User:Rogue 9/Seigenthaler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)
Thank you both for the quick responses! Glad to see it's back. Bikeable 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [5] 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)
Ted, the print/CD/DVD version of Wikipedia, which is known as "Version 1.0", is to be painstakingly verified for this kind of thing before it's ever released. If you'd like more information about that project, please see Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. // Pathoschild 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm also guessing that lone articles that are not linked to from any other page on Wikipedia would probably not be included on the CD. Turnstep 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably not. Even assuming they were, they'd be put through the same verification. // Pathoschild 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I posed the question because the public announcement was made more than a month ago that a print/CD etc. version would "soon" be available yet no article has been locked, not even a Wikipedia:Featured article. - Ted Wilkes 15:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Exactly happened here?

I'm not really sure where to put this but in light of the recent fiasco regarding this page, I feel that it's our responsibility at Wikipedia to look into the matter and see what actually caused the damaging information to be up there for a month. Maybe we should even have a seperate page detailing what exactly went wrong here. Deathawk 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. An anonymous editor wrote the bio including the offending phrase.
  2. It wasn't linked to from any other article, so never got noticed.
  3. He noticed it, and got the history deleted.
  4. The story ends.
It's really not that interesting in the scheme of things. -Splashtalk 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See the article (which got slapped with a WP:AFD five minutes after being created) John R. Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. (Unfortunately, the middle initial in the title appears to be incorrect). --EngineerScotty 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope that gets deleted as mindnumbingly irrelevance and a fork of an existing article. -Splashtalk 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We'll see. I like it better as a separate article, as the event in question has little to do with Mr. Seigenthaler, other than that he was the victim of the vandalism--the event has taken on a bit of a life of its own. At any rate, information on the incident should probably be in one place rather than two. --EngineerScotty 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, and it's already well covered in this article. -Splashtalk 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed this in the history page... no. of edits before controversy - around 10; no. of edits after controversy - close to 400! Just goes to show what such incidents can do to an article. Hmm... a new way to get some attention to less-noticed pages in wikipedia?? ;-)... Just joking... Jam2k 06:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whining

Instead of publicly whining about the apparent errors in the section about him, why doesn't Mr. Seigenthaler simply correct the errors? Isn't that how Wikipedia is designed? Or maybe Mr. Seigenthaler is just looking for attention. Regardless, I will be very displeased if he's actions have any consequences on Wikipedia (the registering thing is fine, that's pretty standard these days) or any other internet material. Maybe someone should explain to him how the internet, and specifically Wikipedia, work...

