Talk:Seigenthaler incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Seigenthaler incident was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
10 April 2008 Liberal Web John J. Miller – National Review

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seigenthaler incident article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Article name

In my opinion, I think the article's title is too long. It should be shortened. It sounds good and encyclopedic, but it's just too long. Can something be done about this? Thanks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest as an alternative? – Qxz 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Only one Seigenthaler has been involved in a Wikipedia controversy, so how about dropping the "Sr." part? Kind of like how King's College DNA controversy omits the "London" part of the college name. Hbdragon88 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. How about John Siegenthaler Wikipedia controversy? The title seems to be rather cumbersome at the minute. Lan3y 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me. List it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, as a more thorough consensus will be needed before moving this sort of page – Qxz 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not short enough (not to mention that the name should be spelled correctly). The title should be simply Seigenthaler incident or Seigenthaler controversy, both of which have been used in a number of sources. I prefer "incident" as a more neutral title. But there's no need for Wikipedia in the title, it's unnecessary disambiguation because there is no other Seigenthaler incident the name could refer to, and it will be plenty obvious from the article that it's about Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and listed it as a requested move. As the article's introductory sentence, I would suggest, "In the history of Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler incident...." --Michael Snow 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In light of the recent essjay ordeal, I've seen the media make numerous reference to Seigenthaler controversy and within the Wikipedia community it is commonly called the Seigenthaler incident. Either name would be fine. 205.157.110.11 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as above. No need to disambiguate until there is another one to disambiguate from. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
until there is another one, gawd I hope there won't be another. 205.157.110.11 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer Seigenthaler controversy. I don't think it's POV to claim that this was controversial, and "incident" seems too euphemistic in this case. The Essjay thing is at Essjay controversy. Recury 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that either of "Siegenthaler incident" and "Siegenthaler controversy" would be acceptable, I have gone for the title which is more common outside Wikipedia. Thus, John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy has been moved to Siegenthaler controversy. --Stemonitis 08:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple error or nex lie?

"The scientific journal Nature published a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica in 42 hard sciences related articles in December, 2005, in which Wikipedia was found to contain 4 serious errors and 162 factual errors, while the Encyclopædia Britannica also contained 4 serious errors but only 123 factual errors" - why didn't you inform, that several months ago Nature publishers acknowledged that their study was conducted in non-scientific manner and can't be considered true???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.87.142.125 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm unsure why one would think an editorial survey could be conducted scientifically in the first place. So the fact it wasn't scientific isn't news. Did the Nature publishers also say it wasn't true, or is that your editorial? - RoyBoy 800 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motive?

Does anyone know 'why' this Chase added bogus information? I can see that one might do such a thing out of boredom, but why Siegenthaler? And why that particular information? BillMasen 23:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably because he thought it was funny, i.e., for the lulz. Why him and not someone else? I have no idea. --Alexc3 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Sieganthaler famous stateside? I had never heard of him before all this. BillMasen 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope we're not getting siegenthalered, err, nudged or hoaxed, into doing anything we don't wanna do. — Rickyrab | Talk 10:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he probably picked someone that nobody wanted to read about for a while. It's not like he edited Adolf Hitler's page or anything. He picked his target just large enough to be funny but just small enough to go unnoticed. Now, personally, I think Wikipedia is flawless when it comes to the natural sciences, which are largely undisputed, especially in physics and mathematics. That's where Wikipedia shines, in my humble opinion, and that's where it's most helpful to me. For history and other subjective areas that are prone to interpretation, I'd usually rather conduct my own original research, but that's why people call me a "nerd." Plus, it's easy to spot bias if you've read enough articles, so I don't see the problem here except for sheep who believe everything they read. --kevinthenerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.170.72 (talk) 19:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link to article

