Talk:Neutral reportage

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have been

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.

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)[reply]

Simple, there are

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)[reply

]

• 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply

]

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?

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)[reply]

I totally agree, in this article the issues of mental illness shouldn't need to be addressed.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is not only for Anynobody that I wrote this respons here. This is for to point out how easy people get to adopt stories if they may be true or not. Much has been written about Barbara Schwarz, and about 90% strictly taken resembles invented stories. Any that read this chapter also will see my respons. I am fully aware of that Anynobody will not see the light in this. He has been limited for just a month, although if he gets the chance he will start all over again. --Olberon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has only ever contained details of the case. All of which are verfiable. --neonwhite user page talk 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JustanotherHulk you're actually quite incorrect, I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion about almost any subject when presented with reasons which make sense. I'm also happy to wait out the absurd 30 day topic ban if it comes to that.

AN, let me reiterate for you "reasons which make sense" or at least the overarching one. If you were truly interested in this article, Neutral reportage, rather than hanging onto Schwarz and refusing to let her go; if your interest were this article then you would be busy finding and researching the numerous precedent-setting and truly notable cases and expanding the article based on those. And by the time you finished doing that you would realize that Schwarz does not really have that much place in this article after all, being simply one of a multitude of cases that relate to this principle. Instead you talk about waiting out the ban which suggests that you miss the point of the ban. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz v Tribune is clearly a well known and notable case and therefore has more info available than other cases. I think it's becoming clear that your are basing your objections purely on your have personal problem with

assume good faith. --neonwhite user page talk 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"your are basing your objections purely on your have personal problem with

assume good faith. And as for "You have get to provide any valid reason why case info should not be included" I repeat: if your interest were this article then you would be busy finding and researching the numerous precedent-setting and truly notable cases and expanding the article based on those. And by the time you finished doing that you would realize that Schwarz does not really have that much place in this article after all, being simply one of a multitude of cases that relate to this principle. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What editors choose to research and when info is added to an article is not a valid reason, under any circumstances, to suggest that a verified case summary should not be included. The case is clearly notable and the source clearly states it's importance in the first paragraph It appears to be the first time the neutral report privilege -- which protects accurate reporting of potentially defamatory statements in a public controversy -- has been applied in a Utah appellate court., therefore it is setting a precendent and has been used as one in several articles. Your stance here is not assuming good faith. --neonwhite user page talk 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What editors choose to research and when info is added to an article is not a valid reason" - Actually, I think it is. If something only tangentially related to the article is added (and the Schwarz scene as a whole is only tangentially related here); if something only tangentially related to the article is added under clouded circumstances then it would behoove neutral editors and the project as a whole to step away from it and concentrate their efforts on material that is more germane to the article. Championing the inclusion of "tainted" material, material that would not likely find its way into the article otherwise, while ignoring more relevant material does not benefit this project. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is directly related to the article. There is no evidence of 'clouded circumstances' here. Again your are not assuming good faith. You are doing the opposite. I am sorry but it is not up to you to tell other editors how and when to add info to this article. Article are built up over weeks if not years. This process does not in any way limited what can be added at any stage. The material is verified and relaible and relevant to the article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If something only tangentially related to the article is added (and the Schwarz scene as a whole is only tangentially related here) Have a look at the page before I actually started editing here. You'll notice under Successes Schwarz v the SL Tribune is there. I simply expanded it, based on knowledge I obtained while editing the old Barbara Schwarz article.