Because editing the page would be too easy. He wanted to create a controversy. Mperry 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. -Splashtalk 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No not exactly, we are looking at a major failure on the part of Wikipedia and all its editors, dismissing it as starting it as a controversy is not true - perhaps Seigenthaler wanted to address a problem within the site, simply editting the page will not draw attention to fundamental errors on Wikipedia; creating national attention and perhaps, and incentive to do something better than what has been done, maybe will fix the problem, or atleast address it holistically (which to an extent, it has done). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on, this is just silly. The guy brought up a legitimate complaint. The article had incorrect information on it, for an extended period of time, several months before he found it. Editing it after the fact may solve that particular problem, but it doesn't address the broader problem of vandalism on stagnant pages in Wikipedia. I don't understand why people are taking cheap shots at him for raising the issue.--Eraboin 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with how he raised the issue. Airing your gripe in a USA Today article and then going onto national news to complain about this reeks of trolling for personal or professional publicity. Mark my words. Several months from now he'll spin this into a book deal positioning himself as a self-appointed expert that's been on TV. I don't blame him for talking to Jimbo but that was far enough. For what it's worth, I do agree that Wikipedia has issues that need to be addressed. That's the fortunate silver lining to this incedent; We'll identify and fix them. However, I still feel that Mr. Seigenthaler could have taken a more responsible tact. Mperry 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Your words are marked. I don't think he's overreacting. I do believe there's hope, however, and that Wikipedia is not made illegitimate by this. I just don't see the point of sounding defensive about it.--Eraboin 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not fair. He only discovered the incorrect biography after it had already been online for 5 months. Answers.com and Reference.com had mirrors. He's hardly whining, if you watch the CNN interview you'll see he commends Jimbo and Wikipedia on the response he received once he had managed to contact him. Jacoplane 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Well. De facto, there is a hierarchy, isn't there? Why, suppose my cousin wrote an article about me. Why wouldn't you keep it? To those who are written about, do a favor and allow them their due.--VKokielov 06:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact remains that he could have spent 5 seconds removing the sentence. Instead, he stirred up a pseudo-storm. -Splashtalk 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. A child could tell you why he's doing what he's doing; the man was defamed and removing the sentence does not change that fact. Further, saying "well edit it yourself" defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia in general; if someone already knows about a subject, why are they looking it up? True, Seigenthaler knows about his own past, but if someone's using the encyclopedia for research purposes, are they really there for the purpose of editing? "Do it yourself" is a copout. How would you like it if you were served burned food at a restaurant and the response was "go back to the kitchen and cook it yourself," then? Just as you don't go to a restaurant to cook, people looking for information don't come here to write it themselves. I'm all for Wikipedia's concept, but you're using the features of the system as a shield. Face it; in this case the system failed, and no, it wasn't Mr. Seigenthaler's fault. Rogue 9 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's critics. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not an adequate answer to the problem - we cannot expect every person on earth of any note to continually check Wikipedia to see if they have been libeled. More so, it is entirely inappropriate for any user (Wales included) to change the content of an article about themselves - it's just stupid - how can anyone ever be truly NPOV about themselves. If they have a point then raise it on a discussion page, but even if we are to ask this of the man, we can hardly expect Mr Seigenthaler to not be offended and to want to make a point about how badly Wikipedia has, on this case, policed itself when an article, for several months, goes towards accusing him of conspiring to murder his friend. Tompagenet 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering who wrote the original disputed article (restoral of comment)

Looking at the current article for clues to who his enemies might me. "... suspected...." Someone who briefly suspected him, and still remembers; someone in law enforcement? "...lived in Russia..." Someone who thinks living in Russia is a terrible thing? I hope he persists in finding the perp, and then loses the case. It would be pretty funny if the prep turned out to be the FBI. GangofOne 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:34, 5 December 2005
Guanaco (Talk | contribs)
Wondering who wrote the original disputed article - remove section 
not relevant to the production of a good article

Please do not remove comments from the Talk pages. GangofOne 01:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No estoy de acuerdo

From what I wrote here


Wikipedia has been built by editors from all walks of life, and the key point of this encyclopedia is to allow everyone to edit. That is the problem to an extent ; unverified information (which is most likely false) can easily be distributed on Wikipedia and its mirror sites. A chain reaction of misinformation takes place such as the John Seigenthaler Sr. incident. Thus, anyone who researchs Wikipedia does so with grave risks. Also note that other Internet sites (such as Encarta) are much much more verifiable and valid than Wikipedia, although they do not have the same number of articles or the same amount of information. So no, I did not say or imply that internet sites are bad. Sorry, but Wikipedia is a bad source to add in a paper, so much, in fact, I have had several professors warning the class against its use. You are correct to say that no one should single source anything (as I stated earlier); but the key is, never source Wikipedia if you don't have to. All qualified and highly educated editors are severely outnumbered by spammers, vandals and trolls that swarm this site like bees. It is virtually impossible to create a holistically unbiased knowledge base. Even the qualified editors here amount to some of the problem involved here, as they are probably not professionals or experts about what they are writing (as I am not); they probably have emotional undertones in what they are writing; and Wikipedia itself and the community involved may be bestn assumed as bias, as original perspectives (such as a scientologist working with the Scientology article; or an African American writing an article for Afrocentrism) are often shunned and dismissed as NPOV or vandalism. Such leads only to ruin. Wikipedia for all the reasons stated, is simply not a reliable tool...be honest, if you had a critical essay to write, would you honestly rely on a one page article from Wikipedia, or a 500 page book from your local library, or, even Encarta? Most people agree, Wikipedia is simply not something to rely on wholely. Such could lead to ruin. Wikipedia's argument is that it improves everyday by the work of altruistic editors who take out portions of their lives to create a free knowledge base; however, the amount of sloppily written one sentence articles (e.g. that we all created when we were newbies) severely outnumber the better ones. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an entirely new page should be created to mention this event...the John Seigenthaler incident...? (In my personal pov - he totally overreacted). freestylefrappe 02:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Não, there would be too many dissenters. : ( εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
While an article chroniciling this event John Siegenthaler event might be worth discussing i don't beieve this endeavor is without merit as i think some people are trying to suggest. Briaboru
The article has been put up already at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It's being discussed for deletion though.... Jam2k 06:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work Jimmy

