Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 8 January 2008

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)

As this is well sourced, i cannot see any reason why it can't be included. --neonwhite user page talk 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple, there are WP:BLP and WP:OTRS issues with Schwarz that have already been decided. It has been decided that she merits no more than a mention in the FOIA article. As regards this article, her case is not particularly notable and there are likely scores that are more notable. Therefore use of detail about her case here is questionable given the decisions I mention. I should also mention that anything related to Scientology, and so by extension, Schwarz, is under article probation. Just because something has a source does not perforce make it appropriate. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what the WP:BLP issues are as you see them? As to WP:OTRS concerns, if this page was part of the OTRS issue it'd be noted like it is on this talk page.

Also it's a misstatement to say that a decision was made that this info should not be mentioned, it was only decided that at the time of the review there wasn't enough info to justify a whole article for her. Such "decisions" are not final anyway, since things and consensus can change. Anynobody 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deciding to summarize one or more significant cases to better explain the principle leads to editorial judgments about which cases to use. I would start with major cases that set precedent, and/or are cited in law textbooks and law review articles. Doing some quick searches I see that Edwards v. National Audubon Society is the first case where the doctrine was put into writing by the Second Circuit; while Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Khalid Iqbal Khawar v. Globe International Inc. established that the doctrine does not exist in California or Pennsylvania. (And the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the doctrine in a kind of limbo.)
• There are several factors that argue against using Schwarz v Tribune as an example. First, the case involves a possibly disturbed person, and being nice human beings we don't want to hold someone else up for ridicule if we don't have to. Second, the case was more complicated and was dismissed for a variety of reasons including the neutral reportage defense, whereas the cases I mentioned above played a major role in defining the privilege. Third, out of 70 law review articles that mention neutral reportage, none even mention the Schwarz case, suggesting that it is not considered particularly unusual or significant by the legal profession. Fourth, google searches for Edwards v. National Audubon Society and Khalid Iqbal Khawar v. Globe International Inc. bring up law review articles, law school syllabi and newspaper articles, while a google search for Schwarz v. Salt Lake Tribune brings up Misplaced Pages mirrors, posts to alt.religion.scientology, and a blog entry that calls her "insane."
• Then there is the additional factor that the summary of the Schwarz case is being added before anyone bothers to describe the truly landmark cases -- the article does not even mention the disagreement between the Second Circuit and the States of CA and PA. This raises the suspicion that this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK, to publish things about this individual that were otherwise deleted when her article was deleted. It's as if, while writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln, the very first detail you add is that as a young lawyer he slept in the same bed as his best friend. It shows that your priorities are not really directed at the topic of this article (Neutral reportage).
• So, as an editor, I suggest that to improve this article you begin by describing or summarizing the real landmark cases involving this privilege. As an admin, I caution you most strongly to drop Mrs. Schwarz. In the annals of the history of FOIA she may be significant; in the history of neutral reportage she is a blip that really only registers with editors committed (one way or the other) to a wholly different topic. Thatcher 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be the case that other cases are expanded in the future, but the fact that they are not expanded at the current time is no reason to suggest that none of them should be. The order in which they are done is of no consequence. Who the cases involve isnt that important, as long as there is nothing judgemental and accusatory in the text and it merely states facts about the case and how the defence was used it does not breach policy. There's no denying that this case is a notable one for its use of neutral reportage, it was the first case i came across when researching the subject, the second link found on google is about it and perhaps more importantly it has more sources. This is clearly not a WP:COATRACK, the article covers more than just this case. I think it comes under the 'what is not a coatrack heading. Notable cases are obviously relevant to the article. Schwarz may be a controversial person but she has no more protection than any other living person mention on wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right Neon white, thank you (really) for saying it so eloquently. I think Thatcher believes that I'm on a mission to mention her excessively based on incomplete information. Honestly I had simply come upon this page, noticed it mentioned a subject I had knowledge about, and expanded the article.

Thatcher please don't think I'm out to hold up an insane person to ridicule, if for no other reason than this would be the wrong article to do that. The details of her especially mentally disturbed thoughts are in her FOIA requests. Here the focus is on a person who felt that coverage of them in the news caused them pain and pursued action pro se. (In the source it even discusses her use of precedent cases elsewhere, which could also be discussed here.)

I actually feel terribly sorry for Ms Schwarz (how can one not?) but her mental illness doesn't factor into this subject or FOIA as much as one might think. Granted the issue of mental illness is mentioned, but also discussed are issues like how the average citizen can verify when the gov't says no further records exist- that there really aren't or should a request be judged by merit? Anynobody 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that the focus should be on the facts of the case and not on her as a person. I do feel strongly that this was an important case. --neonwhite user page talk 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, in this article the issues of mental illness shouldn't need to be addressed. Anynobody 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Which criteria are forwarded about some possible mental disruption? Which sources (from officials in the field) confirm any such? Through history many have been accused as if mentally disturbed, just because they opposed and expressed their opinion with fierce. Seems that this is still happening this day. Can't people quit doing that? As user Thatcher has pointed out and with adequate argumentation Barbara Schwarz carries no particular significance with this article.

What concerns the matter of mental disturbance. Why is user Anynobody spending so much time, effort and writing to turn Barbara Schwarz into a prominent figure? The knife has 2 edges, it is may be time to consider the alternate options.--Olberon (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Olberon, all due respect, but you seems to be continuing this yourself. Anynobody has been cautioned by an administrator to limit himself as regards Schwarz. The best thing now would be just to leave AN alone and let him find another topic to involve himself with. AN is not going to "change his mind" based on anything you or I say so the only product of discussing this with him is more discussion on the topic which, I think, is not the desired result on either of our parts. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Approvements to be made

I think a section on the fact that this is often claimed to protect freedom of expression might help the article. --neonwhite user page talk 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, I'll see what references I can find. Anynobody 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)