Talk:Thomas Siebel

Proposed changes
An editor has many times attempted to instate a version involving significant changes to this article. I have requested that the editor come to this page to discuss these proposed changes. Whatever404 (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss. The changes that I have been making are factual, have cleaned up broken links, have additional references to improve the article, and are consistently being deleted. Notevenonce (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes:


 * 1) Cleaning up broken links throughout
 * 2) Intro: additional details explaining what type of holding company First Virtual Group is, as this is vague without a description (likewise removing the additional details from the Education and Work section to avoid redundancy)
 * 3) same section: move location of birth to introduction
 * 4) Education and work: remove board positions (these belong in the Honors and Awards section)
 * 5) same section: remove philanthropic reference to the Siebel Foundation (this belongs in Philanthropy section)
 * 6) Honors and awards: improvements to this section include: additional awards, referencing of awards, inclusion of all board positions
 * 7) Philanthropy: add more information about the Montana Meth Project
 * 8) same section: remove awards (they belong in the Honors and Awards section)
 * 9) External links: additional external links added

Can we agree to these changes? Notevenonce (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See below, the sourcing of the material is a more pressing concern than where the material will go. If material does not have sources, it does not belong in the article; it does not make sense to waste effort deciding the fate of material that does not even belong in the article.  We should focus on finding appropriate sources first, and then work with whatever we can source.


 * As far as the redlinks are concerned, they are not "broken links" and, in this instance, it is unnecessary to remove them. First Virtual Group, Industry Week magazine, the Lincoln Academy of Illinois, the Siebel Foundation and the Dearborn Scholars Fund are each plausible candidates for articles.  They should be left redlinked to encourage the growth of Wikipedia.  Whatever404 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All content is now sourced.
 * No problem - I'm not quite proficient in Wikipedia and didn't realize it was standard practice to leave these links red. Notevenonce (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The source you used, FVGroup.com, fails WP:SELFPUB. It is not a reliable, third-party source.  Articles cannot be primarily based on such sources, and, in this instance, the majority of the material in the version of the article you introduced relies on this self-published source.  It would be more appropriate to visit the websites of each of the organizations giving Siebel awards and to verify the awards with those sources.


 * The awards are all sourced to third parties. Please do not change this section as it is factually correct and correctly sourced.  Notevenonce (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I worked hard on the version of the article I introduced, and I would appreciate it if you would begin by adding to that version rather than reverting to another version. This is not a resume or CV for Siebel; it is not appropriate to present facts in reverse chronological order.


 * Please also note that when adding sources, if you're using the same source multiple times, you should use the "ref name" parameter outlined at WP:CITE, not create multiple citations with the same source. Whatever404 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While you may have "worked hard" on the article, it is not as complete as it could be. The version I am working from contains far more factual data than yours, and I will continue to work off of the version I introduced. The version I am working from is the originally created article on Wikipedia (check v 1.0 - I created it). I will take a look at the chronological order and fix anything that doesn't conform to Wikipedia standards.  Notevenonce (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do - I'm still learning Wikipedia standards, so please do correct me if I'm doing anything that isn't a Wikipedia standard. Notevenonce (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the version you are using is the "originally created version" is irrelevant; older versions are not necessarily more valuable than newer versions. Also, creating an article does not confer upon that editor some special status where their opinions carry more weight than those of other editors.

The "version you are working from" (the one which I have raised concerns about repeatedly over the past several weeks) is less appropriate, because:


 * There are WP:BLP issues, especially, the promotional feel of the version you're using: it reads like a resume or CV intended to praise the subject
 * There is contentious material about efficacy of Montana Meth Project (challenged and removed from that article space)
 * There are many instances of inappropriate or incorrect grammar, spelling, use of italics, headers, etc.
 * Despite my Sep 19 note, you are still:
 * formatting refs incorrectly when using a source multiple times (using one source to create multiple refs, instead of using the same ref)
 * using incomplete citations

In short, the version you are using is in far greater need of repair than the one I have used. As I have already put in the time and effort to address many of its problems, we should use the version that contains those corrections. If you would like to add content to the article, please add it to the repaired version, and please observe our guidelines and policies (particularly WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, using the templates at WP:CITET). Mediation services are available if you cannot accept this proposal. Whatever404 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please let me know what areas have a "promotional feel" - I don't see this anywhere. The Montana Meth Project data is not contentious and should not be removed (please outline what you feel is "contentious").  Please outline where you see incorrect grammar and spelling - I don't see any.  Why can't you use italics?  I am working on fixing the sources - please bear with me while I learn Wikipedia standards.  How are the citations incomplete?  I will be sure to fix them.


 * The version you continue to revert back to is FAR less complete than the version I am working from and, therefore, makes the article less useful and less informative. What are the mediation services you referenced?  Notevenonce (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Content per BLP
I have removed much of the unsourced content per the requirements at WP:BLP. It is not sensible to waste time arguing about material that has no sources; we should concentrate only on material that we are certain will be included. I think the best approach would be to concentrate on finding sources for the material that I removed, pending sources. Whatever404 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All information has been replaced and sourced. Can we agree on the current version?  Notevenonce (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See above. Whatever404 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Awards are correctly sourced - I will seek additional third party sources for the remainder of the content. Notevenonce (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Trucker Convoy Involvement
The claim that Siebel is funding the convoy isn't cited and I haven't been able to find sources aside from GiveSendGo. I wouldn't be surprised if he is, but figured it needs a source. Apologies if I did the tag wrong, I'm a longtime lurker but new to editing.Hamster Drink (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * New York Times mentioned it too, and they checked it out asking him for comment. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/15/world/canada-protests-news --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)