Good lord. Mr. John Seigenthaler Sr., if you believe in the 1st amendment, then act like it. The system worked exactly how it is supposed to work. Mr. Seigenthaler was unwilling to make the changes himself (though hence forth it is his responsibility), and Jimmy fixed it.

Case closed.

Yet another win for the first amendment.

Haven't I already explained once why this line of argument utterly fails? Rogue 9 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As a lawyer, I can tell you that you severely misunderstand what the First Amendment means. Or maybe you are referring to the mystical "Internet" First Amendment.

[edit] I can't believe this...

One bad apple spoils the barrel, it seems. I hope that anonymous IP is happy, because (s)he has most likely damaged Wikipedia's reputation for a very long time. However, that won't stop me from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia.

Mr. Seigenthaler, on behalf of this community, I'd like to offer you my own apology for this incident. I have no idea why such people would have the nerve to libel you like that, and it hurts me to the core. --  Denelson83  04:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have no idea why such people would have the nerve to libel you like that." Please read the article; the man has enemies, and honorably so. GangofOne 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There are many more than one bad apple here.
I hope this makes us (Wikipedians) sit up and take notice. I read at

[1] that now you will have to register before you can create an article. But registering takes only 15-20 seconds, and even then there is no verification of the person registering. The change needs to be extended:

  • 1. only registered users can edit
  • 2. some verification of the user
There is only one problem with the "anyone can edit" policy, and that is that anyone can edit.
  • Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's policies and criticisms. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Seigenthaler

What a fucking assfuck.

By which I do not mean to slander Mr. Seigenthaler by implying that he is in fact an assfuck, but I am expressing a strong and protected opinion that he is alike to an assfuck, to my mode of thinking.

Fucking dickprick. -- User:GangofOne

[edit] We should not be editing page histories like this

Because that is extremely broken, in so many different ways. We'll gladly watch the page against vandalism, but we seriously can't keep deleting whatever from page history. Even if it WAS practical Kim Bruning 06:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the ceremony. He asks to remove the page history -- remove it. Because he's bigger, first; and because he isn't wrong, second. No one need be the martyr. --VKokielov 06:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please protect the article

For good. --VKokielov 07:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article in The Register

Take a look at this article published in The Register that was published today - Who owns your Wikipedia Bio?... It really hurts you, if you are a fan of Wikipedia and it's policies... All this just because some anonymous idiot vandalized a page that wasn't even noticed till a week ago...

Don't get me wrong people. It's just that I'm sooo irritated to see our community being accused like this. These people don't even appreciate the hard work we put in, and use some one or two incidents to defame the entire lot of users... Jam2k 07:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't take this too hard. The Register has always been extremely derisive of Wikipedia. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's critics. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two thoughts

For one thing, I think this whole "controversy" is being blown wildly out of proportion. Of course, there are some people who just can't stand the principles behind Wikipedia, so they latch on to whatever they can to criticize it. They just do not have any faith in the ability of ordinary people working together to produce something great like this. It's pure contempt. This business of scrambling to defend Wikipedia, as if we've got to save our skins, isn't doing us any good, either. There's a system here. To an overwhelming degree, it works, and it has produced this magnificent resource, but of course it also has a few inherent flaws. One of them is highlighted by this incident. But we should shrug it off—we are improving things every day, making things more researched and verifiable, and this article itself is actually benefiting from the attention it's getting. My idea is, why not set a goal to make this a featured article? Make it a shining example of Wikipedia research and neutrality. That's taking lemons and making lemonade. Everyking 08:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's principles. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa:Wikipedia hits traffic record again

Wikipedia hits #30

Lotsofissues 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice to see... with all this recent publicity that we got, it's bound to rise :-). Too bad the other language sites don't get much attention (English version is visited 63% of the time)... Jam2k 08:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's popularity. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does the controversy merit it's own article?

