Talk:Barbara Schwarz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

The subject of this article, Barbara Schwarz, has edited Wikipedia as
The real Barbara Schwarz (talk • contribs)

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

1 Archives
2 Deletion discussions and deleted archives
3 More Barbara Schwarz sockpuppets
4 Chronology
5 WP:BLP guidlines
6 Neutrality tag
7 Notability?
8 Best to keep Wikipedians' noses out
9 German branch?
10 German citizen? Perhaps dual citizenship
11 What do we know really? Is it really possible?
12 Stub class designation
13 Fold the contents into other pages, like Scientology and the legal system ?
14 Where is the alleged vandalism, Chris O.?
15 This is a very confusing article
16 Meta Question
17 "murdered" vs. "killed"

[edit] Archives

August–September 2006

[edit] Deletion discussions and deleted archives

This article was nominated for deletion on August 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 13, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

For older discussion, available only to administrators, see archive(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The editing history of the article is available only to administrators

[edit] More Barbara Schwarz sockpuppets

[edit] Chronology

Based on her 92 part series, I have attempted to establish a chronology of key events from 1977 to 1990. Please point out and correct any errors you find, and assistance to fill in the chonological gaps / add more facts, welcomed:

August 31, 1955: born. (part 78) Grew up in Deggendorf, Bavaria. (part 90) Became a druggist after leaving school. (part 22)
circa 1977: went to Tehran, Iran by bus with her mother under duress to meet her biological father, merchant Mohammed Kermantschi. I nformed by Kermantschi's family he was in Paris; returned to Deggendorf. (part 30)
circa 1977: moved from Deggendorf to Munich.
Spring 1977: joined scientology cult (part 90) Does "personality test." (Part 31) Recruited by Ute Loges as staff in Munich org; quit drug store job and worked as public registrar in the Munich Div. 6 (part 32)
circa 1978: agreed to become Guardian Office (GO), Public Relations Staff. As her mother was declared a "potential trouble source" for the cult, removed from actual GO staff and placed on the "expansion unit", "handling" reports about the scientology cult in the media (part 33)
circa 1979: marries Juergen Schwarz in Markgroeningen, Swabia, Germany (part 35)
1982: her official post title was "Assistant Spokesperson for the Scientology Church in Germany" (cite from "Die Scientology-Kirche stellt sich vor", March 1982, published by the chief of the editorial office of the "Presse und Informationamt").
August 3, 1983: elected president of scientology in Germany.
October 1983: in Los Angeles at request of Ginger Smith, to introduct Munich lawyers Adam Deinlein and Detlev Wunderlich. Toured the the Los Angeles orgs with Professor Kopp. (parts 41 and 42)
circa late 1983: conference with the Munich Kreisverwaltungsreferat (KVR); warned by Peter Gauweiler about cult recruiting practices. (part 45)
January 1984: ejected from scientology cult office in Munich by Harald Sylvester, Helga Sanders/Egloff and Barbara "Babsi" Weber, after being subjected to a "gang bang security check". Schwarz contacted Ginger Smith in Los Angeles office who told her to "come to Los Angeles to sort things out". On arrival, assigned by Hayden James "to the decks". Later moved to the Wilcox scientology building and confined there in isolation, on orders of Gerda Spitel and Barbara Ellington. (part 49) Ended after 3 weeks. (part 50)
March 1984: still in Los Angeles. Her mother Rosemarie Bretschneider attempted to contact her by telephone for five days in a row, and Barbara Ellington told Mrs Bretschneider that Schwarz can't be disturbed. Mrs Bretschneider also claimed Schwarz was subjected to the following abuses by the scientology cult in Los Angeles after March 1:

given injections, and that there was "smoking".
kept captive by Edith Buechele and Swiss people in a basement room
her skin was red-yellow-brown, very evenly without stripes.
given Valium by Gerda Spittel and Barbara Ellington

Mrs Bretschneider also stated that Juergen Schwarz said Barbara can't be transported from Los Angeles to Germany because she was too sick, but after Mrs Bretschneider offered to hand the matter over to Interpol; a telex was sent stating that "two doctors" would bring her back to Germany. (part 60) Mrs Bretschneider files penal complaint with Munich district attorney Juergen Keltsch, against the scientology cult, and sends the clothes Barbara Schwarz wore in Los Angeles to a forensic laboratory. (part 27)

May 1984: returned to Germany, accompanied by Jeff Chavell and Gunhild Krog, and dropped at the narCONon office outside of Munich. On her return to the Munich office of scientology, Juerg Stettler directs her to leave the office immediately. Schwarz visited the scientology cult offices in Heilbronn, Stuttgart and Hamburg, then left Germany.
Between May and summer 1984: in Flag Operations Liaison Office Europe (FOLO EU) on the scientology cult's DPF (Deck Project Force). (Note the Guardian's Office of the cult was being purged and GO officers punished [1] after the Operation Snow White affair).
July 10, 1984: deposed as president of scientology of Germany
Summer 1984: removed from FOLO EU DPF/RPF; lives in Copenhagen, Denmark.
September 3, 1984: extradition from Denmark to Germany for trial on charges of attempted intimidation and blackmail of Klaus Karbe (Amtsgericht Munich, Geschaeftsnumber 462 Cs 115 Js 3953/83). Remanded to mental hospital of the University of Munich for eight months.
October 1984: visited by American John G. Clark in the mental hospital.
Easter 1985: released from University of Munich mental hospital, and her passport was confiscated. Placed under guardianship of Munich attorney. (part 11) Began divorce procedings against Juergen Schwarz. (part 12)
1985: met with Munich district attorney Juergen Keltsch in in his office; discussed allegations of scientology's abuse on her while in Los Angeles made by Mrs Bretschneider and by affadavit of an un-named Swedish person; asked Dr Keltsch to dismiss the charges. (part 4)
circa mid-1985: assigned power of attorney to cult lawyer Wilhelm Bluemel. Applied for release from guardianship represented by Bluemel; appeal was not successful. Appeals to Drs Kapfhammer and Nedopil of University of Munich, who agree to release her from guardianship if Schwarz admits to mental illness, which she does. Court then releases her guardianship and returns her passport. Rosemarie Bretschneider appeals the decision. (part 13)
May 1986: in Santa Barbara, California checking out David Mayo's "freezone" group; left Santa Barbara and flew to Washington D.C. after a few days of observations
May 1986: arrested in Washington DC for disorderly conduct in a restraunt; charges were dropped and she was released without conviction. Arrested again by the Secret Service after attempting to illegally enter the White House, appeared before Judge King, remanded at Saint Elizabeth mental hospital in the District of Columbia. At trial, Judge ? dismissed the charges on condition Schwarz left the United States immediately; Schwarz agreed to this condition and returned to Germany the next day.
November 1987: attempted deprogramming by Cyril Vosper and others at request of her mother, Rosemarie Bretschneider.
December 1987: arrived in Washington DC. Arrested after eating meals in restaurants without paying and an incident in a Carol and Ann's store. Suffered serious injury to her right arm during arrest. Appeared before Judge King again and sent to jail; Schwarz refused medical examinations while there.
January 14, 1988: Rosemarie Bretschneider files 3 page long missing person complaint with Munich STA, the District Attorney Office, and the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA)
Spring 1988: transferred from jail to Saint Elizabeth mental hospital; released after two weeks. Appeared before Judge King and placed on probation. Lived in the House of Ruth shelter; received welfare and money from the US government.
July 1988: Rosemarie Bretschneider arrives in Washington DC; Schwarz borrows several hundred dollars to return to Munich. On return to Munich, she repaid this loaned money from her own bank account.
summer 1989: filed a penal complaint against Gunther Wessels alleging misappropriation of DM 4000 (part 19)
October 1989: received a certified letter from Landgericht Munchen I (Country Court), from court psychiatrist Wunnecke, with direction to appear before him on November 6, 1989. (part 65)
October 1989: left Germany and went to California. Checked in Los Angeles and Sacramento governmental offices and courts for information on Rathbun and Hubbard.
November 1989: Goes to Salt Lake City, Utah by bus. Stays in shelter accomodation. (part 92)
May 1990: Employed as a weekend housekeeper for an elderly woman. (part 92)
August 1990: Elderly woman dies of a heart attack, leaving her unemployed. After 14 days on the streets, arrested for petty theft of fruit (value $5) in Salt Lake City. Convicted and sentenced to community service (case number 901009826, a class B misdemeanor, the police citation had no B179202. LEA case no. was: 90-89684). (part 92)

