Talk:John Seigenthaler/Archive 1

message: Based on the Nationmaster Google mirror, the original entry seems to be this:
FALSE ENTRY: John Seigenthaler was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the ealry 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.
John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984.
He started one of the country's largest public relations firm shortly thereafter.
What Seigenthaler quotes in his USA Today article is the full extent of the entry. Although it clearly is false and potentially libelous, I would at least like to mention that it does not appear to be the most sophisticated attempt at libel. The writer probably intended it more as a stupid joke and a test than as an attempt to libel him, but it's hard to say. One issue this raises is that while regular contributors may see Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia, others may view it like any other joke chat board or Internet forum. Oddly enough, in they way they market their content, Wikipedia and the mirrors may be more responsible than this user who might say he felt he was posting an ironic joke and didn't believe that Wikipedia information would be taken seriously anyway. The commercialization of Wikipedia through the deal with Answers.com, which changes the role of Wikipedia in connection to the commercial use of its content, will only make the risk of lawsuits rise. Tfine80 17:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides being published on the USAToday website yesterday (), it was also picked up by Yahoo! News today (), although a quick check at Yahoo! News and Google News does not show the story anywhere else...yet. I imagine this article is going to get lots of visits for awhile. I did a small update showing that the IP was probably in the Nashville, Tennessee area . BlankVerse 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that particular lookup is an accurate indicator of geographical location pertaining to the individual using that account.  Obviously, whois traces it to Bellsouth in Atlanta, Georgia.  When I entered my IP at that site, it said I was posting from Huntington Beach, California.  I'm in Hawaii.  A whois traces my IP to Reston, Virginia.  There's a lot of factors at play here. --Viriditas 06:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, that would make sense.  I believe he still lives in the Nashville area.  He was editor of The Tennessean before he was moved up to USA Today (both Gannett papers), and he founded the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt.  He's probably made a few enemies and other ne'erdowells in his time.  Ttownfeen 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the entry seems so childish and silly to be a real adult enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some kid who has a beef with another kid in the family or something. Maybe even a immature relative playing around. Tfine80 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading up on Seignethaler this morning and apparently he's been the subject of quite a few death threats and even a kidnapping attempt.  Apparently he's pissed off a few people in Tennessee. Gamaliel 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original entry 

message: :Seigenthaler's biography on Wikipedia was tainted by a false and vandalous entry between May and September 2005. The information was spread across dozens of Wikipedia mirrors before it was deleted. Seigenthaler wrote about his experience with the vandalism in USA Today on November 29, 2005. He expressed deep concern for the inability of anyone to determine who was responsible for the libel and decried online privacy laws, writing "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."
If someone can please rewrite this in an NPOV way which doesnt simply parrot the distressed complaints of an aged person concerned about the details of his legacy, I (and perhaps many more) would much appreciate it. --St|eve 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "distressed complaints of an aged person concerned about the details of his legacy"? Excuse me? Get real! I thought you were an admin! haven't you bothered to read the deleted edits?! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Is it really necessary to mock someone who took the perfectly reasonable position of being outraged at being accused of murdering his former boss? Gamaliel 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes, considering he had four months to edit it, as people with knowledge of subjects are encouraged to do on Wikipedia. — ceejayoz talk  14:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really encouraged in this instance, though, as that would be a violation of the guideline WP:AUTO.  Probably a good violation of it, but there is still a guideline that suggests he shouldn't change it himself.  Also, how could he change it when he doesn't know about it?  Should everybody periodically check that Wikipedia doesn't contain a libellous article on them? JulesH 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree to an extent, but considering how much blather there used to be about this matter, I think it's a decent compromise. Gamaliel 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, have never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. before this morning's news, and as such don't see the accusations as "obviously ridiculous."  No one has given any evidence that it is or is not ridiculous, except fear that some old man will sue anyone who doesn't say nice things about him.  This article is, at least in this decade, John Seigenthaler's claim to fame, and it cannot be separated from his biography.  We need some evidence either way, so those of us who don't accept an editorial in the USAToday as de facto infallible fact have something to go on.  Mrcolj 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Seigenthaler has many larger claims to fame in this decade. There is a much bigger world outside the purview of Wikipedia or the blogosphere. As to the removed content, anything that is not verifiable does not belong here.(Wikipedia:Verifiability). There is a broad plain between censorship and correction. Opinions about the validity of his editorial are neither biographical nor encyclopedic (WP:POV). Dystopos 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV entry on Wikipedia 

