Talk:John Seigenthaler/Archive 4

This is a talk_page archive covering the period between December 6 2005 and January 6 2006. Click on the first link under the page title to see current discussion, or click the second link for an overview of the archives. Please do not post new comments on this page.

Photo

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like removing criminal libel from the site to me. __nut-meg 02:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Seigenthaler NPOV

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

USA Today

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

I'm confused...

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

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

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

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

Non sequitur. Rapidly fixing the history upon becoming aware of the issue makes clear no malice or reckless disregard on the part of Jimbo and Wikipedia. As for "the anonymous edit", I just said that "the person who posted" was guilty of libel. -- 68.6.40.203 06:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could we know if Seigenthaler is right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages with no internal incoming links

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

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

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

See also Special:Lonelypages. And while we're on the subject, virtually everything in Special:Deadendpages could stand to have a cleanup tag slapped on it, too. --Aquillion 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How to pronounce?

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

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

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

Does Siegenthaler insist on non-rhotic pronunciation of the final syllable? Or am I mistaken in thinking the IPA form implies that? (I was at first inclined to pronounced it as if he's a German, with the initial "S" pronounced liike the initial "z" in "zoology", "th" as a plosive consonant, etc.) 160.94.219.194 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlock

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

Lotsofissues 13:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Seigenthaler Sr.

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

Good job, new article finally the source for a publication

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

Lotsofissues 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I got an idea

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

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

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

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

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

Pushing towards FA

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

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

Lock the bloody article!

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

It wouldn't be an issue if people like yourself didn't vandalise it...: [2] -- Francs2000 02:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Dates

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

5th. [3] [4]

FBI dossier

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

In the Tennassean, of which he was the publisher at the time. They only have their archives online starting from 1999, though, and the Sidney Hillman honorees site doesn't seem to cite as references the articles that earned the awards. Someone with a LexisNexis account could probably turn up references, though, which might be worthwhile, since it would make a good addition to the article.

On authors responding to their biographies

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

--ThaThinker 23:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a few thoughts that might help make my above rambling more coherent. I support the right of Seigenthaler to respond to the story, and at the same time am a strong free speech advocate, but I did not mean to give the impression that I thought the Internet should have carte blanc in terms of free speech. The courts have long upheld certain exceptions to the First Amendment, and I do to. I do not think that Wikipedia members should, e.g., be allowed to post troop movements during war, and I expect the relevant treason laws should apply to it. I do not think that slander should be tolerated (e.g. to make false factual claims about Seigenthaler, or lies about some company's competition). I do not think that more than a rare fringe in the 9/11 Truth community want to "out" actual CIA agents, as some as yet unidentified administration official did. The trouble is, the whistleblowing apparatus is not working, when the Administration doesn’t even want to hear, e.g. Sibel Edmonds or the former Abel Danger whistleblowers, who have been silenced. The information usually found at such sites, including the Wikipedia, only seems to be interested in outing CIA or administration secrets when it appears they are associated with uninvestigated wrongdoing. Thus, if the source of a posting can be identified, the normal laws should be sufficient to prosecute criminal speech. We might try to stipulate that all postings not be anonymous, but 1) technology will probably be able to circumvent this, and 2) there are good reasons, such as rape victims, why people might want to remain anonymous. I think Wikipedia should regularly remove classified and military information not related to whistleblowing, and actionable slander. Suppose the media started a slander campaign against an innocent man, and somebody wrote it up in the Wikipedia. Are we saying the person should not be able to defend himself? I say, let him try to vindicate himself, whether on the main biography page or probably better, on a "Subject's Rebuttal" page linked to from the main article. --69.247.181.157 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Reminder: This talk page is for editorial collaboration on this article. To discuss Wikipedia or Wikipedia's policies, please see the Village Pump. Dystopos 16:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

CSPAN

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

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

New York Times article today (Dec. 11)

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

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

I wish that he'd been like this with Jimbo. From what I understand, he asked Jimbo to remove the material, which Jimbo did, and then a month later he wrote his opinion piece. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am miffed at the seriousness of the action.