errors corrected and citations added Orsini 06:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

added material and citations Orsini 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please correct data or add data to this chronology if possible. Orsini 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great work. Amazing. This has never been done before. It all makes much more sense now - what a sad life. The only thing missing would be to mention the part nr. in some of the segments. It seems that I may have missed some parts when she posted them. If this doesn't go into Wikipedia, it should still go into some sort of Barbara Schwarz FAQ. (Which I won't host since the germans mentioned will of course deny everything, and could sue me). --Tilman 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There are still many gaps. Part numbers, case numbers, the name of the female judge in Washington DC etc need to be added, and other citations may be available on German sites. By her own accounts, she suffered greatly for the scientology cult, and also in its hands with the DPF assignments etc. It is a sad story; her problems appear to have began before her extradition from Denmark and well before the deprogramming attempt by Cyril Vosper. The comments by Linda Simmons Hight seem way out of place since Barbara Schwarz visited the Los Angeles head office more than once, so the cult's desire to disconnect from her is apparent. I hope you might be able to help with some details here: 1. Can you please cite an image URL on Ingo Heinemann's site where he posted one of the anti psychiatry advertisements in which Barbara Schwarz was mentioned or which she composed? (I stumbled on it on the site somewhere, but didn't keep the URL and I have to read German via a translation bot, but you'll find it in 5 seconds). He apparently also also offered to be her guardian after the Danish extradiction. 2. Is her ex husband Juergen Schwarz the treasurer or other official in German scientology? There is a Juergen Schwarz mentioned in some scientology cases written in German that I've found via Google searches, but their translation program is clunky; for some reason, one expression in German is translated by the bot as "sparking wine", heh. 3. There was also a meeting she attended with Peter Gauweiler, then head of the KVR in Munich. Do they or he keep a website where scientology is mentioned? Hope you can help. Orsini 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

anti psychiatry advertisements: [2]

One Jürgen Schwarz (don't know if it is the same), is treasurer of scientology Germany [3], and president of Dianetik Stuttgart e.V. [4][5].

About Gauweiler I don't know what you mean. This was a city official at that time, and later he became a politician. KVR (Kreisverwaltungsreferat) is just an administrative section of the city.

"sparkling wine" is probably the "translation" for Sekte (= cult, sect) --Tilman 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Schwarz was born in 1954 or 1955 according to the book Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions which says she was 32 years old in 1987. Vivaldi (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Part 78 mentions a date of birth of Aug. 31. 1955 for Baerbl Bretschneider. Orsini 06:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this chronology. I lacked the patience to wade through all that. I wonder how much we could legitimately use. Fred Bauder 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP guidlines

I saw this article listed on the BLP noticeboard, but you didn't mention any specific concerns, so I will just make a general recommendation that editors carefully read Biographies of Living Persons. Any negative information in Wikipedia that is about a living person must adhere to these rules, which are much more stringent than the general guidelines. Negative info must be solidly sourced with secondary unbiased reliable sources, (primary sources are ok to bolster a secondary source, but should not be used in lieu of secondary sources). Also, no original research is allowed, which means basically that you cannot draw a conclusion in an article that the sources do not overtly draw for you. For instance, if a news article states that cats have been reported missing from the area around Jane Doe's house, and another news article reports that cat bones have been discovered in Jane Doe's garbage cans, the wiki article cannot state that Jane Doe eats cats. You can only report a summation of the facts of the news articles. WP:NPOV rules also strictly apply. Crockspot 21:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, we are familiar with the rules and the previous article and discussion here have laid out numerous sources for each of the claims made in the article. If you have a particular problem with a particular claim then please be more specific. We are well aware of the fact that Ms. Schwarz is still alive and that WP:BLP is in effect. There is a notice at the top of the talk page too! Vivaldi (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just responding to a vague request on WP:BLPN, hence the general nature of my reply. Crockspot 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, I'm glad you arrived. Don't just leave now... This discussion could use more neutral input. --HResearcher 14:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Meant to add before, the BLP guidelines also offer advice on dealing with the person who is the subject of an article, and dealing with articles about yourself, which could be useful here. The guidelines seem to be fine-tuned quite often, so it also is a good idea to refamiliarize yourself with them on occasion. Crockspot 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The person that is the subject of the article is banned from participating in Wikipedia, so there really isn't a problem with dealing with her anymore. The person has offered numerous legal threats and violated other Wikipedia policies. As recently as yesterday she posted a solicitation for an attorney to sue Wikipedia, Wales, and the Wikimedia board. Vivaldi (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In light of this information, editors of this article should be extremely careful not to violate WP:BLP. Crockspot 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you on that. It is very important that we follow those guidelines, and I believe that we have. Vivaldi (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after another pass through, the sourcing looks pretty good, better than alot of articles. The only thing I see that might be problematic is the usenet postings. Those might be considered primary sources, maybe with verifiability issues. I'm not sure to be honest. Using those could be wandering into original research. Crockspot 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is understandable, but the claims that are solely those of Ms. Schwarz are clearly highlighted as being from her. Mr. Bauder that it would be appropriate to include more information that explained Ms. Schwarz's side of the story. I think the problem is that "her side of the story" doesn't do anything to make her views look any less absurd. In any case, the Usenet articles were added specifically to have more information to explain the "other side" of the issue since people claimed that the previous versions were one-sided. Vivaldi (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of the woman before this morning, but this one is sticky for sure. I asked on the BLPN that another editor have a look. Crockspot 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, this article will have to be monitored forever... --HResearcher 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

