Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HResearcher (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 10 September 2006 (→Barbara Schwarz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Daily Kos

    • Daily Kos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - At the talk page of this article and the subject at the crux of the debate, Armando (blogger), a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to put personal details of this living person in. The details (full name, profession, law firm) are not libellious in nature, but it is asserted that the details in question may cause harm to the subject. These details have been published in very reliable sources - National Review, The New Republic - as well as publically distributed by the subject himself. Is this a BLP issue, and is it improper to have such information? // badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Use of National Review and The New Republic as sources should be avoided as probable NPOV. Use of personal details in an article is highly highly discouraged. Electrawn 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet they're from opposing sides? No one's relying on one side for one part of the info and one side for something separate, as discussion at the articles indicates. And use of personal details isn't discouraged, poorly sourced use is. Certainly, no one would consider two magazines of their stature poorly sourced, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was a majority of the damage/potential harm already done by articles posted in these publications posting the personal info? If Wikipedia can be used to further harm the anonymity of the blogger, avoid using it. If its out of the closet per se, then include it. If borderline, error on the side of keeping it out per WP:BLP. Electrawn 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me toss it out this way - there's nothing that's being put into the article that hasn't been published in two very reputable sources already. As the cat is out of the bag, no further damage could really be done unless we were going a step further and adding information that was not well sourced like this. If you have any question, there's a ton of discussion at the talk pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff is, IMHO, quite right. The only concerns that I suppose might be raised is that Wikipedia serves to aggregate personal information already published in disparate reliable sources, but I don't appreciate the existence of any consensus for the proposition that BLP means to proscribe the inclusion of a real name and profession in situations such as this. Joe 03:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion. These are mainstream, reputable publications and meet the requirements of WP:RS. Gamaliel 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a question. What is the useful encyclopedic purpose of including the personal information? Crockspot 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a newsworthy event. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, and it probably does not violate BLP. Just consider whether it really adds to the article. You should also consider whether we as Wikipedians should be aggregating personal data and publishing it in one place. That's the kind of crap that Daniel Brandt does with some Wikipedian's information -- do we really want to start doing that? Morton devonshire 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I was hinting at. Unless Daily Kos is hurting for examples of notability in order to maintain qualification under WP:WEB, which I don't think it is, I don't see how the inclusion of this information enriches an article about Daily Kos. It could be construed as a purely malicious entry. Crockspot 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kancha Ilaiah

    Kancha Ilaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - user:Blnguyen has protected the page ; the version does not conform to WP:BLP.Plz see the talk page.Immediate action required.HW 10:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The protection was entirely justified in this case. HW has been edit warring over a well-sourced insert on the subject of the article and making allegations of BLP violations despite the fact that several users clearly detailed that there was no BLP violation, nor defamation, nor anything (see article talk page). Instead of debating the matter, he has been making threats in my talk page of getting me blocked and using similar intimidation tactics. Please see his edit summaries:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&action=history

    [1]

    Here: [2]

    Here: [3]

    He changed his stance suddenly and said that the edits were "in bad faith" whereas all good faith efforts were made

    Here: [4] When another user reverted the changes back, he makes accusations of libel, which, I believe, constitute a legal threat and are a violation of Wikipedia: No legal threats.

    Then he made allegations in the talk page that did not even make any coherent sense to me (or, for that matter, to any of the other involved parties).

    In other edits , he said "revert as per talk page", yet no legitimate reason was provided in the talk page, nor a single coherent sentence that qualifies as a logical argument.

    I repeatedly requested him to debate the matter sensibly, but he has just kept re-iterating his accusations in the article talk page. I do not believe that this merits the valuable time of those admins who are monitoring wikipedia for legitimate acts of BLP violations.

    As example of a similar edit, note that the article on David Duke, a personality similar to Kancha Ilaiah has similar descriptions in the beginning (alleged white supremacist for Duke, alleged anti-Hindu for Ilaiah) and it was decided in the talk page of that article that no BLP violation was committed. Hkelkar 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You are not supposed to rant here .,It might be considered disruption of ANB.HW 10:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that I was ranting. I believe that I was laying out the facts for the benefit of the admins viewing this "request".Hkelkar 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really have an issue with me ; Go for RfC.This method is not acceptable.HW 11:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Plz see Talk:Anti-brahmanism user:subhash bose made some remarks violating WP:BLP on Kancha Ilaiah,I deleted that citing diffs,he rv again. HW  17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter has already been resolved. HW has engaged in furious and disruptive edit-warring over Kancha Ilaiah in the talk page of the article Talk:Kancha Ilaiah and has been censured by an admin to that effect. If you look at the talk page, it will be clear that both admin and several editors agree that the term "anti-Brahmin" is quite apt since Ilaiah has decribed himself as such on numerous occassions.Shiva's Trident 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter has not been resolved , Mediator Ben agrees to it ref:Talk:Kancha Ilaiah.This person has charged Kancha in rather incivil tone which has no foundation at all.Matter must be looked into immediately. HW  17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Gannon and articles linked to it