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

too much protests?

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

The issue is accountability. If wiki wanted to try to sue Seigenthaler for libel they'd be free to do so, but they'd have to prove that A. The statements were false, and B. The statements did damage. In other words, they would have no case. Trying to weasel out of libel by saying things like "was believed to be" and "nothing was ever proven" does not legally protect one from libel. As far as I'm concerned wikipedia WAS irresponsible. How can anyone use wiki as a source if they allow vandals to post any old thing they want? Now that they have instituted the registration policy, maybe they can become the useful source they hope to be.

Seigenthaler is and has been and probably will again go on some talk show and again make the statement, probably several times, that "Wikipedia is totally irresponsible" even though he admits that changes in registration have been made and the article was taken down. The discussion pages are proof of concern for accountability and the actions taken prove responsibility. He is the one making the libelous statements and I believe he even said "don't use Wikipedia" on Washington Journal Friday the 9th. On accountability, to enhance accountability even further, why wouldn't we have full registration, or does the current mode provide enough traceability?

Controversy

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

He is best known perhaps to Wikipedia and Internet users as such, but certainly not within his profession or his home state. Gamaliel 20:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a site for Wikipedia users, not journalists or people from Tennessee. If someone comes to this page, they are almost certainly doing it to find out about the controversy. A5 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We are writing a general usage encyclopedia, not one just for Wikipedians. It doesn't matter what we think or how we view an issue when we write an article. We should also take the long view, Siegenthaler will be notable for his journalistic contributions long after this minor controversy is forgotten. Gamaliel 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue here isn't what he's notable for, but what he's best known for -- and a poll would almost certainly indicate that he's best known for his comments on Wikipedia. Compare, say, Linus Pauling, who is best known for his comments about vitamin C, or Darrow and Bryan, who are best known for the Scopes trial. -- 68.6.40.203 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that I said "Wikipedia users" and you changed it to "Wikipedians". Anyone who uses Wikipedia is a Wikipedia user, there is no getting around this. To say that Wikipedia is not for Wikipedia users is a contradiction. Also, I don't think this is a minor controversy. Look at this article from a supposedly liberal newspaper: [5]. Siegenthaler is doing a lot of damage to Wikipedia's reputation, if not putting the entire system in jeopardy, and I think it is fair that he should be remembered for that, even if neutrally, within this medium.

Anyway, this is how I feel, but I will not press the issue. A5 21:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrt "wikipedia users" versus "wikipedians", I think the point is that the average "wikipedia user" comes here looking for accurate information, and is not necessarily enmeshed in the "social" aspects (let alone the minutae) of editing the site.

This is non-responsive. As A5 noted, "If someone comes to this page, they are almost certainly doing it to find out about the controversy" -- nothing there about social aspects, minutiae, or editing this site. -- 68.6.40.203 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I read that San Jose Mercury News article, too, and while I found it somewhat distressing, you can't blame Seigenthaler for it. The author (Mike Langberg) has clearly been paying attention to Wikipedia and forming his opinions about it for a while; it wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction to the recent flap.

Steve Summit (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite his current high profile here on Wikipedia, Seigenthaler is quite well known among people who follow First Amendment issues closely (some of whom are neither journalists nor Tennesseans). I would think that is his largest claim to fame, not the recent and (sorry) relatively obscure news cycle about his opinion piece regarding the Wiki vandalism. --Krich 02:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And how many people is that, and what fraction of the number who have now heard of him? -- 68.6.40.203 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As the (potential) repercussions of Seigenthaler's opinion piece regarding Wiki vandalism have not neccessarily been fully meted out; it is not possible to assert that either of these actions is a larger claim to fame. At this moment; for readers of Wikipedia it would be errant in my opinion to weigh the contributions Seigenthaler has made to first amendment issues as more well known. I know I didn't check out his page because of his stances on first amendment issues; did you? Seth Revelle 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Character Assassination?