I think it probably does, especially as it seems to have led to a rule change on the Wiki. I also think the press coverage (apoplectic NYTimes, etc.) deserves a bit more space.

The article is already there, 82.152.179.2. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Discuss the merit of a seperate article for the whole issue in it's Afd page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy

[edit] Pronunciation/IPA

In the pronunciation of "Seigenthaler", I'm not sure if the a in "thaler" is long (like day, /e/) or short (like bet, /ɛ/). Like I said before, I've never heard the name pronounced aloud so I'm unsure. Sorry if this is a stupid question. --Foofy 14:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What it tells us

I see that there is a sentence at the bottom suggesting that this incident (him raising hell -no judgement implied- rather than editing the sentence) tells us about the gap between traditional media and the new wiki-world. Does it not also tell us something about the prominence and trustworthiness of wiki in people's eyes, that he thought it so terrible? If someone had written this, or anything unpleasant or untrue about him on a random page, nobody would pay attention. That it was considered serious shows that wiki is being considered in the realm of the traditional media and encyclopedias. Even as they attack us, they praise us. 15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

[edit] 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)

[edit] History

brian0918 is working on the revision history, removing certain libellous revisions which were inadvertantly restored. I know some people have qualms about deleting history, but this is our policy and it should be carried out the same in this case as any other. Those concerned about the historical record should know that of course all the old revisions are stored in the database so in 100 years when historians want to study this incident, they can. It's just that it would be deeply inappropriate (always) for us to keep revisions of those sort public. Please let brian do his work undisturbed. :-)--Jimbo Wales 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It is very startling to stumble onto a blank history. Article histories and discussion pages often shed more light on the nature of the information in the article. Being able to access that "black box" (in Bruno Latour's sense) is often critical to being able to trust the content -- which seems to be at the heart of the issue at hand.
Specific alterations of article history should be made as transparently as possible, perhaps leaving a notice:
Access to this portion of the page history has been removed by [[User:So and so]] because it violates [[This policy]]. Complete page histories are stored by the Wikimedia Foundation and are available to researchers according to [[This other policy]]. Dystopos 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to explain why taking this action is such a bad idea. You are potentially converting a situation where you are clearly not liable into a situation where you might be liable. If you start deleting access to content whenever any person asks you to, as you have done here, then in the future what happens when someone asks and you do not agree with them, they can point to your previous deletions and argue that they want the same. You would be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place: either you delete anything and everything upon request regardless of how you feel about the merits of this request, or you play judge and jury deciding what requests to comply with and what to refuse. If you take the former path, it would be a grevious blow to free speech and wikipedia's credibility, and if you take the latter approach, you might very well end up getting sued by the persons whose demands you do not obey. All of this could have been avoided if you merely stuck to your guns and told Seigenthaler to edit the article himself. By stepping in and proving once and for all that you have the right and ability to control content, and indeed that it is now POLICY that you will wield such control when faced with situations like this, you are voluntarily exposing yourself to litigation that you could have avoided altogether by taking a hands-off approach, not to mention the amount of work it will require if more Seigenthalers start popping up demanding changes to various articles. What if the Scientologists give you a call tomorrow demanding the 'defamatory' content on wikipedia be taken down? Kaltes 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] How could we know if Segenthaler is right?

Hi! But how can we know if Segenthaler himsef is telling the truth? Maybe he doesn't like his real private biography and simple doesn't want people to know it? For example if I would be famous person and have some homely fact in my biography. Whose right would surpass? Is it me, who have right to be private? Or is it people, who have right to know the truth? Another example: if I am an secret service man and somebody from enemy agency writed truth about me, then how we can ever decide, what to do? Dims 05:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/g/User%7ERogue_9_Seigenthaler_8bc1.html"