    • Jeff Gannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Jeff Gannon article, and at LEAST one other article linked to it, makes a claim that Mr. Gannon is a male prostitute. The Gannon article also has a category of "courtesans and prostitutes". The sources cited to verify this claim are, for the most part, editorials written by authors who can arguable be called biased. While these sources allude to Mr. Gannon being a male prostitute, in none of them can be found evidence that he ever actually engaged in prostitution, which is a crime in nearly every state of the US. I have removed these statements several times, citing WP:BLP, from Jeff Gannon, and from List of famous prostitutes and courtesans. My edits have continuously been reverted by an admin, Gamaliel. This admin disputes my contention that the sources do not verify the claim. I requested an advocate from AMA, and since my dispute is with an admin, another admin, Fred Chess, was assigned as my advocate. The advocate has briefly examined the sources, and also cannot find evidence to support the claim that Gannon ever engaged in prostitution, and also points out that he believes that prostitution is a crime.User talk:Crockspot#AMA_request There is no evidence that Gannon has ever been arrested, charged, or convicted of prostitution.
    I am not seeking any sanctions against Gamaliel, I simply want the statements removed, or solidly sourced (which I don't believe can be done at this time). Perhaps a protection of the articles after editing is also in order. Gamaliel and I are of different political persuasions, and have had several disagreements in the past, however this one seems so clear cut to me, and speaks to the basic credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. I am afraid that his personal feelings toward me may be clouding his objectivity on this one. I generally try to handle my own disputes, but this one is beyond my ability to resolve.
    Here are the sources cited at the two most aggregious articles linked above.
    • [5] (is this even in compliance with WP:RS?)
    • [6]
    • [7] - another questionable RS, whose evidentiary links are almost all dead.
    • [8] - possibly the strongest source, yet IMO, still gives no evidence of actually engaging in prostitution.
    • [9] - editorial
    • [10] - editorial from perhaps the most left mass publication in the US.
    One may possibly argue from these sources that there were nude photos of him online, that there may have been pricetags associated with these photos, or that his sexual orientation may be other than heterosexual, but one cannot verify that he ever actually engaged in prostitution, and therefore calling him such in his biography, catetgorizing his biograpy as such, and listing him on a list of famous prostitutes, is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy as set forth in WP:BLP.// Crockspot 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't an issue for BLP, this is an attempted end run around discussion and consensus. This discussion belongs on Talk:Jeff Gannon as a content dispute. And the personalities involved are irrelevant, as if Crockspot can build a consensus among the editors of that article, my objections would be rendered moot. Gamaliel 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a BLP issue. BLP changes the rules about consensus and discussion due to potential defamation and strawman arguments. Cut first, then discuss and build consensus. The burden of proof shifts to the editors who want content to remain. If it wasn't a biography, regular consensus forming would be followed. Electrawn 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is my take on this. I had posted it elsewhere, it seems more appropriate to bring it here. At Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans#Alleged male prostitutes, User:Crockspot and I are having a disagreement about the threshold of reliability required by WP:BLP. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that regardless of the caliber of a source, there must be multiple independent sources. Those sources must not have any axe to grind. And perhaps he is claiming something even more restrictive than that, which I'm not quite picking up. I find the second requirement a bit troubling, because it is hard to say who does and does not have an axe to grind. In this case, the two sources I provided, which were rejected as inadequate, were:
    1. An opinion piece, published in The Guardian in the UK, which states as fact that the individual in question was a prostitute. As most of you know, the UK has pretty much the world's toughest libel laws, so that if the individual had any intention of challenging this, then that was the ideal venue to do so
    2. A piece (originally from The Nation, but reprinted on CBS's website) that says that the individual "apparently was seeking customers as a gay, military-oriented prostitute."
    Since then another editor has found two articles from the Washington Post asserting, respectively, that the individual's "naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites" and that he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend". So, if these don't add up to enough, I'm a bit bewildered. Is Crockspot correctly interpreting this rule? If so, I believe we have an enormous amount of material about living people that does not meet this level of citation, probably the bulk of it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From my experience in the industry, opinion pieces generally don't go the same fact-checking and vetting processes as regular articles. This generally makes them a poor primary source, which seems to be the use in the article. As a source in general, The Guardian is reliable. The Washintonpost is reliable. I believe WP:BLP with WP:NPOV apply a higher standard of WP:RS. Tone and bias of sources may have to be vetted on an individual basis for inclusion in an article. Under an ordinary article, using a dubious source may not damage any one individual and wikipedia can move slow to correct it. Under a biography of a living person, there is possibility of harm and reputation to the person and their career via wikipedia. Most states will recognize that accusations of homosexuality are defamation per se, Slander#Defamation_per_se. In english, we are well down the road to a judgement in a potential defamation suit, its already assumed the statement is defamitory. This seems to be why Crockspot is raising such a stink, and he has the exceptions granted in the power of WP:BLP to do so. Make sure the sources used are rock solid in any BLP article. Also, editors who revert such material are to be held accountable, not the editor deleting the material. Further, the fact that wikipedia has an enormous about of material that doesn't pass a high bar of WP:BLP is quite agreeably disturbing. Electrawn 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been trying to make the editors above aware that BLP has a higher standard, and that standard has been evolving. I didn't feel that I was being adequately heard, and that is why I brought it here. It is true that there is an ENORMOUS amount of libellous material on Wikipedia, and that is one of the reasons I have been pushing for a task force specifically charged with dealing with these issues. This noticeboard is a good start, but we need to really crack down. Crockspot 12:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Something along the lines of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit. I have been monitoring Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project, Wikipedia:Criticism,Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. Libel-Protection Unit? Wikipedia:Libel-Protection_Unit Electrawn 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On further contemplation, I think that the strongest statement supported by the sources is something along the lines of "Some have alleged that Gannon is a male prostitute". Anything stronger than that would be drawing a conclusion from the sources, and that, I believe, is Original Research. Crockspot 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it would be directly quoting news stories in the Post to say that "[his] naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites" and he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend". [11] [12] That's rather more specific than the mealy-mouthed "some have alleged", and much more verifiable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it said "According to an editorial in the WaPo, blah blah blah (in quotes)", with a link to the article, then it conceivably would be more of a grey area. Wikipedia is merely presenting the information reported, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion as to its veracity. Is it still a violation of BLP? I'm not sure. (In some cases, it might be preferable to use the mealy-mouthed approach, for brevity's sake, ie., when the quotes are long, or there are a lot of them.) But that is a far cry from listing Gannon on List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, even with the same source links. Just appearing on that list is having a conclusion drawn about him. Perhaps another article called List of famous alleged prostitutes and courtesans would be more of a grey area, though I am not recommending the creation of that article. Crockspot 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bar is set the same as in mainstream media/journalism. You say the word alleged until convicted by a court of law. Until someone even attempts to charge him with anything, calling him a alleged prostitute is still shaky ground. If he says it in a direct quote "I am a prostitute" and that was published in a reliable source, then that can be included in wikipedia. An article from a reliable source claiming he may be a prostitute should be identified as such and use direct quotes. XYZ at the WSJ says QRS may have been involved with an escort service. This still makes wikipedia look like tabloid journalism. Further, an escort service and prostitute are seperate things. While escort services are often fronts for prostitution, one does not imply the other. Naked pictures of a guy on a website with the phrase $200 an hour probably wouldn't hold up in a prostitution court case, nor can it hold up in wikipedia. Electrawn 23:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, absurd. The reports have been repeatedly published in major news sources and as such, are prima facie verifiable. "The Washington Post has reported that Gannon offered his services as a male prostitute" would not in the least bit violate any Wikipedia policies. FCYTravis 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Post articles are not editorials, they are news stories. - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point in the discussion, it is clear that Gannon's inclusion on the List of famous prostitutes and courtesans is unjustifiable. He has never seen the inside of a courtroom over prostitution, nor made a public admission. He cannot be listed as a known prostitute. The Jeff Gannon article still seems up to debate, though a less conclusionary rewrite will be required. Since I listed this case here, I have been holding off of doing any edits, but if someone else doesn't remove him from List of famous prostitutes and courtesans in the next day or so, I will be bold and do it myself. Crockspot 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No such thing is "clear". If a person openly advertises his services as a prostitute on multiple websites, there is no legitimate grounds for protesting the very obvious conclusion that this person is in fact a prostitute. Gamaliel 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A very obvious conclusion? That, sir, is the very definition of Original Research. Escort does not necessarily equal prostitute. I can't believe you are still arguing this point after so much discussion. I can think of two other "conclusions", like maybe it was a sting operation in conjunction with law enforcement? Or perhaps he was trolling for victims in a blackmail scheme? Admittedly you would need a fair amount of tinfiol to believe those conclusions, but the fact is, we do not draw conclusions on Wikipedia. I am boggled that you do not understand that yet. Crockspot 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Gannon was just charging for his companionship, which is why he mentioned the size of his package. Gamaliel 18:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not convicted and he denies press reports. It is not our task judging the plausibility of the denial. --Pjacobi 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, there is ample proof that we just can't ignore. Gamaliel 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there isn't. There are primary source photos in a gay magazine. IF the category was Persons Photos Appearing in Gay Magazines, you'd have an argument. COncluding that he was a gay prostitute will require a conviction or a secondary source making the allegation. --Tbeatty 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed Gannon from the List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, and have sifted through the list of articles that link to Jeff Gannon, and adjusted, reworded, or removed any conclusionary statements regarding Gannon being a prostitute. Crockspot 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am acting as the advocate of Crockspot. I will try and clarify certain things my advocee is concerned about.
    Starting with my advocees main concern, WP:BLP. At one place in (WP:BLP#Use_of_categories), it gives this example about categories: "Category:Criminals should only be added when [...] the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty."
    • Q: Isn't prostitution a form of criminality? Has Gannon either been convicted or pleaded guilty to this charge? If no, then why is it insisted that the category:Courtesans and prostitutes is added to the article Jeff Gannon? Is it impossible that Jeff Gannon never actually never commited prostitution?
    • My advocee stresses the importance of completely relying on the sources, so that only verifiable and undeniable truths are mentioned. This is also supported in Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded? where it is stated "An edit counts as original research if it proposes any of the following: [..] It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". Since nowhere in the sources can it be concretely proven that Gannon actually committed prostitution, my client believes this to be original reserch. Instead of this, he wishes that the articles in question only mentions the undisputed claims, such as Gannon having offered services as a male prostitute on several web-sites.
    • My advocee also wants it to be clearly written within the article what the sources are. Instead of presenting conclusions made by various newspaper as facts, the article should state clearly in the text that, for example, "it was concluded in several newspaper editorials that Gannon was a prostitute [1] [2]".
    Fred-Chess 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the case on one side has now been succinctly stated, I will state other side.