Excuse me, but how could one's character be assassinated if you cannot assess the damages? There is no count of how many people read this article during it's few months with the vandal info. However, isn't it safe to assume VERY few people did, considering how long the info lasted? 24.203.2.4 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think one problem is that this guy doesn't want to admit to himself that he's relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. Or that corporate media is losing power. Or that reputation is ultimately defined by what other people choose to think of you - not what you sue them to think of you, or what you pay advertisers to tell them to think of you, or what advertisers pay your newspaper to tell them to think of you... A5 05:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not really a good point. Seigenthaler is not suing anyone. I don't know where you got that idea. But if someone went around telling everyone that you were a Communist and that you were suspected in the murder of a close friend, would you have no right to be offended, no matter how "important" you are?__nut-meg 06:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that Seigenthaler is suing anybody.

Now, if I paid everyone to enter into a contract, in which they were to think that I wasn't a communist, and that I wasn't suspected in a murder, then perhaps I would have a right to demand that they think the correct thing. As it is, I don't see a contract, or any money, or any other reason for Seigenthaler to impose on us, other than the fact that he's spoiled and powerful. I certainly never promised to think a certain way about him. A5 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about forcing someone to have a certain opinion of Mr. Seigenthaler, this is about false claims made about Mr. Seigenthaler which constitute libel, a legal offense. Yoink23 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlike other people who have complained about their articles, such as Daniel Brandt and John Byrne, Seigenthaler has never attempted or advocated any control over what we say about him or how we say it, beyond the entirely reasonable demands that we 1) say things that are true and 2) not accuse him of murder. Since we should already be doing that regardless of whether or not we get any complaints, I don't understand the need for the self-righteous lather that many people have worked up on this page. Gamaliel 09:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-righteous lather? The guy went on a talk show to complain about what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. Rather than fixing his article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose.

He has not made any legal threats. He is not suing anyone. Whether or not he lived in the Soviet Union is not a matter of opinion. Whether or not he was involved in the assasinations is not a matter of opinion. They are straight lies, and we now know they were a bad joke. There will be no lawsuits and if you've been following this you should know that. __nut-meg 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you know what I mean. There is more than one way to make a legal threat. Searching for someone who has committed a crime is a way to make an implicit legal threat. Contacting someone to ask them to stop publishing information is a way to make a more obvious legal threat. Just because the threats were complied with doesn't mean that they were made in good fun. A5 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Libel is a crime. Like any legimate business, Wiki does not want to facilitate crime. No matter how much you like having the ability to publish articles that are full of falsehoods, it's not the stated intent of the site, which, as Wales says, is "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.". If you really want a site that promotes falsehood in the name of "free speech", make your own. __nut-meg 02:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose." True. And Wikipedia is going to be better off on account of it. Srcastic 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yoink23, yes I understand what libel is. It's a law which says that it's illegal to write certain things to people, because then those readers might freely choose to think certain related things, and then freely act in a way which, together with the combined free actions of others, might cause a loss to someone (usually someone rich); in other words it implies that a tort can be indirectly mediated by free human agents, acting in their own interest, within the law, not bound by contract; which I was trying to suggest is a repugnantly misguided legal viewpoint, one that has no place in a free society. I realize that many people disagree with me. A5 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A5, the meaning of libel is more nuanced than that. For public figures, in the US, it means that it is illegal to publish maliciously false representations of fact in a way that causes actual harm to another person. It is a high standard to meet, and it does not apply to matters of opinion. Permitting people to use their power to harm others in such a way is hard to justify, especially in a free society. Srcastic 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Srcastic, more nuanced than what? Unless the "actual harm" you are talking about is not mediated by the freely chosen actions of third parties - be they customers or employers - I don't see how you could think that what you've said doesn't conform to my description. As I said, I understand what libel is. Reread what I wrote. A5 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You presume that third parties are acting freely when making decisions based on facts that are maliciously false. Most people, and the law (correctly), do not believe that people are freely choosing their actions when operating upon false facts. Thus, the actual harm is not the product of freely chosen actions, and a more nuanced understanding of libel than "it's illegal to write certain things" is needed. Srcastic 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people are complaining because Seigenthaler didn't play by our own rules by just fixing the article. But what about the rest of us? For all our bragging about how vandalism gets fixed nearly instantaeously, and how we're outstripping Britannica, etc., we got caught in a major fuck up and we got called on it. We should not blame the victim and then pretend we're the ones who have been victimized. Gamaliel 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia was victimized. There can be more than one victim. But two wrongs don't make a right. A5 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ADDITION 12 12 05