I think Neon white is correct, you're just really angry at me. I would guess because you think I came here and added her to the article. You didn't even read what you've deleted and are arguing against:

<removed bit that was removed from article>

How is this only tangentially related to the article? It's all about her defamation suit, which the Tribune used

Anynobody 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

AN, of course I know that the mention was there already and you "only" expanded it to a nice detailed section (without doing the same for the more notable entries, of course). We are all here quite capable of reading and, though I may occasionally only skim long and repetitive talk page posts, I certainly know what I am doing in mainspace and am quite careful. I wish you would read my words before countering them. I said that Schwarz as a whole, was only tangentially relevant here. Sure there is some relevancy in the ruling on her lawsuit but it is of no great import next to the actual notable cases such as Norton v. Glenn, a PA State Supreme Court ruling on "whether the neutral reportage privilege is encompassed within the Pennsylvania or United States Constitutions." Truly notable cases get plenty of mainstream press coverage on their own merits. I fear that you don't "get this" either? --JustaHulk (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not expanding other sections of the article is not a justification for removing content. As i have pointed out the case is considered important by sources. Please explain whether you feel that any case summaries are unecessary, it seems like you are only objecting to this one. --neonwhite user page talk 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "we" should write about the notable cases. This one is not notable and did not receive coverage in mainstream press although it has been written up on legal websites which write about lots of interesting but non-notable cases. Wikipedia is not a legal website and the continued desire to write about this case while ignoring the actual notable cases is, shall we say, "odd". --JustaHulk (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motability does not limit article content, it has already been pointed out that this case is a first in a utah court and is a landmark decision to allow the defence which is used as a precent for other cases and papers on the subject. Therefore it is clearly an important and notable case. It has multiple reliable sources, more so than any other case in the article. Case summaries are not trivial, they are encyclopedic and help readers understand how the defence has been used in real cases. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever makes you think that JustaHulk is the only one objecting to your reasoning? User Thatcher has been quite clear about matters, and so have I. Besides the claimed verifiability people have right to their privacy. --Olberon (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one suggested he was. User Thatcher has made valid points however he suggested to start with cases that are reviewed in law artical - this case has. If Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Khalid Iqbal Khawar v. Globe International Inc. established that the doctrine does not exist in California or Pennsylvania then this case is equally notable for establishing the opposite in Utah. A court report is about as good a source as you could get. There is nothing in the

WP:BLP policy that suggests this is inappropriate. It is verfied and not contentious. --neonwhite user page talk 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Verification is not the only criteria. --Olberon (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JustanotherHulk in response to (without doing the same for the more notable entries, of course) please read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Start with what you know. I don't know anything about the other listed cases, if you're dying to see info on them in this article then you're welcome to research them yourself. That's not a valid reason for keeping sourced info out of this article. Where does it say one part of an article has to be expanded before another? You're also admitting that you've left in information which is not notable and did not receive coverage in mainstream press. If you are correct, and the Schwarz case isn't notable, why didn't you remove it completely rather than leaving the sources and name of the case?. You know that this case is notable, not to you, but in the scope of our Wikipedia:Editing policy which is why I'm guessing you left it in. Nobody said it was a landmark, just notable, and that's all that's required.

To everyone: Asserting that one section/case should be expanded before another is either demanding

Anynobody 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

While searching for a better copy of Newsworthy Accusations and the Privilege of Neutral Reportage I ran across another source talking about this case: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 2005 article about Schwarz

Anynobody 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the source that i was referring to that says It appears to be the first time the neutral report privilege -- which protects accurate reporting of potentially defamatory statements in a public controversy -- has been applied in a Utah appellate court. Thus establishing that this case was a notable precident setter. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source that refers to some 'submarine' is all we needed. This is quite unverified and doctored by some reporter and then copied by another reporter. This is what reporters do. Creating stories that attract the attention and sell. --Olberon (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to suggest that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is unverifiable, the details of the claims have no bearing on the reliablity of this source. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to cite sources we might as well use them

Folks, simply listing her case and then linking to the sources discussing it is unnecessary, pointless, and just bad editing. (Seriously it'd be like writing an article on the USAF read like this:
The United States Air Force^{1 2})

We include sources for verification, not to make people read them to find out why it was a successful use of the neutral reportage defense.

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)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me, I'll see what references I can find.

Anynobody 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I haven't had much luck, can you think of a case where it(freedom of expression) was cited?

Anynobody 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If you can find a decent copy of this paper [2] --neonwhite user page talk 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty awful, I tried playing with it in paint shop but it's too faded. I wonder if Glasser himself kept a better copy.

Anynobody 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]