message: From Seigenthaler's editorial in USA Today:
:When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
:For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.
So, the way I'm reading this, in his opinion Wikipedia is the problem because it is not autocratic enough.  Funny to hear this from a free speech advocate -- I guess he likes free speech in the abstract, but not when it affects him personally.  He's taken a piece of forgettable chatter which could easily be discounted, and conflated it into a condemnation of modern collaborative communication and a call to action to suppress it. He also seems to imply that anonymous speech should only allowed when backed by a publisher. What a sad bookend for his legacy.  Cleduc 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has being a free speech advocate meant that you had to advocate making it legal and acceptable to libel others? Gamaliel 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has accepting libel as unacceptable implied that restrictive measures be put in place so that speech that could be libelous is physically impossible?--Fangz 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that interpretation of his editorial. Gamaliel 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So then what is his point?  As I understand his argument, WP should either be held liable for its content or it should eliminate anonymous contributions.  At what other possible interpretation of his statements should we arrive? Cleduc 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia evil? 

message: *Probably the most convincing argument we Wikipedians could make in our defense is to construct the most authoritative accurate and balanced biographical article ever written about Mr. Seigenthaler. Dystopos 02:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality as a rebuttal 

message: What if someone really was involved in something awful like this. After all the news article says that it hasn't been proven, not that it didn't happen. The power of a user created encyclopedia is that anyone can spread information without fear of censorship or legal consequences. Wikipedia can tell stories that other news agencies can't for fear of being sued. It disturbs me greatly that wikipedia has bowed to the pressures of this one man and deleted the earlier edits from public view. If wikipedia censors itself when false information is posted will it censor itself when true information comes out about an evil man and that evil man cries libel and tries to have wikipedia shut down?
Like p2p, wikipedia proves that information can not be stopped now matter much power a well connected man has to silence an anonymous detractor. Wikipedia should not help this nut case find his libeler. People need to be able to post without fear or reprisal.
Good, Inocent men ignore false accusations. Guilty ones try to silence their accusers. -- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, I was wondering if we were getting slashdotted or the like.  Well, they will get bored eventually and find some other bright shiny thing to play with. Gamaliel 06:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: I just made a minor change to the article, changing "the article" to "this article" to help clarify that this is the article that Siegenthaler was upset with.
That change was reverted from an anonymous user with the comment, "removing vandalism".  Just calling something vandalism does not make it so.
:That shouldn't have been done, and probably wouldn't have been done by an established Wikpedian. -Splashtalk 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also possible that it was done in error, trying to revert actual vandalism. When edits are hot and heavy, it can be difficult. -Fuzzy 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with you and above, but, stating that it was "this article" is to make a self reference, something we want to avoid, so the revert was fine. But it shouldn't have been called vandalism, of course. Shanes 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an exceptional case, though.  We can't avoid referring to this article when discussing Seigenthaler's criticism of it.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 16:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. We can refer to it in the third person (third article?) though. "The article..." has less of an introspective feel than "This article...", no? -Splashtalk 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We can, and we should. Calling it "the article" instead of "this article" both looks (is) more professional (IMO) and it makes the article better suited for being distributed outside the wikipedia domain, which is something we encourage. If some other encyclopedia want to include articles from us, they are welcome to it and shouldn't need to go through every article to change "this" into "the". Read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for more on this. Shanes 16:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that making the distinction "the biography was not written on this mirror" is as important as explaining "the biography is an earlier version of the article you are reading".  Regardless of whether it is copied, it's always true that the questionable material was part of an earlier version of the article being read.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just calling an edit vandalism does not make it so 