I ATTEMPTED TO ADD A LINK TO TODAY'S NY TIMES ARTICLE AND SOME WIKI QUR HAS BLOCKED THE PAGE

WAY TO GO JOSEY WALES ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S NY TIMES

A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Wikipedia Prank By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Published: December 11, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/media/11web.html?ex=1134968400&en=249e193bdbec0699&ei=5059&partner=AOL (Unsigned comment made by User:205.188.116.198)

As far as I know, the article is protected due to incessant vandalism to the article brought about by its noteriety. I'm sure that the link you passed on will be added as soon as the Admins unprotect the page, once the situation is more stable. --Vortex 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest linking to http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr. for vandals who just can't stop the noise. 24.91.16.229 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - it isn't right to encourage vandals to vandalise other wikis, even if it is a parody one. x42bn6 Talk 02:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

Wikipedia is fine, so long as you realize that it's information is vetted in exactly the same way a barroom argument is: he is right who can shout loudest and longest.

This is the method referred to by scholars as the 'hard way'.

Frankly what I find missing from responses to Mr. Siegenthaler's discomfit, but implicit IN his expressions of his frustration, is this: who the aich-eee-double wants to spend his time (let alone his friends' time!) to watch for articles about him and change them back to what is correct!!!

Few of us really understand the culture of Wikipedia, but taking the barroom argument model --- on steroids --- as a start might get us at least half way there.

Wikipedia may be the rock of the future, but it needs to be taken with a boulder of salt.

Those who find themselves maligned, methinks, have every reason to be uneasy. I wish I could think of a reasonable solution, but relying on the system itself as it stands looks to me to be woefully inadequate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lkrndu (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 December 2005.

• Reminder: This talk page is for editorial collaboration on this article. To discuss Wikipedia or Wikipedia's policies, please see the Village Pump. --Dystopos 22:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn the media

Damn the media... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the Wikipedians, by the Wikipedians, for the Wikipedians --DuKot 06:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just frustrated by all the negative coverage in the media and wanted to vent it out somewhere. --DuKot 06:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It ought to be of the world, by the world, for the world. It's up to those of us who take Wikipedia seriously to convince everyone else it's worth taking seriously. The current media attention will pass eventually. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right; we shouldn't have an insular attitude like we're a closed community. We're trying to build an encyclopedia for everyone, not just those of us who happen to be participating here now. *Dan T.* 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My view is that the current media attention is actually beneficial, as many more people will know about Wikipedia. It's not every day that Wikipedia is mentioned in the New York Times.--BorisG 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I read here that the inflammatory information was removed "after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler". Umm.. Why didn't he just press the "Edit" button, for god's sake? THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR. Jesus Christ. (just had to vent a little, too.) --Fang Aili 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That information is incorrect. In fact, that page is likely a hoax from someone who has a prior grudge against WP. Gamaliel 18:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's good. But he still made a big fuss about how there was incorrect information up there, when he could have easily corrected it himself. That's Wiki's greatest strength and weakness--that anyone can edit it. And he doesn't understand that. Nor do a lot of people. --Fang Aili 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice, but what about the four months when he wasn't here to edit it? What if he never noticed it? Why should it be his responsibility to constantly monitor an article about him for bizarre accusations? What about our responsibility to ensure WP is reliable and accurate? That is what a lot of Wikipedians don't understand about this matter. Gamaliel 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What you don't understand is: It's not anybody's responsibility. Clearly, there doesn't have to be a guilty party every time something goes wrong.