Who is making the claim that this article is not neutral in its presentation of the subject? If anyone is making this claim then we need to start discussing ways to make it more neutral. If nobody is making this claim, then we need to remove the neutrality tag at the top of the article. Vivaldi (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of items may need attention, although it may be nitpicking: 1. In the FOIA request heading, changing it from "frivolous lawsuits" to litigation history". (Yes, the much of the litigation was frivolous, but removing the word itself in the heading nulls any accusations of bias or POV.) 2. A government official called her lawsuits frivolous; perhaps the name the official can be cited. What do you think? Orsini 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

--Tbeatty 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no mention of the deprogramming or any discussion of it, until I brought it up with secondary sources. Note that about half of the editors involved in this article present a lot of anti-scientology discussion and it is well known that a many of the notable anti-scientologists supported deprogramming in the past and it makes me wonder why they would want to overlook this criminal deprogramming incident on Barbara Schwarz. And then there's the claim of "record holder". Barbara Schwarz has a high number of FOIA requests, but we don't know if it is a "record number". Neutrality is off because there is much more to be written about, if editors are going to use her USENET posting as a primary source, but only certain parts of her story seem to have been cherry picked. --HResearcher 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Which editors want to "overlook this criminal deprogramming incident"? I haven't seen anyone that suggested that it be overlooked. And certainly this can't be a reason for the continued inclusion of a NPOV tag, since the article now mentions the deprogramming incident. I believe that HResearcher is making this accusation in bad faith, much as he made the accusation (in numerous places on Wikipedia) that I was cherry-picking information from Usenet to put in this article, when I hadn't even made a single edit to the article at all. The Usenet claims where added by ArbCom member and admin, Fred Bauder, because he felt they gave the subject an opportunity to explain her side of the story. Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

HResearcher writes, but only certain parts of her story seem to have been cherry picked. As for your assertion that "certain parts of her story seem to be cherry-picked". You have been offered an opportunity for nearly a month to explain yourself. What parts of her 92-page story would you like the article to focus on? We obviously can't include all of it here, but what parts do you think are notable enough for mention here? Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can make some suggestions on how to improve the neutrality of this article, then I will be removing the NPOV tag soon. Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the tag was added when Fred had edited something that was attacking me ("bete noire"). [6] This has been removed long ago, so I agree that it could be removed. --Tilman 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has presented any claims or evidence of non-neutrality, I am removing the NPOV tag from the main article. If somebody wants to put the tag back in, then please explain specifically what is possible to be done to make the article neutral. Vivaldi (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Orsini 08:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability?

Is she really that notable? The claim for notability appears to be FOIA requests (which a lot of people do), Usenet postings (which a lot of people do) and frivolous lawsuits (again, a very long list). None of these things appear to be notable enough for inclusion. What else is she known for?--Tbeatty 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We have had the notability discussion already. She is notable. Orsini 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is it?--Tbeatty 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At the top of this page, under "Remove page?". It's there. Please read what is already on this page. If you are an administrator, you can also look at several archived talk pages. We have been through this before over and over again. Fresh input with the view of improving the article is welcome, but going the same matters again and again is not productive. Orsini 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she is not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article about her. I filed one of the requests for deletion; mainly because she herself complained to me about the article, which had a much more negative tone at that time. The main reason so many people voted to keep the article seems to be that they think it reflects negatively on the Church of Scientology, not because they think Barbara is important or interesting in herself. Steve Dufour 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I got that impression when when I read about it in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barbara_Schwarz. --Tbeatty 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The notability discussions are on this talk page, not on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barbara_Schwarz. The original article is still displayed here [7]. The notability guidelines are not policy, and does state, in part, that non-notability does not attract editors. It also states: Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion. WP:N Note Steve Dufour has been agitating for the removal of this article by any means available, even after 3 failed AfD discussions. This making it difficult to assume good faith. Orsini 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Notabiliy can be discussed again, with uninvolved editors. And it will be discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barbara_Schwarz. --HResearcher 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the notability issue is going to be discussed again, it's time for some fresh input on the matter, not repeating the same points. Orsini 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to discourage anyone from talking about it, or looking at sow's ears or silk purses. --HResearcher 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability has been discussed for about 10 times already. Why can't you accept the result, and move on? Your constant discussion about the contents of the article and your attempt to add WP:OR (the alleged "documents" in "boxes" in Germany) proves that you consider her notable. --Tilman 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be neutral. I know Barbara and the only reason I have had anything to do with her article is because she mentioned it to me and I told her I would try to get it removed. I think I said that on my first post, or if not soon after. The only thing I have done* is try to bring it to the attention of people so they can judge if it should be here according to Wikipedia policy. That's for them to decide, not me. There do seem to be wide differences of opinion here about what Wikipedia should or shouldn't be. Steve Dufour 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done to try to have it removed that is. When that didn't seem to be working I helped to rewrite the article to try to give it a less negative tone--which might have been counter-productive to the goal of having it removed. Steve Dufour 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Steve Dufour. I came across this article because I was commenting on another BLP. My pet peeve is the inclusion and researching of basically non-notable people and including them on Wikipedia. This, to me, is a large invasion of privacy that I don't understand. If the government were doing this work it would be almost criminal. Yet, there are people who do it for nothing. Almost every person on the planet is notable for something. Their "15 minutes of fame" is not a reason for a permanent inclusion on Wikipedia and every detail of their life. The Notability guideline is in place so that non-famous people can maintain a semblance of privacy. Filing lawsuits or being a Scientologist or a victim of a crime does not make her notable or encyclopedic. More like a spectacle. --Tbeatty 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would have taken the time to read the discussion. Barbara has been featured in at least six news articles. And she's a legend in FOIA circles. They have the expression "Have you been schwarzed today?" --Tilman 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Those 6 articles do not automatically mean she is notable. I think you're referring to 6 articles over the last 20 years. That is NOT very frequenst and does not establish notability. She is not a legend in FOIA circles, she is a legend to a few FOIA workers who have been involved working on her requests. It doesn't matter what jokes they make about her, that doesn't establish her notability. And some other things that are notable, you simply ignored for a year. And now I'm trying to dig up the references on her involuntary psychiatric detainment/abuse, which is also HIGHLY notable, but I get opposition from you on this even though I'm just considering the idea until I get the references. You wouldn't even use her as a primary source to mention this "alleged" psychiatric abuse. --HResearcher 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the concerns of privacy and the "15 minutes of fame" factors; please see the discussions above about The Star Wars Kid. However her notability has been established with regards to: 1. record numbers of FOIA requests by a private individual, which is of ongoing interest in FOIA circles; 2. sanctions and prohibitions placed upon her by SCOTUS; 3. her employment as former media officer and former president of German scientology; 4. the case against scientology critic (later deprogammer / cult exit counselor) Cyril Vosper of FAIR, often cited in references about the deprogramming of cult victims; 5. notable figure on the Usenet. Have you read the whole of this talk page and the AfD discussions? Orsini 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "making a spectacle of someone" problem can, if extreme, be grounds for deletion. Fred Bauder 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. However our subject has made a spectacle of herself. We've been ruthless in insisting on WP:V citations in the article, as we should, and thrown out unsourced or poorly sourced material. As it stands now, what problems are there now with this article? Are there still NPOV issues in it? Orsini 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, that would probably be the easiest thing to do. I agree with Steve Dufour and Tbeatty. Just look at the article. BIG DEAL. Makes you wonder why she's even here in Wikipedia. And then there's the ignorance of the deprogramming which was simply overlooked for more than a year, yet that is something more notable about her. Anti-scientology people seem to like to ridicule Barbara Schwarz and try to make her as some kind of poster-girl to warn against Scientology. It's like using Osama Bin Laden to attack Muslims. I think this article should be severly scrutinized and researched and if the editors don't want to do a good job, then it should just be deleted. --HResearcher 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep commenting on the deprogramming attempt in late 1987, yet you haven't commented on Schwarz's visit to Los Angeles in 1984, where she underwent some kind of scientology process that (by Schwarz's own published accounts) led to her mother filing a penal complaint in Germany about her daughter's experience in the hands of the scienologists. Orsini 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the deprogramming attempt, which is supported by secondary sources. I have no reason to comment on Schwarz' visit to LA in 1984, I haven't found any reliable secondary sources. Besides, according to Barbara's story, her mother was wrong to file a penal complaint, the scientologists didn't do anything wrong to her. Barbara says it is infiltrators that cause the problems. Have you any silk purses to discuss or are you only attracted to sow's ears? How about something neutral? --HResearcher 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"According to Barbara's story, her mother was wrong to file a penal complaint, the scientologists didn't do anything wrong to her." If they didn't do anything wrong to her, why did she state she set fire to her mattress? [8] If you'd read her 90+ part story, you'd see the Rathbun marriage fantasy began after the 1984 Los Angeles experience. She claimed she was under a "sort of wrongful imprisonment" herself [9] and this took place in Los Angeles, and was done by scientologists. And no; I am not going to whitewash or omit verifiable data from the SLT or the courts because its inclusion isn’t what the scientology cult wants to see about its former German president, the same person about whom they now say they’re “clueless”. How about citing references for your own claims instead of provoking people and taking such a soft approach with the scientology cult's abuses? Orsini 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best to keep Wikipedians' noses out