The long article by Seigenthaler (Seigenthaler, John. "Truth can be at risk in the world of the web", The Tennessean, 4 December 2005. ) seems to be dead. Anyone else having this problem? Richard001 01:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I just now searched for "Seigenthaler" at Google, and this article comes up as the #2 hit. The title, though, does not really make me happy. "Seigenthaler controversy" suggests perhaps that there is some controvery about Siegenthaler himself. But the old title "John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy" makes it much more clear to the google searcher that the controversy is ours, not his. I would move it myself but there might have been a past discussion that would make it somehow clear why I am wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. John254 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, I see now that there was a debate about about this title being too long. I don't really disagree with that. I am just suggesting that whatever title we end up with, it should make clear that the problem was with us, not with Seigenthaler. The poor man did nothing wrong, and someone abused Wikipedia in a way that was unpleasant for him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about removing the word biography? It sounds a bit cliquish to me, after all as editors we all now about our biography policy but for your average non-involved reader the biography seems a bit irrelevant, surely enough to say it was the wikipedia controversy concerning Mr Seigenthaler, ie John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia controversy. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is the subject, maybe, taxonomically, we should be mentioned first in the title, i.e. Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr. As far as length, English speakers often sacrifice clarity for brevity, but like the old joke about the post-apocalyptic archaeologist wondering "What's fallout? And why did it need shelter?" it's not always helpful to future understanding. -- Kendrick7talk 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It certainly distances any ambiguity more than ever re John Seigenthaler Sr. having any responsibility for this, yes. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've done the move. There are a couple protected double redirs that have no incoming links, except for December 2005, which I can't seem to edit properly (weird errors). -- Kendrick7talk 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was this moved back to an overlong title, despite the previous objections? I can understand the concern with the title "Seigenthaler controversy" creating inappropriate implications about Seigenthaler himself - that's one reason why I suggested "Seigenthaler incident" in the original move discussion. As the other options are all problematic, I am going to move it there now. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The new title is completely undescriptive. This isn't a famous enough incident to be readily recognizble by such a shorthand. -- Kendrick7talk 17:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How would you rename Halloween documents? Article titles need to be sufficient for disambiguation and generally neutral. They do not need to contain every relevant detail. That's what the article itself is for. Meanwhile, when discussing an incident like this elsewhere, people can elaborate as necessary for a given context, and of course link to the article for more information. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably Microsoft Halloween documents leak. Article titles should hint at their contents, not be the minimum number of nouns we can string together to create a unique identifier. -- Kendrick7talk 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting - four discrete word units. That's about the most I think would normally be reasonable for a title, unless something more is absolutely required to avoid confusion. Certainly more than six (depending on how you count) including two prepositions and a possessive is over the top. I don't really see the problem with either "Seigenthaler incident" or (aside from the less-than-neutral implications) "Seigenthaler controversy", both of which have seen a fair amount of use as a shorthand elsewhere. If not one of those, then I'd like to hear alternatives that preserve coherence while not simply dismissing the overlength issue. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a pressing need for such a pithy title spelled out in WP:NAME. Your title makes this article sound like an international incident (a la the U-2 incident) or a title of the next Robert Ludlum novel rather than a minor online kerfluffle and what the article is -- a description of a controversy over the Wikipedia biography of a certain John Seigenthaler Sr. But I'm happy for third opinions. -- Kendrick7talk 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The general emphasis of common names is effectively a preference for shorter titles. The name is common enough to have gotten a number of uses in the press, even continuing well after the initial events, as a couple examples from The Register will attest. "Incident" is a handy way of identifying an event without imposing value judgments - very much Wikipedia style, in fact - so why you think the term has such strong connotations is not clear to me. Anyway, I've put a request for comment below. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite lead?

"The Seigenthaler controversy began when...."

This is probably a bad way to start an article. I suggest something like "The Seigenthaler controversy is a ...... regarding ......" or something of the sort. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording per the new title. -- Kendrick7talk 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Much better, thanks! Regards, Daimanta (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

After having reviewed this article, I have found some pressing problems with the article. Some of the most important are:

  1. The lead does not conform to WP:LEAD. Specfically, it must adequately summarize all the major points/headings made in the article, which it completely fails to do.
  2. While it's not a requirement to have pictures for GA, I see no reason why one of Seigenthaler is not included, since there's a free one on the John Seigenthaler, Sr. page.
  3. Citations are a HUGE problem with this article, especially since it falls under the aegis of WP:BLP, and its failure to properly attribute quotes and facts is almost ironic given the subject of the article. The "Hoax" section is entirely unreferenced, as is most of the "Detection and correction" section, the first paragraph of "Anonymous editor identified" (including a direct quotation) and another direct quotation in the third paragraph (direct quotes require direct cites), the entire "Seigenthaler's public reaction" section, bits and pieces (including direct quotes) of the "other reactions" section and bits of pieces of "Wikimedia foundation reaction"
  4. Also, little bits and pieces, uncited ones, that make me wonder about neutrality or, at the very least, WP:OR, for example "This is possibly unintuitive, given the freedom with which content can enter Wikipedia in comparison to Britannica." (Other reactions)

Size-wise, it doesn't look like much, until one sees that it basically amounts to 75%+ of the article being uncited. Added to all of this is the fact that the article has not been very stable lately. There have been BLP concerns, including a change of the title, since this article was nominated. For these reasons, I am going to fail the article at this time. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 07:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on article title

For anyone responding, you can see a couple sections above where this has been discussed previously. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive link

The archive links are broken at the moment. Shawnc (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Found and moved. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not relevant enough?

Quoting the lead: "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.[5]"

I can understand that this particular step was taken in the aftermath of the incident. However the initial problem was editing of an existing article. As far as I can tell, the step of barring unregistered users from creating new pages does nothing to prevent a recurrence of the incident.

If I've got this straight, the words "including barring unregistered users from creating new pages" are not relevant enough to be in the article lead.

Rather than be bold and delete the words, can I have feedback please? Wanderer57 (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem with the Seigenthaler article existed when it was created, so measures dealing with page creation are definitely relevant. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. A followup point.
The first sentence of this article led me to believe that the problem was editing of a pre-existing article.
"the Seigenthaler incident refers to a series of events that began when, in May 2005, Brian Chase anonymously posted a hoax in the Wikipedia entry for John Seigenthaler, Sr."
Would it be accurate to say:
"Chase anonymously posted a hoax article in Wikipedia about John Seigenthaler, Sr."
Wanderer57 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be reasonable, it's a less contorted phrasing. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why is this here?

can someone please explain to me why an article about this topic which doesn't seem of much relevance except in wikipedia's own history belongs in an encyclopedia? 82.37.50.162 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)