    I would like to make it clear: I think the Jeff Gannon article currently goes on much too long about this, and gives much too much salacious detail, but I feel like there is an effort afoot to suppress entirely the mention of something that is by no means libelous, and is well worthy of mention. Please note that I had never made an edit related to Gannon until I saw User:Crockspot trying to remove this, at which point I got involved in the effort to show that this could be well cited.

    These are the cited news stories (from the Washington Post); I'm not the one who found these:

    This allows—or I certainly think allows—us to say "According to the Washington Post 'Gannon was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend' and had 'a Web page, which he paid for, featuring X-rated photos of himself.'" I, for one, would consider that to make the matter quite clear. If that can't be shorthanded as "prostitute", then fine, but this is like having to say "it appears that the side of the cow that is facing us is brown."

    For what it is worth, here are the other sources I have cited on the matter:

    • A hireling, a fraud and a prostitute, The Guardian, February 17, 2005.
      • This is an opinion piece; I cited this mainly because it was published by a major newspaper in the UK. If Gannon wished to make any claim of libel, presumably this would have afforded him the ideal venue: UK libel laws are pretty much the toughest in the world. The fact that he did not see fit to sue The Guardian or Blumenthal should settle any serious question of libel once and for all.
    • David Corn, Gannon-Guckert-Gate, originally published in The Nation Feb. 25, 2005, reprinted on the site of CBS news.
      • Crockspot saw fit to remove even from the talk page Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans a link to remarking that this piece might be relevant, apparently claiming that WP:BLP means I cannot point to an article that CBS News deems appropriate to reprint in its entirety. CBS News would seem to be the very model of a reliable source.

    - Jmabel | Talk 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I removed the entire section from Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans because Jeff Gannon has no business being mentioned in that article, and WP:BLP requires that possibly libellous material should be removed from both articles and talk pages. Listing him on that page is basically saying that Wikipedia is passing judgement on him and categorizing him as a prostitute. If you want to quote the sources in the Jeff Gannon article, I don't have a major problem with that. There just shouldn't be any editorializing or conclusionary language in the Wiki part of the text. Other articles on Wikipedia should not refer to him as "Jeff Gannon, male prostitute" either. That is libel. The furthest other articles that refer to him should go is "Gannon, alleged by some to be a male prostitute" (citations). A hypothetical example: I can find possibly thousands of sources calling President Bush a moron. Even members of parliament of Canada have been quoted in the press calling him a moron. Lots of people think he is a moron. But does he meet the dictionary definition of a moron? No. Can Wikipedia refer to him as "President Bush, a moron..."? No. Can Wikipedia say "Some high profile govt. officials have been quoted calling the President a moron. (citation)."? Yes. Crockspot 14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the fact that Gannon has never sued a British newspaper for libel, that is irrelevant. You are drawing a conclusion that because he didn't do X, it means Y is true. That is flawed logic, and again, is original research. Just as the fact that Gannon refused to deny or even discuss these issues with the Washington Post is not a confirmation that their allegations are true. Crockspot 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to there being a "movement afoot" to remove the information entirely, I suggest you read WP:BLP very carefully. If I am convinced something is libel, I am to remove it with no discussion. It is not my responsibility to rewrite the information to my satisfaction. The responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of those wanting the information included. Simply reverting repeatedly my edit can be construed as repeated reinsertion of libel, which is a gross violation of WP:BLP, and is a blockable offense. Crockspot 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, this diff by Derex is pretty good. But for the sake of redundancy, I will repeat that any reference that concludes that Gannon is a prostitute in any article needs to be purged. Crockspot 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gannon has been identified as such my multiple reputable mainstream media sources which meet the requirements of WP:RS and thus your purge is unjustified and unnecessary. Gamaliel 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamaliel, you fail to understand the spirit and meaning of WP:BLP. As to the outcome of this dispute, it is out of both of our hands now. Crockspot 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a proposed a tentative solution. Expand the category to "Courtesans, escorts, or prostitutes". Comment? --Tbeatty 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbara Schwarz