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

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

message: You are all quick to call it "libel", and label "the defamer", when it hasn't been through a court yet. No wonder this place has problems. I am not defending what was written -- I haven't read it -- but if this case shows anything, its that Wikipedians need to be judicious about the language they use when labelling others and labelling the actions of others. Sure, defamation cases frequently involve reversed presumption of innocence, but are you all sure that applies here at this stage? I doubt it. I doubt you even know what I mean. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, what was said *was* false, *was* defamatory, *did* identify its subject and *was* published on the Internet. That spells libel to this journalist. Besides, whoever created the vandalous libel is anonymous, so the second leg of the libel stool - identification - is not present. Defamation, identification, publication. FCYTravis 02:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Times v. Sullivan requires more than that for a successful libel claim by a public figure, which Seigenthaler is. Secondly, the original claim, according to the Siegenthaler article, was that he was purportedly "thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations". Kennedy assassination theories are a virtual cottage industry - has any major public figure not been implicated in them by some individual at some time? The original article quote does not claim that Siegenthaler was involved, only that someone "thought" him to have done so, and also noted that "nothing was ever proven". Siegenthaler would have a hard time making out a court case that he had been libeled by a JFK assassination theory. Did any of the literally hundreds of other people who were accused of complicity in the JFK assassination by far more widely distributed means ever sue the authors of those works? Firebug 04:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Firebug. Plus, what nobody is mentioning is the opening phrase: "For a brief time". By any reasonable interpretation of that phrase, the author meant that in 2005, nobody thought Seigenthaler was involved. How can complete exoneration possibly be defamatory? --Arcadian 04:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that public figures are not entitled to per se damages in defamation suits.  He would have to prove he suffered some injury.  I'm willing to bet he was actually enriched as a result of all this attention. Peyna 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have read it, and it was defamatory. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, case closed.  Cleduc 14:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ta bu shi da yu is not qualified to make that determination. Anyone familiar with American laws regarding libel knows he is wrong. I generally agree with Firebug, though I am not so sure Seigenthaler would be considered a public figure. You don't even need to know the law if you are capable of looking at the obvious circumstantial evidence: Seigenthaler was so angry over this, look at the lengths to which he has gone, as he set forth in the article he wrote. There is no doubt in my mind that Seigenthaler would have sued the alleged defamer unless his attorney advised him that the lawsuit had little to no chance of success, which is why Seigenthaler opted for the editorial instead. Seigenthaler is clearly upset in his article that he is unable to unmask the anonymous party without a Doe lawsuit. After all this anger and effort, why didn't Seigenthaler simply file a Doe suit? The obvious answer: because he knew he would lose. Kaltes 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Warning

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

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

message: The locked article states:
"Between May and September 2005, the Wikipedia article on Seigenthaler contained a number of inaccurate statements, including allegations he may have been "directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby","
The actual 'inaccurate statement' mentioned was:
"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."
So the ALLEGATION was NOT that Seigenthaler was "directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby" INSTEAD the allegation was that for a BRIEF time (1 second? 1 year?) he was THOUGHT (by who?) to have been involved. The article as stated is worse than the inaccuracies it purports to discuss. Whoever wrote that into the current revision of the main article knew he was lying in his characterization when he wrote it. A more accurate and different characterization is as follows:
"Between May and September 2005, the Wikipedia article on Seigenthaler contained three allegations disputed by Seigenthaler. The first allegation, that "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." was unsupported, vague, and possibly malicious. The second allegation, that "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984" was demonstrably false, and the third allegation, that "He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter." was also demonstrably false.
Please correct the article once it is no longer under protection. The language I propose is just one example. The key change that must be made is that Seigenthaler was not being accused of murder, as the current revision of the article wrongly claims. I think the most NPOV way to correct this is to simply restate the language he takes issue with along with a neutral, accurate characterization of that language. 
Kaltes 09:01, 05 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Main Article Under Protection is Not Accurate (as of Dec 5, 2005)