Wikipedia can live without the article, Barbara Schwarz objects to the article. Why not removing the entire article and get it over with? Jimbo can make the decision. I don't like the postings on Usenet saying that Wikipedia drives her into suicide and neither her legal threats. She may have lost the pro se cases but she might not lose when she goes to an attorney. A handful of people, who have a personal dislike of hers and want to attack her on Wikipedia. We should not allow this. If they want to battle, they should do it on Usenet. That story might not have a happy ending for anybody involved. It is a lose/lose situation. User: Summertimeblues 5:13, 4 September 2006 (NOTE: this user was banned for being a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz)

There are probably lots of people who would like to see Wikipedia go down in flames. For instance people who don't like freedom of speech and the fact that here anyone can express their opinions. Steve Dufour 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your vision of what Wikipedia is frightens me. Wikipedia is not a place where "anyone can express their opinions". That is what blogs are for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we report what reliable secondary sources have to say about the topics of the articles. Our own opinions should not be included in content. Crockspot 17:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Crockspot. You've identified the core reason why the subject of this article and her supporters want it removed: it does not include her opinions, just verifiable facts. Orsini 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crockspot. Wikipedia should not be used as a battle ground. --HResearcher 17:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no grounds for Ms. Schwarz to sue. Every claim in the article is backed up by verifiable information from reliable sources. A judge has already ruled that the Salt Lake City Tribune article about her was not libelous, so on what grounds could she sue at all. I strongly suspect that Summertimeblues (talk • contribs • count) is a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz -- who is a banned user of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are backed up by UNRELIABLE sources: USENET and a couple biased newspaper articles. Yet you have totally ignored the deprogramming. I've already pointed these out to you over and over, and if you still don't get it, then there's no use in me trying to change your mind. You WILL NOT be changing mine, thats for sure. --HResearcher 17:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't ignored her deprogramming. It is a notable event that deserves mention in the article. I haven't seen any editors here suggest that we ignore her deprogramming -- so this seems more like a red herring you are tossing in the discussion. What are your views on deprogramming in general? Do you hold strong views against the practice? Certainly, the notability of Ms. Schwarz is not limited to the deprogramming her mother ordered to have done to protect her from her criminal cult. Vivaldi (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles like this aren't good for Wikipedia. Usenet people should go back to Usenet for their fights. As you very well noticed, a handful people keep this article alive because they try to use Barbara Schwarz against the Church of Scientology. Wikipedia is being abused. User: Summertimeblues 7:25, 4 September 2006 (Note: this comment was added by banned user Ms. Schwarz)

I think Ms Schwarz is correct. Although I do think the article should be retained, if only for its link to her 92 part Usenet posting. Such material is rare and valuable. Fred Bauder 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Summertimeblues (talk • contribs) is a brand-new user with no other edits to Wikipedia other than this article. I strongly suspect we have a case of sockpuppetry here. Vivaldi (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As Vivaldi died a long time ago, I wonder whose sock puppet "Vivaldi" is. User: Summertimeblues 5:13, 4 September 2006 9:46 note: this comment was really added by SummertimeBlues (talk • contribs) and not Summertimeblues (talk • contribs).

