| Revision as of 23:55, 1 January 2008 editAnyeverybody (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,541 editsm →Barbara Schwarz vs Salt Lake Tribune← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:44, 2 January 2008 edit undoJustaHulk (talk | contribs)728 edits rem WP:BLP issue; if it cannot go in the article, it sure can't go here. The issue is not what is in the paper - the issue is that you understand the concerns that multiple editors have alerted toNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| : An editor reverted the last edit with this edit summary, since they didn't post here as well I'm assuming they meant for the summary to speak for them here too. Which part(s) is/are a violation and why? | : An editor reverted the last edit with this edit summary, since they didn't post here as well I'm assuming they meant for the summary to speak for them here too. Which part(s) is/are a violation and why? | ||
| <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;"> | |||
| <nowiki>====Barbara Schwarz v. The Salt Lake Tribune====</nowiki> | |||
| In May 2003 the ] published an article entitled ''S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System''<ref name=tribune>{{Citation|last =Smith|first =Christopher| publication-date =May 13, 2003| title = S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System| place =The Salt Lake Tribune| url =http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/barbara_schwarz.html| accessdate =24/12/2007}}.</ref> documenting her extensive pursuit of ] records. When asked about Schwarz, government FOIA representatives described her as a nuisance. In reporting this the Tribune article included official's more specific comments depicting her as “...a ‘FOIA terrorist’ and have coined a verb reflective of her unending request letters: ‘Have you been Schwarzed today?’”<ref name=tribune/> | |||
| Her suit alleged that the Tribune's use of “yellow journalism” resulted in “malicious defamation”, “emotional abuse” and was accomplished by deceiving her into giving an interview, unauthorized use of her photo, violation of privacy, refusing to print a correction or letter to the editor, in addition to theft of approximately 100 photos and negatives.<ref name=fac>Hanby, Christopher First Amendment Center, 06.14.05.</ref> Despite her claims that “I run into that article just about everywhere I go with people who think that they can deny my rights to me because of the data provided in the Tribune article,” her suit was dismissed and her appeals denied.<ref name=fac/> | |||
| <nowiki>== References ==</nowiki> | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Her case was and I'm simply describing and quoting the sources. I've been trying to minimize the amount discussion to just the basics of the case, but the source also elaborates on her more pertinent arguments too. ] 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | Her case was and I'm simply describing and quoting the sources. I've been trying to minimize the amount discussion to just the basics of the case, but the source also elaborates on her more pertinent arguments too. ] 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:44, 2 January 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neutral reportage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Barbara Schwarz vs Salt Lake Tribune
I have been accused of trying to reinsert inappropriate WP:BLP information deleted when Ms Schwarz's article was removed. This article though already mentioned her case against the paper. Since there are secondary sources discussing her case, we're obligated to do so as well.
As this article applies to how laws about defamation work in regard to journalism, her notability here should be related to the latter. Anynobody 06:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undid revision 181336707 by Anyeverybody (talk) Read BPL rules again, it does violate. An editor reverted the last edit with this edit summary, since they didn't post here as well I'm assuming they meant for the summary to speak for them here too. Which part(s) is/are a violation and why?
Her case was notable enough to be listed before and notable enough to be mentioned now. I'm simply describing and quoting the sources. I've been trying to minimize the amount discussion to just the basics of the case, but the source also elaborates on her more pertinent arguments too. Anynobody 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)