    I have been working on the article at Barbara Schwarz. The original article and talk pages have been deleted. The page is now unprotected and discussion is ongoing regarding structure of the new article. Fred Bauder 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what the specific concerns are, so I left a little general guidance on the article's talk page. Crockspot 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a heads up, but (according to a reply over there) apparently the subject of this article is soliciting an attorney to sue Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc., over the article. Crockspot 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She tried to sue the Salt Lake Tribune after it published an article on her; not only did the trial court dismiss it, the appeals court also threw it out with prejudice, see [13] The SLT article is one piece of source material, and it's already undergone court scrutiny twice. As long as we editors follow Fred Bauder's advice on the article (just the facts) and keep it NPOV, there are neither grounds nor cause for litigation. Orsini 06:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, a few editors are trying to push their POV with original research, and use their arguments to build a "consensus" to support their extrapolation of "facts"(OR) between sources. One such "fact" they have been trying to push is that Barbara Schwarz has never won a lawsuit. This is not true. I've contacted some people in Utah, and she has filed and won at least 2 civil suits. Also, she has been granted most of her FOIA requests but the editors on her article only seem to be interested in presenting the negative part of her story. --HResearcher 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She's won two cases? Please cite them (case numbers). Orsini 16:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll ask her for the case numbers. In the meantime, remember that you were the one making a negative claim "she has never won a case" while failing to present any citation. You, Vivaldi, and Tilman keep pushing this POV, WP:OR, and WP:LIBEL. The responsibility is upon YOU to provide your source. --HResearcher 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A litigation list was provided on the talk page, and then you began vandalism of the talk page when you were asked to look at the rulings. She's admitted she's never won a case in the US, "only settlements", on 4 Dec 2005 13:49:50 -0800. Cite [14] to answer your point only, not to include in the article. Since you mention WP:NOR, please explain how your attempt to procure boxes of documents from Germany at your own expense isn't your attempt to publish your own unverified, previously unpublished original research to support your position. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And still, you do not understand. In the "reference" (a usenet posting) you just gave a "Barbara Schwarz" says she won settlements in the USA. The statement could be interpreted in a number of ways, but there is nothing there that says she has "never won a case in the USA". Seems like you just want to argue. This is the last time I will discuss this point: There is not reliable source to support any claim that Barbara Schwarz hasn't won a case in the USA. And for you and Vivaldi, or Tilman to repeat it on the talk page is LIBEL. --HResearcher 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong logic. The correct reasoning is: 1) there is no source to claim that Barbara Schwarz has ever won a case, but over 80 showing that she has lost; 2) she admits that she has never won a case; 3) there is no reason that Barbara would falsely claim that she has never won. Therefore: she has never won a case. However this discussion doesn't belong here, it belongs to Talk:Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong logic? 1) There is no source stating that Barbara Schwarz has never won a case in the United States. 2) She does not admit she never won a case in the United States, but she does say she has won settlements. Therefore, Tilman, your "Therefore" is extrapolation (original research) being used to make a negative claim about Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What we can say VERIFIABLY is that she didnt win lawsuit #1 thru lawsuit #105 in the list of lawsuits she was involved in that was published by Lexis. We can also say, Judge So-And-So says this about the case -- and Justice So-and-so says that Ms. Schwarz has filed 35 previous frivilous claims, or whatever other relevant claims he has to say. We can point out the word "DISMISSED" that appear in each of the lawsuits that she has appeared in as a plaintiff and cite the specific 80+ cases where the words "DISMISSED" appear. It will be painfully obvious to the reader that the lack of any mention of Ms. Schwarz having won a case -- will indicate that she likely hasn't won any. And the talk page discussion on the topic will bear that out as well. There is no counter-evidence showing Ms. Schwarz has won any U.S. case, however it isn't necessary to specifically state that in the article. Just say, she lost #1, lost #2, lost #3, ....., and lost #105. Cite each of the cases she lost and be done with it. Vivaldi (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I took a closer look at the article. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that some of the sources are usenet postings made (supposedly) by the subject. I don't know if those are primary sources, are verifiable, etc. Could be wandering into an OR grey area. I'd like someone else to take a look. Crockspot 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Under Wikipedia policy, the usenet postings cannot be considered reliable. Delete them. Morton devonshire 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They are by the subject herself, telling her own story. More or less like a link to personal website. Fred Bauder 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Might Wikipedia be better off if the article were just deleted? Seems like we could be getting ourselves in needless trouble by having this article. Morton devonshire 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. It has already been deleted, and apparently the subject wants no article. As a business decision, might be best to delete. I commend the work that went into it though. Crockspot 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still up. How do we proceed, given that it has already had 3 deletion nominations? Morton devonshire 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material, "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6)." Crockspot 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unsourced (actually it's one of the better sourced biog articles I've seen) and the tone seems pretty dispassionate and neutral. I advise against invoking CSD - I certainly wouldn't delete it on the grounds you give above. Nor are the wishes of the subject paramount. Wikipedia is not censored, and as a matter of policy it would be an exceedingly bad move to give the subjects of articles veto rights over them. I should point out that Ms Schwarz has participated in editing "her" article but has been blocked indefinitely for gross and repeated breaches of Wikipedia:Harassment after several warnings. Her legal threats are no doubt related to her dissatisfaction with that outcome. -- ChrisO 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not suggesting that we delete it to suit her -- never heard of her before. Suggest deleting it to protect Wikipedia, balancing here notability with the harm it could do to Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The potential harm she could do to Wikipedia is nil, even if the article was libelous and an attack page. Either or both of these outcomes are unacceptable to the editors who have been working hard on the article to ensure neither of these outcomes. A verifiable, NPOV article is attainable form the source materials available for a notable subject. Orsini 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She has never won a lawsuit. --Tilman 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard for inclusion of libelous claims isn't her ability to win a lawsuit. Nor is that the standard for notability.--Tbeatty 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the standard of what she calls libelous claims is determined by the courts. Poorly sourced or unsourced negative claims must be removed from articles according to WP:BLP policy, and the editors working on this article aren't interested in adding libel to the article, or violating that policy. The SLT article has been determined by the courts not to be libelous. Orsini 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She onlhy went pro se against the SLCT. If she had an attorny, the outcome would have been entirely different. She has threatened to get an attorney against Wikipedia and she HAS won lawsuits in the past. And you Orsini, keep making negative original research on the talk page such as your claim about "disconnection" and "never won a lawsuit". Both of those claims of yours are not sourced but based on yours, Tilman's, and Tivaldi's extrapolation. I suppose you 3 are the editors who would consider deletion unacceptable? --HResearcher 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She has threatened to get an attorney against Wikipedia. What happened to WP:NLT? You are wrong on all your accusations: the SLT Tribune case was discussed and cited on the talk page; as was the comment by Linda Simmonds Hight; as is your false accusations of the article using OR, and using uncited or poorly cited sources; as well as your incorrect assesment of what is defined as original research. When asked to cite the numbers of the cases she's won, you can't, despite her own admission she has won none; when asked to cite proof of inappropriate psychological detention by German government; you can't, and then you state you're getting a box of documents from Germany, in German, and wanting to put them into the article. File an AfD if you feel the article should be deleted and cite some new grounds, instead of turning the article into a battleground with the object of getting it deleted. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, she has threatened to get an attorney and sue Wikipedia. I believe that is one of the reasons she is blocked. I think if she gets enough money together, she can also sue the SLCT, but I don't know. Anyway, you still defend your tendency to engage in original research. Do you intentionally make things up, or do you honestly believe in the things you make up? Linda Simmons Hight said NOTHING about disconnection, yet you try to interpret her words to match your original research. It is NOT a false accusation that you engage in original research. You, Orsini, have engaged in original research, either intentionally or unintentionally, you have. I know what original reserach is, my assessment of it is not incorrect just because you think it is. You seem to think a lot of things that are not real. 1. You think when someone says they won settlements in the usa that it means "they never won a case in the usa" 2. You think that when someone says they are "clueless about someone" that it means they wish to disconnect from the person. 3. You think USENET is a reliable source. 3. When someone points out these things to you and says you're engaging in original research, you choose to accuse your critic of misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is on your part, Orsini. There is nothing to understand about your arguments unless one wants to also start making things up. --HResearcher 09:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had read the article sources, you would know that she did sue the SLCT. She lost. She appealed. She lost again. However this discussion belongs to Talk:Barbara Schwarz and not here. --Tilman 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We already know that, and it has been sourced. The discussion here is that Barbara Schwarz has threatened to sue Wikipedia. And as Tbeatty has stated, "The standard for inclusion of libelous claims isn't her ability to win a lawsuit." I agree with Tbeatty. WP:BLP should be followed regardless of potential lawsuits. WP:V/WP:RS must be adhered to, but some editors in are extrapolating (original research) "facts" from sources and claimimg that their OR is sourced. Tilman, can you provide references that state "She has never won a lawsuit"? You wrote "She has never won a lawsuit" in this discussion. You, Orsini, and Vivaldi have also used this claim as "fact" in your discussions on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes her notable enough to include in Wikipedia?