The fame which Seigenthaler - or any other public figure - has, is made up of ideas which exist inside the collective consciousness. It benefits him, and he is in a position to manipulate it; but it doesn't belong to him, and he has no natural right to assert control over it. The collective consciousness wants to know the truth; establishing truth is in each person's interest, and there is nothing unstable about the system when left to itself. In the same way, Google benefits me, and if the company closed up shop I would be hurt, a lot, but I would rightly have no legal recourse to recover "damages". The fact that it is not normally in a profitable company's interest to terminate its operations is reason enough to let the company decide on its own how to best serve the public. If the legal system suddenly became heavily involved in second-guessing the profitability of corporate decisions (instead of only being concerned when they are potentially too profitable, as with anti-trust law), then the economy would become as inefficient as the court system, and we would all be a lot poorer. Yet this is exactly what is happening to the information ecology. The legal system keeps second-guessing its motives - which are fundamentally good - and this has resulted in a huge amount of inefficiency. Modern defamation law is an unnecessary burden in our society, and the more people genuflect to it, the slower will be our progress towards something better. A5 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's getting sued, so I'm not sure how this is relevant. Gamaliel 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's a hoax or not, the website claims they are going to sue. This is a legitimate threat that Wikipedia has to at least think about, in case we ever really do get sued. --Fang Aili 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Atomic weapons haven't been used on people for decades, but few would call them irrelevant. The fact of their existence still defines the global military situation. In the same way, people on this page are discussing conceptions of guilt and responsibility which are largely the product of our current legal environment. I'm saying that those are not necessarily points of view which we should be eagerly propagating. The law is not immutable. A5 03:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone in this discussion of the note at the top of the page. This talk page is for the article, particularly those who are working on the article or are planning on doing so. This conversation is better held at the Village Pump, where you can vent your spleens in peace.  :-) --Vortex 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is everyone getting so upset?

This is a good thing for Wikipedia. It shows what can happen if there is not enough care taken. We should respect the people who we write articles about. I think that John Seigenthaler has been very reasonable indeed, and this should be pointed out in the article. He seems a thoroughly decent chap. I wonder how many people would be as reasonable, if they were confronted with such outrageous mistruths in a widely read Encyclopedia? Very hurt, I imagine. I would be anyway. Wallie 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's just ordinary vandalism. Wikipedia sees this all the time, the only difference is that this wasn't noticed immediately. I really don't know why the media blames the entirety of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales. If someone puts grafitti on the side of a building, is the building and/or its owner held responsible or blamed? No! Why is it any different here? --64.9.10.166 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not. A building owner will permanently remove that vandalism, so did we. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Seigenthaler's responsibility

I am not so sure it's such a great thing. It was nonetheless a thing that was probably going to happen. Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions I think are reprehensible and ill-formed (and probably snobbish, if not boorish).

Seigenthaler has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used...as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether small or large, he can correct it on wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic. And then fails again by exploiting the magnitude of the error: A small error is no less an error. The attention-starved media (and apparently Seigenthaler as well) is just looking for another line to run.

It is simple: Mr. Seigenthaler needs to take responsibility: It goes with the territory of being well known: Any famous, influential, celebrity person should be aware that they are game for mischief.

I hope wikipedia management won't act like sheep on this and I hope that this "story" about Seigenthaler has NO EFFECT on wikipedia. Since Google News, I have had the ability to compare dozens of news articles from various papers and have noticed massive discrepancies in facts, errors and such that never get vetted: Therein is the MUCH greater crime.