He did write some nice music however. :-) the real Steve Dufour 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, Ms. Schwarz. You can read up what we mean by the word sockpuppet at this article: WP:SOCK. Vivaldi (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The ground for suit which might have some success is malice. That is why it is better to just tell the story in a low-key way and leave out the fireworks. Fred Bauder 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Schwarz would also have to prove that something untrue was written on these pages for a libel claim to work. Since we are only mentioning things that are verifiably true, then the entire claim is completely baseless. Vivaldi (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, you know in order for her to prove malice in a libel or defamation action, she must also prove that false statements were knowingly made and published with the intent to do harm. It hasn't been done to her here. Orsini 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is only true if she is considered a public figure. Since more famous people have been found not to be public figures, this is certainly a gray area. Also, after spending $100,000 in legal bills to prove that you had the right to publish how satisfied will you be? --Tbeatty 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody will be spending anything on any legal claims. There is no basis for any lawsuit. She already lost her battle on this topic with the Salt Lake City Tribune and a judge ruled that there was no libel. And since Ms. Schwarz participated willingly with the newspaper, knowing full-well that a newspaper reporter is someone that publishes things in a publicly read newspaper. It is patently absurd to suggest that Ms. Schwarz deserves any sort of privacy now. She helped create her own publicity by knowingly participating in an interview. She just wasn't happy with the result she received. Too bad. That's the chance you take when you decide to become a public figure, like Ms. Schwarz chose to do willingly. Vivaldi (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, no one will be spending a cent on legal fees about this article. No attorney is going to take on a contingency case which is certain to be lost. Fred Bauder mentioned the matter of malice, and there's no evidence of it; regardless, she still needs to provide evidence for her allegations and she's comprehensively failed to do so in any of her FOIA court filings. Have you read all the contents of this talk page and the three AfDs yet? Orsini 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That article attracted the usenet crowd. They are out of control. Malice on usenet is evident. If she can prove the same posters are here, Wikipedia gets pulled into the mess. User: Summertimeblues 5:13, 4 September 2006 11:27 note: this comment was really added by SummertimeBlues (talk • contribs) and not Summertimeblues (talk • contribs). Note: this user was blocked for a being a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz.

They are out of control.. Yes, Wikipedia articles are outside the control of those persons who wish to abuse it as a soapbox or advertising portal to republish unverified and POV hate propaganda. Is there any unverified or poorly sourced material in this article? I don't see any, and if there were, you would cite it. Orsini 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because a story attracts numerous interested people doesn't mean we should delete it. And there is no "mess", either here or on Usenet. Vivaldi (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that all it is is a "story" might also be a reason to remove it. Steve Dufour 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I think history will judge me as being much more important than Barbara but I don't get an article. ;-) the one and only real Steve Dufour 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, she doesn't need grounds to sue. I, personally, wouldn't want to defend myself in a frivolous lawsuit. I doubt wikimedia wants to defend itself especially on a spectacle article. Also, the decision cited by the 3 judge panel protecting the Tribune may not protect Wikimedia because it would be difficult to prove that 1) this is journalism when the whole premise is that it's an encyclopedia 2) that the journalists (i.e. editors) are disinterested. If she has had a negative relationship with just one editor here she can overcome the disinterested requirement. She doesn't have to prove both, just one. The other thing to keep in mind is that the SLC Tribune was writing a story that ran for one day about a figure in their community. Wikipedia is writing a biography that is available to the world forever. There is a HUGE difference that cannot be overlooked. She may be notable for the SLC Tribune paper as a local celebrity but she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia Encyclopedia article. --Tbeatty 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, first off, you are making arguments based on faulty premises. 1) She is not and was not just a local SLC celebrity. The Associated Press wrote an article about her that was published in many papers outside the state of Utah. The United States Supreme Court specifically mentions her in an important decision by the court (which actually had one justice dissenting), that permanently barred her from filling more frivilous claims. The U.S. Department of Justice specifically cites her as being the #1 filer of FOIA requests. There are numerous memos by FEDERAL agencies showing the prolific FOIA requester Ms. Schwarz is permanently barred from future FOIA requests. Ms. Schwarz was also listed in two books regarding her deprogramming from Scientology. 2) That she is not notable enough for a wikipedia article has been argued here 3 times and the overwhelming majority of people disagree with you. Vivaldi (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you are wrong in all your premises. Have you read this whole talk page, and the three AfD discussions? You haven't answered that question. If you had read this talk page and the AfDs, you would see why you're wrong. Orsini 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of Tbeatty's points. Pro se cases are usually not successfully for anybody. It all depends on the lawyer. If she goes shopping for one, she might find one sooner or later. I noticed that she is indigent. That could slow the process down but there are also activist lawyers who might take her case for free. I know that this article was up for deletion, three times. Problem is that those who have an axe to grind with her call their Usenet friends for help, who also oppose her religion. That's why we don't get rid of the article. Wikipedia should not become a 2nd usenet. Remove the article without a vote. Wikipedia needs money. Legal defense costs money. -- User: Summertimeblues 7:25, 4 September 2006 11:28 note: this comment was really added by SummertimeBlues (talk • contribs) and not Summertimeblues (talk • contribs). Note: This user is a blocked user of Wikipedia, being a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz

ROFL... yeah, who needs votes. --Tilman 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also activist lawyers who might take her case for free. Attorneys take on contingency cases only where they're likely to win; there is no case here. An attorney taking on Schwarz's case is going to look extremely foolish when her own unclean hands are presented to the court as evidence of her own malice, and it would be grounds for a summary dismissal of that case and a SLAPP / harassment countersuit against that "activist lawyer". Orsini 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the content of your information, I strongly assume you are no attorney, Orsini, as otherwise you would not write such a nonsense. I found absolutely no message of B. Schwarz in these talk pages, which means that you can't accuse her of malice but we might be all forced to reveal our identities to a judge. Are you willing to do that? A judge will ask who threw the first stone, who started the dispute, and was that really her? Did she write that stub on her article? I doubt it. I know you don't like her nor her "religious group" but you really should take your fights to Usenet. They are not good for Wikipedia. And who would pay the legal bills? You?

-- User: Summertimeblues 5. September 2006 11:27 note: this comment was really added by SummertimeBlues (talk • contribs) and not Summertimeblues (talk • contribs). Note: This user is a blocked user of Wikipedia, being a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz, a key fact here is you do not have any law degree and you've never won any case you've filed in the United States courts. The administrators can see where you've violated Wikipedia policy in the archived talk pages, and those pages will be the first to appear in front of a court if you are foolish enough to attempt to follow through with your legal threats. You have violated Wikipedia policy and were banned for it, and you have returned to Wikipedia under a sockpuppet, which is another violation of policy. These facts will count against you, and your own sockpuppet identities would also be revealed if you were to proceed. I have also noticed your postings on the Usenet where you have viciously smeared and libeled people with your false and misleading allegations, your hate campaigns against Wikipedia and the editors of this article, your pleas for an attorney to sue Wikipedia, and your pleas to cause Wikipedia financial harm. I also suspect you know the person using an anonymous remailer on the Usenet in an attempt to intimidate and smear Fred Bauder when he did not do as you wanted. Bear in mind your own posts would be cause for summary dismissal of any vexatious lawsuit you might attempt to file. Orsini 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Orsini, you have just libeled Barbara Schwarz!! I am asking you to please stay out of this. It seems you would rather take a risk with your errors than be safe. And I am telling you now that ~~Barbara Shwarz~~ Barbara Schwarz has won court cases in the United States, I just have to get the references and I will be working on it. Your statements otherwise are purely your speculation, when I get the court case #'s and documents, I'm going to request that you be prevented from discussing or editing this article! Give me a week or two, I don't edit Wikipedia every day. --HResearcher 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Orsini, you have just libeled Barbara Schwarz!! Nonsense. I am telling you now that Barbara Shwarz has won court cases in the United States. Barbara Scwarz may have, but has Barbara Schwarz? If so, cite the case numbers and do so now. Stop threatening me and attempting to intimidate me, HResearcher. Orsini 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How is my comment a threat or intimidation? I am telling you to STOP saying Barbara Schwarz has never won a case until you can provide a citation. That is not a threat or intimidation and you must STOP if you want to be in compliance with Wikipedia policy, read WP:BLP. Your claim about B.Schwarz is a negative statement. And your accusing me of threatening and intimidating you is uncivil, read WP:CIVIL. --HResearcher 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