--Tbeatty 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe that she is. Morton devonshire 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider reading the article. It tells why she is notable. --Tilman 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think she is notable. She has led an interesting life and published her version of it. Fred Bauder 00:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So have I and I could publish it on Usenet too. Heck, I could also write about my life in a submarine under Salt Lake City and growing as the Grandson of L. Ron Hubbard and Dwight Eisenhower. But no matter how interesting I make the Usenet story, it doesn't make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Interesting != notable. --Tbeatty 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She isn't just a usenet figure. She went to the courts, too. --Tilman 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could write about your life in Great Salt Lake and post it to the Usenet and then say you're notable. However, if you were striving for notability, you may wish to follow her example and sue the President, and name 3,000+ government officials in one of your lawsuits. Additionally, Ms Schwarz has filed over 80 lawsuits on FOIA matters when her requests for documentation don't produce documents she wants. Her abuse of the FOIA has been notable in government circles dealing with FOIA matters; her carpet-bombing and follow-up frivolous pre-se litigation for nonexistent facts led to sanctions being applied by the SCOTUS, including a prohibition on filing non-criminal petitions. Under the FOIA, a department must pursue a records search even if the documents being requested from it pertain to allegations which are clearly ridiculous. For example, [15] She is known as the individual filing the most FOIA requests and is notorious in government circles for making outlandish requests for information, then pursuing litigation when the evidence fails to support her delusions. When all of this has been done by a German citizen whose legal status in the United States is questionable at best, and who also has a history with the scientology cult as its German president, her notability becomes evident. In addition to the articles in the Usenet, there are four published newspaper articles and many cites in government documents online which meet WP:V standards; the articles on the Usenet and the newspaper articles are not the only sources. Problems with the article began when one editor began deleting source material meeting WP:V and it led to an edit war, with the article’s subject wanting the article deleted because it doesn’t reflect her views, for example the Nazi Secret Service infiltration of the US government. Members of the scientology cult appear also to be agitating to have the article removed, together with the rest of the series of scientology articles in Wikipedia. Orsini 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of people who dink with the government this way. They are called 'Crazy People' but they are not notable simply because they are crazy. What concerns me is your use of the word 'cult' which implies a bias against scientology. I have seen this before in Wikipedia where someone becomes 'notable' because their association with an organization is a way to impugn that organization. Some editors have used this association in order to reinforce their own bias or agenda when in fact the two things have little to do with each other. It is my impression that discrediting scientology seems to be the reason to include this person rather than her own notability. Scientology should be covered in a neutral and objective way, but not as an anecdotal list of members that can be skewed to inlcude certain unbalanced persons to make the organization look unbalanced. --Tbeatty 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Orsini is biased, look at some of her comments on the talk page, she goes on ranting about the organization even though we're trying to talk about Barbara Schwarz. Several other editors involved are also biased. One has written books against the organization, one spends his life on usenet against it, the other also spends his life on usenet/wikipedia/elsewhere against it, and one other person is closely connected to individuals involved with the death of their founder. I'm not giving any names or handles. Also, note the "facts" chosen for the article and also the "facts" ignored. They ignored the deprogramming even though there are secondary references in support of those claims. There is one other highly notable event, involuntary pschiatric treatment. Those sources are difficult to get because they are in German, in Germany and kept secure. --HResearcher 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    HResearcher, I would suggest to you the scientology cult's training and treatment of Barbara Schwarz has been instrumental in her behavior towards the courts, the legal system, and to others who cannot accept her version of events. The other editors and I are interested in the presentation of verifiable facts in the article, not unsourced or poorly sourced material. Nor is it the intention of the editors working on this article to create a piece of tabloid journalism. I note again your personal attack with accusations of bias; the only bias I have is towards insisting upon the citation of factual and verifiable evidence from reliable sources, and claims by the scientology cult don’t fit this criteria. The facts you're choosing to ignore yourself in relation to this "involuntary psychiatric treatment" are that in September 1984, Schwarz was facing charges about the attempted intimidation and blackmail of Klaus Karbe (Amtsgericht Munich, Geschaeftsnumber 462 Cs 115 Js 3953/83). This was cited by her in her own multi-part series. In part 27 of that series, she also states her mother had serious concerns about her treatment in the hands of the cult whilst Schwarz was in Los Angeles. The deprogramming attempt you cite did not take place until November 1987. If scientology is not directly responsible for her current state of mind, it is certainly a significant influence on it, and its significance in her life cannot be dismissed. It’s worth noting also you have removed material from the article which met and exceeded WP:V standards, while falsely claiming it violated WP:BLP because it wasn’t favorable to the subject, and at least two admins failed to agree with your unique interpretation of this policy. When presented with verifiable facts, you’ve dismissed them as “original research.” You have also stated your willingness to remove what you consider to be poorly sourced material from the talk pages, after the verifiable sources you insist upon have been cited to you over and over again on the same page; you have made personal attacks and failed to assume good faith with the other editors; you have made statements to provoke people, and you have made extraordinary claims about the German government and its involvement with Schwarz's detention for which you have not provided any evidence. The last straw has been your groundless accusation of libel you have just made on the article talk page, and your attempts of intimidation not to participate in the discussion there. Orsini 19:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Barbara's 92 part story, it wasn't the treatment by Scientology which caused any harm, so I don't know why you're suggesting a biased view of scientology when this discussion is not about Scientology. Again you seem to be engaging in original research with some kind of anti-scientology agenda. If she attempted to blackmail or intimidate Klaus Karbe, that is no reason for involuntary psychiatric "treatment". What Germany did was a human rights violation. Yes, the deprogramming attempt by Cyril Vosper took place several years later, what's your point? And what you are forgetting is the psychiatric treatment and deprogramming attempt may be responsible for what you call "her current state of mind." What is your source for her current state of mind? A citation please! Or is it original research again? Or is your source USENET postings by all the trolls who flame Barbara Schwarz? I'm not here to defend myself or my past actions, but I will not cease to point that you consistently use original research to influence other Wikipedia editor's ideas about Barbara Schwarz. You keep on using original research, Orsini, go ahead and see where it gets you. You still have not cited reliable sources to back up your claims that: 1. Barbara Schwarz has never won a lawsuit in the USA, 2. Her church wishes to disconnect from her. 3. Barbara has a certain "mental condition" 4. Those conditions are due to the treatment by Scientology. You haven't presented sources, yet you continue to push that POV and you act like these unsourced claims are grounds for your arguement. There is no point in further arguing this until you present references to these negative claims about Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 10:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If lots of people dink the government this way, I'm sure you can cite similar examples where a foreign national has abused the process of FOIA law and the court system in a similar extent matching that of the article’s subject. 2. The word cult in relation to scientology has been used in many published media articles, and it has tried to sue for being described as "the cult of greed and power", and it lost. [16] A sow's ear remains in actuality a sow's ear, no matter how much spin is placed upon those trying to sell it as a silk purse. 3. Ms Schwarz was not merely a member of it; she was the national president of scientology in Germany; therefore she’s of far more significance in that cult than its kids spruiking on the pavements for "free personality tests". Since she has become a source of embarrassment for scientology, they have attempted to deny any association with her; please see the discussions in the article’s talk pages on this issue. 4. Her notability has been discussed ad infinitum on the talk pages; note also the comments here by User:ChrisO. 5. Her former position of leadership in the scientology cult is part of her notability, not the sole grounds of it; please read the article. 6. The subject of scientology has been covered in a neutral and objective way in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored, which is infuriating to the cult since these articles are not echoes of it's propaganda. 7. Sole reason of citing Barbara Schwarz's involvement with the scientology cult cannot skew it to appear more unbalanced than numerous criminal trials and courts of inquiry, and its own behavior independent of her, has already conclusively established it to be. Orsini 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you really do "know" a lot of negative things about scientology, like an "expert". Can you cite anything positive about the organization or is it all sow's ears to you? --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only after you explain why Lisa Mcpherson is dead, and point out how Operation Snow White, Technique 88, Audit Process R2-45, Operation Freakout, and keeping The Life and Times of Xenu The Space Alien a secret by filing harassing lawsuits were all for the benefit of humankind. PS: oink. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're anti-scientology POV is pretty obvious. Is that why you edit the Barbara Schwarz article? How about all the original reserach you engage in? Is it your agenda to harm the reputation of Scientology by using original reserach to make negative claims in the Barbara Schwarz article? --HResearcher 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tbeatty is on to something here. Using the experience of Barbara Schwarz to bash Scientology is fundamentally unfair. They may not have optimized their response to her, but any organization would be in a spot. I don't think it is much of a reflection one way or another on them. Fred Bauder 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with Tbeatty, Fred Bauder, Morton devonshire, Crockspot. And strongly oppose ChrisO, Orsini, Vivaldi, and Tilman. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you agred with Fred Bauder's decision to include Barbara's life story as she presented it on Usenet, right? Or do you think we should leave out her own version of the events that she reported on Usenet? Vivaldi (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you HResearcher, for your show of presuming good faith. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also be said the experiences of John Gotti reflected poorly on the Gambino family. Orsini 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be said, but we're not talking about that. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    VOOOOOM! There's not a lot of difference between a crime organization calling itself a "family" and a crime organization that calls itself a "religion", certainly not in terms by which the action of either individual could further tarnish the image of either organization. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? This discussion is concerning possible violations of Wikipedia policy in the Barbara Schwarz article. I could care less about your anti-scientology POV. --HResearcher 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since she's not a member of Scientology, I'm not sure how it could be used to bash them. Having said that, I do think her notability is fairly marginal; if she meets the notability criteria it's only by a narrow margin. -- ChrisO 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know she isn't a member? If you read USENET you will see how it is used to bash them. The USENET trolls attack Barbara, call her crazy and blame her condition on Scientology. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know she isn't a member? Several times in her 90+ part series, she claims she was "kicked out". Cite [17] (Part 88) Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know if she is or isn't a member. She claims to have been physically kicked out of the building she was supposed to be in charge of, but does that have anything to do with membership? Or are you engaging in original reserach? USENET is not very reliable as a source. How about citing some reliable secondary sources. --HResearcher 10:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't imbue this page with the authority to casually delete articles. It doesn't have it. The WP:OFFICE does, and AfD applies some consideration. If it is not a speedy, then don't just toss things in the bin. Armchair lawyer or no...(by which I don't mean Fred Bauder, of course). -Splash - tk 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was CSD'd a couple of weeks ago, so it seems that any admin has the authority to delete the article as A6. Those of us discussing it here so far are not admins, so it's not our call, we're just discussing. But to me, it appears that the only purpose of the article is to showcase the "absurdity" of the subject. Crockspot 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was part of the Scientology series before it became the center of an edit war when one editor displayed - ah - unique interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:V. It was never an A6; if I recall correctly, some scientologists claimed it was A6 only in order to get the article deleted. Please also see reply to Tbeatty above. Orsini 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Better check your recollections again. This is not the first time you have forwarded "facts" without providing a citation. Ask Bauder who claimed it was A6, I doubt it was a scientologist, based on your constant claims without citations. --HResearcher 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My constant claims withouty citatations? OK HResearcher; I'll bite. When asked to cite evidence meeting WP:V standards to support your allegations of direct involvement by the German government in Schwarz's psychiatric detainment and involuntary treatment, and you ran away; now you're stating Schwarz won two lawsuits and you can't provide case numbers, and you've run away again. When citations are provided from reliable primary sources - ie not the Usenet - you've ignored or dismissed them. The article was never intended as an attack page, although scientologists and cult symphasisers claiming it was only to get it deleted after 3 AfDs failed. When you removed the SLT article and stated it was "poorly sourced", if I recall correctly,it led to an edit war; after someone added the phrase "illegal alien" in the first or second line there was little choice left but to stub it, as it was made into an attack page with that foolish comment. When the article was recreated as a stub, its old edit history went with it. If I'm wrong with my recollections, someone else please correct me and I'll apologize. The deletion records and edit history of the old article may be available to administrators. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who ran away? I'm here responding aren't I? Is my "running away" another indication of your tendency towards original research? --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on getting secondary sources to support the primary source (Barbara's 92 part usenet postings) regarding the involuntary psychiatric "treatment". Are you trying to intimidate me to prevent me from doing this? --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is silly that people are calling for deletion here based on notability concerns. First off, Ms. Schwarz was notable enough for the Associated Press to write an article about. She was notable enough to have three newspapers do an expose about her activities. She was notable enough for the Supreme Court of the United States to make a specific ruling that bars her from filing any more claims with the court. She was notable enough for the U.S. Department of Justice to say that she has filed more FOIA requests than any other human being on Earth. She was also notable enough to have been mentioned in 2 books in regards to her Scientology deprogramming. And lastly, on 3 seperate occassions this article was subjected to a vote for deletion with the notability concern being a specific focus each time. This article survived 3 of these AfDs by an overwhelming majority. She is notable by Wikipedia standards. Vivaldi (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    News articles do not determine notability. But the issue isn't just notability, it is the tone of the article. Facts are cherry picked to showcase absurdity, while other things have been ignored. Such as the deprogramming which was resisted by you and a couple others at first even though I had references. If the article still exists, soon I will be presenting references about the human rights abuse of the German government when they illegally detained her and then subjected her to involuntary psychiatric abuse ("treatment"). --HResearcher 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also include the papers concerning Amtsgericht Munich, Geschaeftsnumber 462 Cs 115 Js 3953/83 when you say her detention was illegal. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make that comment on the article's talk page, or message me in a couple weeks so I don't forget. --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To people that suggest that these are claims that are "poorly sourced" or "unsourced" -- you are obviously not paying attention. Each claim in the article is supported by numerous sources -- including, in most cases, an admission by the subject that the events occured. If you want to suggest that Ms. Schwarz's own words written to Usenet can't be used here, you might consider that these words are verifiably hers. She admitted in the newspaper article that she published her multi-part life story on Usenet. And, in any case, Mr. Bauder suggested that we add her own words to give the article more balance, or to present her side of the story, since he didn't think "her side" was explained sufficiently. But you guys are laboring under a false premise -- Wikipedia has no obligation to present a biography with 1/2 positive information and 1/2 negative information. When a person is primarily notable for something negative, then it makes sense that an article about them will include the things for which that person is notable. Vivaldi (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your main source is USENET. It is unreliable as anyone can claim anything anywhere and claim that they are IT. You claimed on the article talk page that she admits to never having won a lawsuit, yet you did not provide a citation of her admission, and I now know that she has won several lawsuits, one of them was a civil lawsuit recently in SLC. I'll have to get the case # the people who have contacted me over the last 2 weeks. --HResearcher 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    HResearcher, you are wrong. The main citation sources for the negative references in the article are the court filings and the published newspaper articles, not articles on the Usenet (with one exception, and it was verified by another source). You have stated several times now she's won lawsuits; what are the case numbers? Repeating "she's won cases" over and over will not make it any more verifiable without them. A long list of the cases she's lost already appears on the article talk page. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are wrong, Orsini, the article was poorly sourced and discussion continues to be poorly sourced and often based on original research / extrapolation and it was/is being done in a way as Tbeatty has expressed concern, however the issue is not notability. The issue is direct violation of WP:BLP "poorly sourced negative comments/claims". Orsini has made original reserach to include negative comments in the talk page and some of those ideas have made it into the article. Also note Orsini's comment about Barbara Schwarz' current mental state. I'd like to know the source of that. --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hresearcher suggests that the article uses Usenet as the primary source of information. This is incorrect. There were 80+ lawsuits that were cited and there were numerous newspaper articles cited. Admin and ArbCom member, Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) inserted Barbara's own words from Usenet because he felt that it would provide balance to the article. The only reason Usenet was cited at all was because it gives a verifiable place where Barbara has had a chance to explain her side of the story. Previously the article did not give as much prominence to the viewpoints only expressed by Barbara in Usenet, but what are we to do when a senior admin and ArbCom member says that they need to be included? Vivaldi (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    She wants to be left alone, that's not insane. We should just write articles on living individuals, who clearly are public persons. My proposal, don't step on a slippery legal road, remove the article and let's have some peace. If Ms. Schwartz is bound for more fame, she could be portrayed at a later point in time, when the public person part indeed is somehow clear. I don't think that she qualifies under the definition of public person. It looks that some individuals are interested in her but she isn't interested in permanent public exposer. She hasn't even got a website! The critics of Scientology should look for another outlet to bash Scientologists. Wikipedia is not the right place for such games. --Bragg Sauce
    There have already been three failed attempts to delete the article about Ms. Schwarz based on the premise that she is not notable. If you wish to start another AfD based on this premise then assemble your thoughts and put them up in an AfD request and lets vote on it again. Clearly there are tons of editors that disagree with your opinion that she isn't notable, but perhaps you can convince them otherwise with YAATDTBSA (Yet-Another-Attempt-To-Delete-The-Barbara-Schwarz-Article)?
    The article WAS deleted after the 3rd AFD. --HResearcher 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another Sockpuppet alert. Bragg Sauce (talk · contribs) has made no other contributions to Wikipedia other than to make the above comment on the BLP/Noticeboard at Ms. Schwarz. Take the viewpoints of this user in light of that information. Vivaldi (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand the article doesn't do any real harm since almost no one will look at it. It also gives a few people something to do with their time. The one and only real Steve Dufour 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suat Kaya

