Talk:Suzanne Shell

Libel

Ms. Shell was not found in contempt of court twice as reported. The contributors of this "fact" didn't verify accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.82.200 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above was posted by Suzanne Shell. Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology

Just because she was quoted in a magazine published by the Church of Scientology does not mean she has "ties" to them or is involved in their organization. Such claims need to be sourced. Jokestress 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After thorough checking, I agree with you. To put this issue to rest, I would like to point out that all of the internet sites discussing this have only turned up this to date:

• In a posting by Shell to a Yahoo group, she mentions having worked with Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a Scientology group. She states that she has worked with "various of their offices" [1].
• She has been interviewed in Scientology magazines about her concerns with child welfare and her problems with gov't/psychiatrist handling of child welfare cases.
• She sued archive.org , a website that has also been sued by COS.

Does not seem like a direct connection, just intersecting interests. There was no "smoking gun" found by anyone on the internet, and in this day and age I think if there was a direct connection it would have surfaced under all of the scrutiny. My guess would be that she had interacted with the CCHR on cases against DHS in the past, which is understandable as both she and CCHR have similar issues with DHS. This could easily have led to her being profiled in a publication(s)of the COS, but she does not seem to be a Scientologist or have any other connections with the organization. Gallup 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up on this. Jokestress 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page needs to be stopped edited by unsourced claims. Keep arguments and point of view out of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.98.54 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 March 2007

Picture?

Would someone with the right technical, and legal expertise please upload a picture for this article if it's possible/legal to do so? Also, would it be okay to link the image under 'external links' if we can't post a picture of her?

I'm not aware of a fair use picture available, but if you read the Freedom Magazine article cited in the article references, there's a photo for those interested. Unfortunately, we can't deep link to it. Jokestress 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can, you'll just need to enter into a contract and pay her $50000 in internet monies to save a copy of it to your hard drive. Lankiveil 11:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Questionable facts and neutrality

You aren't getting the facts right. Even the most basic ones such as all the the dates and ages. The discussion of the status of the Internet Archive case is wrong, too. I have two claims still alive - you neglected to mention the copyright infringement claim. It doesn't appear the author has even read the lawsuit, but is just parroting the published inaccurate analyses by other authors. This whole thing presents me in the light portrayed by my adversaries. Since I have been a human rights activist since 1991, it makes me a target to be discredited. How about getting both sides of the events? This account is not very accurate or neutral. Dsshell 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment-- can you provide specific instances of errors and published sources with the correct information? Thanks! Jokestress 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up, please provide any published sources we can use that you feel will help give the article more balance. Thank you! Jokestress 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This reads like an advertisement for Shell; very few of the very problematic parts of Shell's "advocacy" are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.215.222 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Most likely because she'll sue you if you do anything otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.214 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article does draw attention to Shell, but as it currently stands, it doesn't make her look entirely angelic. There is additional problematic material on her methods in the first citation of the article: Prendergast, Alan, http://www.westword.com/2005-02-10/news/beyond-contempt/full. It could be worked in by anyone who is interested. 89.217.145.5 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The language for the "amicable settlement" with Internet Archive is rather syrupy... The reference cited at the end of the paragraph (27 Nov 2011) is a blog post at Internet Archive, not an independent news source. It appears to be a press release or a self-posting. 89.217.145.5 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Filing a small amount of unimportant lawsuits and running a website which does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for notability hardly makes Suzanne Shell a notable person. Furthermore, Ms. Shell has clearly played a major role in the creation and updating of this page. This leads me to believe that this page is mainly a platform for self promotion, and should either be updated with notable information or should be deleted. MisterRichValentine (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was led to this wikipedia page by a citation on a tech blog of the Internet Archive lawsuit together with the Field vs Google lawsuit. For me, that makes the person interesting.89.217.145.5 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out by editor MisterRichValentine, it is difficult to figure out why this article should be considered as meeting the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Famspear (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained material moved from article to talk page.

The following material was dumped, at some point, at the end of the article. I have moved it here, so we can figure out where it really should go:

[begin text]

Suzanne Shell Settles With IA, Goes After Teenager (avail. at: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/04/25/webmaster-settles-with-ia-goes-after-teenager) Appellate Court Rules 3-0 In Favor of Bill Tower The Defendant Suzanne Shell in this case has no immunity and has to pay all appellate costs to Mr. Tower http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C056214.PDF Case 1:09-cv-00309-MSK-KMT Shell v AFRA Document 397 Filed 03/31/10 USDC Colorado the court refuses to enforce the forum selection clause in the contract based solely upon the user's act of viewing the statement on the site stating that "[a]nyone visiting this site consents to jurisdiction and venue remaining in El Paso County, Colorado." Defendants Susan Adams Jackson, Dee Contreras, Thomas Dutkiewicz, Cheryl Barnes, CPS Watch, Inc., Sarah Thompson, Ann Tower, Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez, William O. Tower, American Family Rights Association, William Wiseman, Wiseman Studios, Cletus Kiefer, and Ringo Kamens shall be deleted from the caption in all future filings. Dated this 31st day of March, 2010 BY THE COURT: Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge,Read More >

[end of text]. Perhaps we can figure out where this material goes in the article later. Famspear (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This material appears to be a combination of (1) a citation to an article at "webpronews" regarding the result in one of cases in which the subject of this article has been involved, and (2) an excerpt from a court document dated March 31, 2010, and docketed at entry number 397 in the case of in Shell v. AFRA. In its present form, it is not really encyclopedic. Perhaps parts of it can be reorganized later and re-inserted in the article in a coherent manner. Famspear (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

@Famspear: I've refactored your cut-paste material to remove the spam-click-bait link from view. It is in the wikicode, should it become germane. The other two refs seem fine to me, the PDF of the judge's order is easy to find.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)