She's admitted she's never won a case in the US, "only settlements", on 4 Dec 2005 13:49:50 -0800. Cite [10] to answer your point only, not to include in the article. Your threats to ban an editor who will not accept your incorrect views of policy are uncivil, as are your constant statement to provoke people, so read WP:CIVIL yourself. Put up the case numbers you say she's won have instead of provoking people. "I will just have to get the references" doesn't cut it, either with this example or your unproven claims about the German government. Either cite your evidence or admit you have none. Orsini 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting User:SummertimeBlues as a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user, most likely Ms. Schwarz herself. Vivaldi (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe AI again. --Tilman 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is AI too, but if it is AI then he is also impersonating the stilted English of Ms. Schwarz. Vivaldi (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, it's of course easier for you (native english speaker) to notice :) (Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the writing style of her and me are similar) --Tilman 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your own English writing is amazingly devoid of the trappings of stilted grammar that Ms. Schwarz's writings possess. I'm not sure how some people are able to master two (or more) languages, but you seem to have done so. I'd guess that you write more clearly than 95% of the high-school graduates in the United States. Vivaldi (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Both you and Barbara write English very well for non-native speakers. I took a couple of years of German in college but have forgotten most of it. 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. I don't want to see you blocked. Mind Mr. Dufour who just mentioned that Wikipedia grants free speech to anybody. User: Summertimeblues 5 September 2006 note: this comment was really added by SummertimeBlues (talk • contribs) and not Summertimeblues (talk • contribs). Also note: this user was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz.

Wikipedia does not grant free speech to everyone. There are a number of rules that regulate not only the kind of speech that is acceptable here, but also there are rules that regulate who can contribute to Wikipedia at all. People are often banned for violating these rules. Namely, Ms. Schwarz was blocked because she has stated that she has made legal threats and because she has consistently ignored warnings to avoid making personal comments about editors. (e.g. She tries to reveal what she believes to be the real names of anonymous editors). Ms. Schwarz is under the misguided notion that private entities such as Wikipedia are required to grant everyone equal access to their forums. This is clearly not a requirement of the 1st Amendment. Private groups can, and do, decide who can contribute and what they can contribute. Ms. Schwarz is free to publish and say what she wants, but she must do so in forums that are willing to publish her views or in places that are designated for public speech. Vivaldi (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German branch?

What is the real name of the CoS in Germany that she was president of? Do they use the word "branch"? Wouldn't it be better to use the real name? Steve Dufour 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I will change it to the "German Church of Scientology" which sounds more normal. Until someone comes up with a more official name. Steve Dufour 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is Church of Scientology of Germany when I've seen it translated. But it is also considered a "branch" of the Church of Scientology. Whether "they" use the word "branch" is not important. The word branch is in the dictionary and it applies to this group. We can use common words to explain things, its not necessary to use only the terms this cult uses for itself. Vivaldi (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I will change it to "the Church of Scientology of Germany" then. (I am trying to make the article sound like it was not written by a crazed conspiracy theorist. :-) ) the one and only Steve Dufour 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See the references: Scientology Kirche Deutschland, Hubbard Organisation München e.V.. --Tilman 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

[edit] German citizen? Perhaps dual citizenship

I don't question that she is. I took it out because that is not what she is notable for. I thought that the fact that she has a German last name, was president of the CoS in Germany, and moved to Utah together gave people the information without taking space up. (It sounds stupid in Tilman's article too, but he thinks that he speaks English better than me. :-) ) the one and only Steve Dufour 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

She is too notable for being a German citizen. The U.S. court of appeals and the Salt Lake Tribune both thought that her German citizenry was important. The SLC Tribune had a particular problem with illegal immigrants, like Ms. Schwarz, having access to FOIA requests. Vivaldi (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The CIA denied her FOIA request on the grounds it was 1. completely frivolous 2. filed by a German citizen. Cite [11] Her nationality is notable in view of the claims she makes about being born in the United States, yet she has a German birth certificate. The fact she is a German citzen is significant. Orsini 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know she has a German birth certificate? Did you see it? Also, we shouldn't do racial profiling on Wikipedia. -- SummertimeBlues 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz at IP 216.190.11.45: 1. you told the Salt Lake Tribune you had a German birth certificate; 2. your own court papers you filed when you sued the Salt Lake Tribune state you have a German birth certificate, in paragraph 120; 3. in the court case you filed against the CIA, the court state clearly you are a German citizen. Your German birth certificate is not a matter of racial profiling, it is a matter of citizenship. Have you agreed to abide by the rules of Wikipedia? Orsini 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You block a person of who you think it was Ms. Schwarz and then you ask Ms. Schwarz questions, knowing that she can't answer? Do you have just courage if she isn't around? Why do you hate her that much? Perhaps you should do some therapy. I think you do religious profiling.

There is something like dual citizenship. That means that a person can have two or even more citizenships. It is possible that Ms. Schwarz returned her German citizenship or makes no use of it. I read Ms. Schwarz' Tribune affidavit and a number of postings. What you claim is not honest. She posted that she had a very suspicious German birth certificate, concealing the place in which she was born. I think the place of birth is very important to a birth certificate. Also, she may have not just one citizenship. I also checked that CIA case out. She complained that she was not heard by that court. As she was not heard, the judges hardly could determine citizenships.JohnPowers This edit was actually made by User:JohnPower, not User:JohnPowers.