    I've semiprotected it and asked for people to provide sources. Gamaliel 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Justforasecond (talk · contribs)

    I have removed a libellous statement about Woody Allen from this person's userpage. I believe strongly that this use of userspace is very inappropriate and cannot be tolerated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a citation for it. It was in Connecticut Magazine in '97. Justforasecond 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the citation. Farrow alleged that Allen molested Dylan, but Allen was cleared of all charges. I think the way it's currently stated is still potential libel. I think it would be better to simply state that Farrow alleged the molestation. That's a fact. Even better, state that he was cleared. Link to the articles if you want. For me, saying "there's a lot of evidence" goes a step too far... Just my opinion. Brian 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
    The only mention of any "evidence" was testimony, which is in that case was not evidence in law. I quote, "A panel of experts from Yale, headed by pediatrician Dr. John Leventhal, concluded no abuse had taken place." The most accurate and fair thing to say (but still misleading, IMHO) opinion thing to say would be "alleged sexual absue" but, then again, anyone can allege sexual abuse against anyone else. - Abscissa 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmalina

    Emmalina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I can't find her birthday anywhere, yet this article lists her birthday. She is not a public figure and I doubt that she is notable enough for her own entry. According to the BLP policy on Privacy about birthdays, shouldn't this removed? If this is true, I think that an admin needs to delete the page and restore it without her birthday. // Hbdragon88 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A message on my talk page [18] from the subject of the article now affirms the fact that her birthday is indeed private. Hbdragon88 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Rachel Marsden