Could the author of the above be identified, please? Michael Hardy 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Siegenthaler is not blameless in this matter. His horribly unjust attack on his strongest natural allies, the rank-and-file Wikipedians, weakens his position. Michael Hardy 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Mr. Siegenthaler's intention is to attack "rank-and-file Wikipedians". He just doubts the credibility of the process as it was when the offending text was entered. I also hope, like the above writer, that Wikipedia stays on the correct path, ie, doesn't hamper the contributors too much. As for celebrities being "game for mischief" on the internet, I sure hope that this won't happen too much on Wikipedia, as we are not just the internet, but constructing a responsible encyclopedia. It was be a pity if some mischosen words undid all the good work and also the reputation of Wikipedia. Wallie 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: My reference to his unjust attack was to the words "populated by vandals and poison-pen intellects" in USA Today. Michael Hardy 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've exchanged some emails with John Seigenthaler, Sr., and my impression is that he may be much better informed about Wikipedia now than when he wrote his piece in USA Today. I do think he raises an interesting point in connection with other sites copying from Wikipedia: misinformation there cannot readily be corrected. I think those sites should not be considered mere carriers, like the phone company when slander is uttered over the phone or the post office when libel appears in magazines they deliver. Michael Hardy 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Reminder: This talk page is for editorial collaboration on this article. To discuss Wikipedia or Wikipedia's policies, please see the Village Pump. --Dystopos 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotation style

This article originally used "logical quoting" per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. It was changed by Neutrality to "American quoting" under the rationale that an American bio should use American quoting. The problem is that the featured article criteria (which I would like to shoot for) says that articles should "comply with the standards set out in the style manual." The style manual clearly specifies logical quoting for all articles regardless of subject. I have discussed the matter on Neutrality's talk page, but he maintains that his edit is correct. He has declined to discuss the matter further, so I would like to get input from other editors rather than engaging in an edit war over such a trivial matter. For an overview of the difference between the two quoting styles, see American and British English differences#Punctuation. My apologies to everyone for bringing up such a trivial matter. Feel free to berate me for being too anal retentive if necessary. Kaldari 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "logical quoting" myself, despite being American and having no liking for some of the other British things like putting an extra "u" in "color". I think the logical format is what comes naturally to "computer geeks" used to programming languages where it's essential to distinguish what's within a quoted block from what isn't. *Dan T.* 22:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a "British thing". When people learn English as a foreign langauge, colour is spelt with a "u". Most people other than Americans spell colour correctly. Wallie 13:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Manual of Style makes no exception for "American articles". I support conforming with WP:MoS#Quotation marks. --Dystopos 23:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As an alternative, of course, is that you could change the style manual. Matt 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what I suggested to Neutrality. Kaldari 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Just for fun", somebody just vandalized the article with the claim about him being allegedly involved in the assassination. This illustrates why it's crazy for us to labor away deleting this stuff from the history. That makes it gold for any vandal, who loves to cause us as much trouble as possible. Why not vandalize just for the sake of forcing admins to delete your allegations from the page history, forcing them to go to an inordinate amount of trouble? I don't care what Seigenthaler says about the page history, he's just grasping at straws when he gets to that point. The claims about him are not going to be perpetuated by being in the history. Everyking 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just had to revert some more of that. Again I point out that deleting "libelous" (mischievous is closer to the truth) edits from the history is not only wildly impractical, it's actually inviting trouble by giving the vandals another card to play. Everyking 13:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A way to make it a lot easier, would be if developers made a "check all" box on the undelete page. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just point them over to the Uncylcopedia article, they're not too worried about trouble it seems. ;)

Wikipedia: The Childish Encyclopedia

• A biographical article is no place to publish editorials, criticisms, counter-criticisms or endless Wiki-cruft about the recent incident involving this page. There's a Wikipedia:Village pump for that. You can start a blog. You can write a book. You can contribute to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (if it's not deleted). Let's stick to the task of giving Wikipedia a fantastic, neutral, balanced, complete biographical article with documented sources. --Dystopos 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just see a paragraph of that. That doesn't seem excessive...I think we ought to have a summary of it here, not extended detail, but that looks like about the right amount. Everyking 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The paragraph you see now is the result of much cutting and weeding. --Dystopos 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