Barbara Schwarz using sockpuppet User:JohnPower, signing your edits as JohnPowers: 1. You are still violating the rules of Wikipedia, WP:SOCK WP:CIVIL WP:NPA. If you had agreed to follow Wikipedia policy and withdrawn your legal threats, you would have been unblocked. Using a sockpuppet and speaking about yourself in the third person while you make personal attacks makes you appear dishonest, and neutral observers might conclude you treat Wikipedia in the same way you have treated the FOIA process, the court system, and the Usenet. 2. In one point only, you are correct; it's possible you have dual citizenship, and this is why the "illegal alien" label must not go into the article. There is no independent evidence to state you are a US citizen, however holding of a German birth certificate means you are certainly a German citizen, no matter where you were born. 3. You are wrong; the case summary for Schwarz v CIA, No. 99-4016 (D. Utah) (D.Ct. No. 97-CV-85-B) clearly states the court was unpersuaded by your contention that you know you are a United States citizen because you remember being born in the United States. Your memories do not meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). [12] Orsini 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire topic is a red herring. German law does not allow for dual citizenship execpt under a very limited set of guidelines that do not apply given what Barbara herself claims of her past. German nationality law#Dual_citizenship (Fixed sig) Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Super 7, it appears the second condition may or may not apply. Can you please state the matter outside of the guidelines that doesn't apply, which is at odds with what she claims of her past? I hope you can clarify this point for me. Orsini 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1: "where a child born to German parents acquires another citizenship at birth": Barbara claims that her father was L.Ron Hubbard, not a German Citizen, and her mother was an American as well. (From her posts.) If her claims are viewed as fictional, then she was born in Germany of German parents (hence her birth certificate), also not meeting this guide. So this doesn't fit. 2: "where a German citizen acquires a foreign nationality with the permission of the German government", If you accept Barbara's view, then she never was a German citizen, hence the German government would not be granting her permission. If you don't accept Barbara's view, then she would have had to apply for permission to be granted a dual US citizenship, and that is something she has said she didn't do because she has been claiming that she really was a US citizen all along. U.S. citizens cannot, IIRC, apply for U.S. citizenship. She has stated a few times that she gave up trying "to get the INS to change her status." 3: "where a naturalised German citizen, or a child born to non-German parents in Germany, obtains permission to keep their foreign nationality" She hasn't made any claims of getting permission from the U.S. government to be granted a German citizenship, either, and IIRC, the U.S. government does not do that. So, before people start beating the drum: This is the "discussion" page, not the article page, and no, you cannot prove a negative, no matter how much some of the posters here keep insisting on having someone do so (e.g. "prove she never won a case" Well, you can only prove she HAS won a case, not that she has never won one.) -- [Darn, meant to hit preview, hit save instead.] Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 13:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your logical and concise answer; it makes the position clear. Orsini 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do we know really? Is it really possible?

We should put ourselves in he shoes of Wikipedia readers, who will ask, how is it possible that one single person filed so many actions in just a few years? How many heads and hands does this woman have to keep track of it all? The Salt Lake Tribune article is very confusing. It says that she filed thousands of FOIA requests. But in order to file them to court, she needed to exhaust her administrative remedies, e.g. administrative appeals. That means that she must have filed also thousands of administrative appeals. Another example are these many law suits. Fred is an attorney, he knows how much time goes in just one law suit, you got legal research and that goes back and forth. The First Amendment Center, reporter Chris Hamby interviewed a lawyer who opposed some of her cases. He said that Ms. Schwarz handled her cases better than many attorneys. The Tribune wrote that she has no legal training. How was she able handle her cases better than an attorney without legal training? How did she do it? Tribune reporter Smith refused answering ANY question of the First Amendment Center, Chris Hamby. Why? It is suspicious. Reporters usually help each other out. These are some of the questions that Wikipedia reader will ask. - My point is, as more as I read about Ms. Schwarz on Wikipedia, as less I have the feeling to know her. It is better having no article on her than a very confusing one, or one that is written mainly by the people who hate her religion. Wikipedians are not allowed to make own research but a personal biographer might be necessary to figure Ms. Schwarz and her activities out. And I don't think that the average person would buy a biography written by the usual Usenet folks who come in swarms to Wikipedia to stink it up. We should admit that we know mainly rumors about Ms. Schwarz and this harms Wikipedia's reputation. The best decision is for Jumbo to delete the article and wait how for real research and in what direction the Schwarz-life might develop. SummertimeBlues 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page is for discussing edits to the article. It's not a chat room. It's not an AfD vote. Rather than filling this page with opinions, speculation, and rhetoric, why don't you just take this directly to Jimbo's talk page and see how far you get with it? wikipediatrix 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you tell this also your friends who post here or just people who you do not like, Wikipediatrix? I have seen very long postings of Orsini and Vivaldi in these talks pages. Why do you think that Jimbo Wales will not apply Wikipedia policies? -- User:JohnPowers This edit was actually made by User:JohnPower, not User:JohnPowers.

wikipediatrix, the above entry was made by a suspected sockpuppet of Barbara Schwarz. Orsini 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. wikipediatrix 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was indeed Ms Schwarz - she gave herself away with a characteristic misspelling of Jimbo's name (as "Jumbo"). User:SummertimeBlues has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. -- ChrisO 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO: thanks. Please note also a checkuser has been listed on this sockpuppet and the IP address 216.190.11.45 has been used in connection with this sockpuppet, as well. Orsini 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Chris, misspelling a letter is not much of any evidence. That IP address looks like an open proxy to me. What's next? That I am accused of being a sock puppet of Barb Schwarz? Lol. Can't wait till that happens. :) User:JohnPowers This edit was actually made by User:JohnPower, not User:JohnPowers.

Why was she blocked when she was more or less engaging in a sensible discussion? Fred Bauder 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Fred, all people involved in this discussion, except you and Mr. Dufour, are sworn enemy of Ms. Schwarz' religion. If I am not very much mistaken, Chris Owen, wrote an infammatory book/articles against her religion. He should not block but recuse himself. It leaves a very bad impression to readers. Chris Owens and these other guys are too deep in their own private wars to think straight. Vivaldi knows to what admin to run when he wants people blocked who doesn't hate Ms. Schwarz or her religion. It is a shame. User:JohnPowers This edit was actually made by User:JohnPower, not User:JohnPowers.