    There's a lot of nasty talk about Marsden on this article and on the talk page 64.26.170.175 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is subject to a current arbitration case over Warren Kinsella - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gloria Steinem, Pre-School Sex Scare of the 1980s and "satanic ritual abuse"

    Please see discussion page for Ms. Steinem regarding an attempt to document Ms. Steinem's one time high profile involvement in this issue, allegations of which our editors find potentially libelous. Those who recall this are invited to contribute their documentation and citations because as it stands now discussion of this episode in her life has been deep sixed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Cod (talk • contribs)

    I looked at the deleted paragraph, and I think it was justifiably deleted, due to lack of any sources, and an editorial tone. I presume this is related to the McMartin preschool trial and the Day care sex abuse hysteria, (the latter also not citing any sources)? There should be plenty of source material available to write a neutral and well-sourced summary of the issues, particularly documenting Steinem's involvement, which could then be included. Crockspot 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How does living bio patrol work?

    I get asked this by the press a lot. So I thought I'd come here and ask how it actually works.

    1. What is the actual process?
    2. How are new living bios spotted?
    3. Who watches edits in them, on what sort of schedule?

    And 4. the big one: is there anything that can be done to make the living bio patrolling volunteers' work easier and more efficient? What magical software features would you like? Is there anything that as-yet-unwritten bot software could do to assist?

    I'd love to be able to answer "we have a volunteer patrol who look out for any rubbish going in living biographies. We're not perfect but I think we do pretty well" and be able to give more detail if they ask ;-) - David Gerard 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is just now being organized. Care to help? WAS 4.250 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :-) I can't promise time or whatever, but I see there's now lively discussion on wikien-l. I was thinking in terms of (1) people to keep an eye on changes to anything in Category:Living people (just quickly checking for obvious problem edits), which runs at about 10 edits/minute; (2) people to keep an eye on Special:Newpages for anything that looks like it might be an article about a person and tagging it if it wasn't created with one. Something really light on procedure - not like the planned "libel patrol" or whatever. It looks like Jossi is running with the idea, and devs are offering software help - David Gerard 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:BLPP#Tools. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent! I've just outlined the proposed simple process we've been discussing, and have signed up as an interested party (even if I haven't time for patrolling) - David Gerard 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Vance

    Users:

    I may have stepped on a mine here, as it looks like many well-intentioned editors trying to clean up Wikipedia have repeatedly run into self-appointed owners of the page (usually because they have "personally dealt with him") who end up attacking those quoting MoS guidelines and policies as "child minders" or as having "guideline fetishism".

    Currently, "Arvin Sloane" is exhibiting some rather bizarre behavior. (the IP addresses listed also belong to this user, as he edits by IP and then changes his signature to say "Arvin Sloane") He has removed the WPBiography template repeatedly, saying it is "tasteless", "unsolicited" and "racist" and that it "personally offends" him and "in [his] opinion, Jack Vance." He has posted a "Notice to Vandals" warning those trying to add the template to the talk page from doing so. The user has not violated the 3RR, and I assume he will not, but has stated that he will revert it 3 times each 24 hours (I guess to make a point). He has also posted personal attacks in response to having his redirect deleted. Something needs to be done here. -- Renesis13 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semiprotected the talk page and posted a warning. Gamaliel 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As for guideline fetishism, that was my take on it. I object, as would most normal people, to someone coming in and giving us orders to "fix" things, when this someone is as much editor as you, me and anybody else and is quite capable of "fixing" things themselves. To me, it was an arrogant suggestion and I pointed that out to the individual in question. A lot of you may be administrators or bureaucrats or whatever, but if you seriously tell me, a common or garden nobody contributor, that you can't source information or verify something as well as the next guy, then we'll all have a good laugh. I'm not here to do your job and vice versa; true? Peter1968 09:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For over a day, Wikipedia was reporting that Siegenthaler had "killed and ate then-President John F. Kennedy." Considering that this is highest profile gaff on Wikpedia BLP's this seems pretty sad. --Tbeatty 02:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Add it to your watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Two little girls photograph

    You guys seriously can't find a better public domain/GPLed photo to represent a living person than the current photograph? Peter1968 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You would not believe the amount of discusion that has occurred first on the article Human and then on the BLP site concerning this image. What is a good image to represent human ???? My smart-ass answer is that it was deleted when PublicGirlUK decided to withdraw her contibutions. The real answer is that what it is to be human is something every human finds out for themselves. WAS 4.250 11:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what the problem is with using Image:Two young girls at Camp Christmas Seals2.jpg. Peter, what better photograph do you suggest? --HResearcher 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, I was thinking along the lines of George W. Bush. Arguably the world's best known living person and there are plenty of public domain images of him out there courtesy of US Govt. legislation. Has to be better than some anonymous photograph of two children, who may well be dead for all the average punter knows. Peter1968 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Please take this discussion to the template page. Gamaliel 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel like telling me where it is? Peter1968 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Template talk:Blp. Peter O. (Talk) 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Star Wars kid

    You might want to keep an eye on this one. A lot of personal information was just removed to protect the privacy of the young man. However I expect a counter attack soon. Steve Dufour 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like this is o.k. now. Steve Dufour 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes you happy, fine. The information you deleted to "protect his privacy" (and the one about the people who put the tape online) is all over the internet. [19] --Tilman 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that. However I think that Wikipedia should have a higher standard than "all over the Internet." Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dustin Diamond

    I stumbled into this one while on BLP Patrol, slapped on a noncompliant tag, and left a note on the talk page. It needs a lot of help. Crockspot 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Crown Princess Mary of Denmark

    I am having to restore an external link, a satirical blogspot about Crown Princess Mary, twice daily. There was a section outlining controversy surrounding the princess, and a lot of that material supported by external links was removed. There was an arguable case for that. I can't see that removing a link to a satirical blog about the princess is anything other than censorship - it's clear from the naming of the link that it's satire, so punters can simply not click if they're not interested. What is the policy re external links, clearly labelled, as opposed to libellous material on the page itself? The editor constantly removing my link is not conversing with me about it, just serially removing it. This is very un-Wikipedia in approach, and there needs to be a consensus please!. Lyndella — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndella (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You may want to read Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Stanwood Duval

    (Stanwood Duval history)

    It seems this article is being used for political POV. Only controversial ruling are listed, rather than notable rulings if any. Some claims are unreferenced. See talk page. --HResearcher 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=74983293"