      I agree with Dystopos. The current paragraph on the topic could be even shorter. The controversy was interesting for Wikipedia; not in Seigenthaler's life. +sj + 11:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose

...a hard ban against all those creating vandalism hinting to the Seigenthaler incident, or an attempt to confuse information by causing a similar incident.εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose we treat it about the same as regular vandalism. Treating it as "code red" is just giving the vandals more ammo. Seigenthaler has done his complaining, let's get out of panic mode now. Everyking 04:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why vandals should be allowed to continue posting, especially if it could make Wiki vulnerable to lawsuits. As far as I'm concerned, one warning and they're banned would be acceptable policy. I traced one vandal across Wikipedia and saw months of unchecked vandalsim (deleting whole articles for fun, posting porn links, etc). It wasn't until this person vandalized the high profile article that they were banned. There needs to be a better process for reporting vandalism, especially if it is libelous. I just don't see how Wiki can retain any credibility otherwise.__nut-meg 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reminder: This talk page is for editorial collaboration on this article. To discuss Wikipedia or Wikipedia's policies, please see the Village Pump.

Be less inviting to vandals?

What would people think of rephrasing the prominently displayed "anyone can edit!" notice so that it says something along the lines of "anyone who sincerely wishes to improve the encyclopedic nature of this project is welcome to edit". That makes it clear very early that edits that would be considered vandalism are not what we want. Michael Hardy 00:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it'd take severe retardation to not figure out from context that vandalism isn't what we want. Moreover, those who come here with the intent to deface would hardly be deterred by asking politely beforehand. It's a minor point, but inviting people to edit may actually stem vandalism by making it clear that there's very little challenge, and by placing a certain amount of trust into all users. But these are my opinions and as such wrong.

The "severe retardation" that it would take not to figure that out may be just what those whom we do see vandalizing are suffering from. Michael Hardy 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reminder: This talk page is for editorial collaboration on this article. To discuss Wikipedia or Wikipedia's policies, please see the Village Pump. --Dystopos 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are the early versions?

I was researching a piece on the history of this and went to check the article history to be sure that I got my facts right but I couldn't find the earliest three versions. Where are they?

I did find some 255 other deleted versions, most of those in /temp and /temp2 subpages but they don't contain the historically interesting versions. These are the ones I'm after:

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 first two are presumably the offensive text and the third, if Mr. Seignthaler is accurate, would be just a typo correction. I did find this one, which is possibly Mr. Seigenthaler using an anonymous edit to remove the offensive text and replacing it with his biography from the First Amendment Center some two weeks before Jimmy Wales became involved:

11:06, 23 September 2005 . . 69.172.115.157 (This is the correct bio. The previous entry was bogus.)

Jamesday 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There was talk of the offending revisions being entirely deleted from the page history. We can (apparently) do that when there's a grave reason. --Kizor 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• The libellous versions have been removed from public access. They are archived, however, by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you wish to obtain copies for research, you can contact them. --Dystopos 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're curious, the IP user who caused this controversy, 65.81.97.208, their contribution history was erased. --Revolución (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Seigenthaler,Sr. is a class act

Playing golf with someone will tell you within a few hours what a man is made of. Having had the pleasure of doing so with Mr Seigenthaler, he was a polite, extremely well learned and a gentleman in touch with history and its affects on today. He spoke well of others and had a fine sense of humour, and you could tell he had a sense of duty to point out and stop prejudice if possible. Amazing what you can learn about someone playing a game.

Newsday:Seigenthaler isn't a great encyclopedia writer

From their 1989 review of the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture:

Along with literary historian Lewis Simpson's elegantly trenchant essays on the Civil War in literature, Ted Rosengarten's account of the Sharecropper's Union and Anne Goodwyn Jones' revelatory "Belles and Ladies," there is, for example, Nashville Tennesseean editor John Siegenthaler's promotional copy for his own newspaper and Robert Armour's chauvinistic and factually faulty entry on "Actors and Actresses."

• chuckles*

Lotsofissues 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)