonymous biographer?

In his USA Today article, Mr. Siegenthaler disclosed the IP of the anonymous biographer as "65-81-97-208" which corresponds to:

      adsl-065-081-097-208.sip.bna.bellsouth.net 

If you go to that address with a web browser, you get this result: "Welcome to Rush Delivery"

If you look up "Rush Delivery" as a local business in Nashville, it matches exactly one commercial enterprise:

  Rush Delivery
  1877 Elm Tree Dr
  Nashville, TN 37210
  (615) 874-2222

Perhaps someone at Rush Delivery can confirm or deny that they are the Bellsouth customer with assigned IP address 65.81.97.208.

--SlowGeekInNewEngland