WP:SOCK: "Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Also WP:BLOCK: "Sysops may block abusive sockpuppets (e.g. used to circumvent blocks or create an illusion of consensus) indefinitely. This applies to "reincarnations" of existing banned users too." And following on from that, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions: "Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden." She was clearly attempting , albeit very incompetently, to persuade people that she was a concerned neutral observer - it's grossly dishonest behaviour. She refused to agree to abide by Wikipedia's harassment policy in her last incarnation, and until she does agree (which she could do any time) she shouldn't be allowed to edit. -- ChrisO 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The real Barbara Schwarz (talk • contribs) has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee, and this ruling presumably also applies to her sockpuppets. She has still not agreed to abide by Wikipedia policies. Using a sockpuppet here, she is speaking about herself in the third person, stating she doesn't want to know herself after reading her Wikipedia article, and this is engaging in sensible discussion? Uh, OK, this must be a new definition of sensible discussion of which I have been previously unaware. Orsini 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:JohnPower (and not JohnPowers) seems to be another sockpuppet of Barbara Schwarz. Note the trick with the misspelling in the name, that was also done by her previous sockpuppet. --Tilman 06:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems? I'd say, based on both volume and style of the contributions, it's beyond likely. All that remains is for 172.190.37.157/JohnPower(s) to start talking about "wikipiggi" to be sure... Robertissimo 08:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the proxy indefinitely per Wikipedia:No open proxies and removed the proxy abuser's comments. Any further uses of anonymous proxies will be dealt with the same way. If Schwarz wants to edit, all she needs to do is to accept Wikipedia's harassment policy on User talk:The real Barbara Schwarz. -- ChrisO 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Schwarz has also made legal threats against Wikipedia and pursuant to the policy about no legal threats, she should not be permitted to make edits here. According to that policy, people that are currently threatening to sue Wikipedia are not allowed to edit here. This is a measure that protects both Wikipedia and the potential plaintiff. Ms. Schwarz should also be required to assert that she is not planning on engaging in litigation against Wikipedia, Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation before she is allowed to contribute again. Anyway, this is all a pretty moot point, since Ms. Schwarz has already promised on A.R.S. that she does not intend to agree to the anti-harassment policy of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub class designation

This article was marked as Stub Class when it was cleaned out, but now it is back with much information. Is it time to get it rated again? Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Let's do it. Orsini 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this information to this article, apparently written by Ms. Swartz herself. -- Randy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randolph Red (talk • contribs).

Ed Note: I removed the web link added by this obvious sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz. She isn't permitted to contribute here until she agrees to abide by Wikipedia polices. Vivaldi (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fold the contents into other pages, like Scientology and the legal system ?

Barbara is noteable (as discussed under many other headings) because of her relationship with the CoS (and as an excelent case of becoming a non-person when it suits them) and her unique relationship with the various branches in the government (both local and national) as a result of her FOIA activities and many frivilous law suits.

That said, I have to question if she really does deserve to have her own page, or should the information be folded into other pages, like the one referenced above, where she could even have her own (sub-sub-)section, or Freedom of Information Act (United States) where she is mentioned in the "See also" section. Maybe the FOIA page needs a bit more structure so that it includes, not only the three major cases listed, but a small section on other noteable requests and related litigation.

I'm not a friend of hers (she has threatened me with law suits more than once), but I have to question her having her own page. The information should not be lost, but, maybe it should be folded into other, more focused, pages.

Pros and Cons: (Obversations.)(I'll add more, later, if I get the chance.)

A Google search on Schwarz, I didn't see her listed in the first 600 results.

Irony: The very first was for Schwarz Pharma, the type of company that the CoS and it's CCHR front group have labeled as an enemy.

A Google search on Schwarz FOIA, and got about 75,000 results, and just about all the early ones were for her.

Any thoughts? ( Like no-one here is ever willing to express an opinion :-) ) Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Super 7, I think there is enough hard data for Barbara Schwarz having a separate article. The reasons for her notability (FOIA, scientology, deprogramming, and litigation in relation to the SCOTUS) are diverse, and a footnote or merge into other articles fragments the data. In your Google searching, did you look for 'Schwarz', or "Barbara Schwarz", or 'Schwarz FOIA'? Did you search for an exact phrase or search for the words separately? Results can vary greatly depending on the method, as you know. The "B" class designation of this article could mean there are still a lot of gaps; however there is plenty of source data which has not yet been incorporated into the article. Orsini 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Super7: We've already gone through the notability discussion issue a number of times, we needn't keep having to have this discussion every two weeks. Notability was specifically brought up as a reason for deletion in AfDs #1 through #3 -- each of which resulted in a consensus to keep this article right where it is. Your specific test showing that a search for "Schwarz" does not result in a hit for "Barbara Schwarz" is not a useful test for determining notability especially when talking about inclusion for an encyclopedia. Its entirely possible that notable people worthy of inclusion have common names, such as Schwarz or Smith or Johnson and because they have such a common name, there may exist a number of other even more famous and notable people with the same. Vivaldi (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Super7: Try doing these searches in Google, which may be more enlightening because they include the terms for endeavors for which she is notable: "Schwarz FOIA", "Schwarz Scientology", "Schwarz deprogramming", "Schwarz Rathbun", "Schwarz frivolous", "Schwarz Usenet". Now does Barbara's name pop up? I haven't even checked them out, but I'd almost bet the she is a top ten entry in her fields of notability. Vivaldi (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the alleged vandalism, Chris O.?

Don't find it. Can't see it. I think your obsession with Ms. Schwarz are getting to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrissyO (talk • contribs).

Not surprisingly, the above post is from a brand-new account and this is their very first edit. The choice of the name "ChrissyO" is apparently intended as a jab at ChrisO since the user's only post so far is to insult him. Therefore, this account should be blocked under WP:USERNAME. wikipediatrix 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should be monitored 24 hours a day 7 days a week to protect it from vandalism. Are there any volunteers? --The one and only real Steve Dufour 12:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is already monitored enough. Don't make such a fuss. --Tilman 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. It is a vitally important article. Steve Dufour 20:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a very confusing article

My radio audience wouldn't let me come away with this. Barb Schwarz is cited here of having said this and that, while she doesn't say so on Usenet. She also is blocked to participate in the discussion around her own person (big nono in the professional field of journalism) and accused of being any new contributor on Wikipedia. It makes the impression that the article is so uninteresting that nobody wants to read it or paticipate here, except the wrongfully portayed Ms.Schwartz. I am no fan of Scientology but this kind of hostility against individual Scientologists goes much too far. It is not good for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RadioHost (talk • contribs).

Barbara, is this you? --Tilman 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Barab..err RadioHost, I found this article -very- interesting and I read many parts of it including the discussion pages. I can think of a few people would also find this article interesting as well. Sounds like Wikipedia is doing a good job to me. Explain how this article "wrongly" portrays Ms. Schwartz? Hitokirishinji 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not Ms Schwarz. First of all, Babs DID have the right to come here and give her side of the story. She then proceeded to violate a few Wikipedia policies, and so was banned until apologising and promising to not violate them any more. She has decided to not do that, and so is still banned. She tried, in vain, to pervert the discussion by sockpuppetting on a quite enormous level. She can come back any time she wants - she just has to agree to not harass, attack, threaten with legal action, etc. Babs HAS said everything that is attributed to her - check out her 92-page extravaganza on USENET (which she readily admits to have writing, which is stored for all eternity on a number of sources across the internet, all cross-referenceable). May I suggest doing some cursory research before claiming the entire article is bunk? And remember - this is no radio, a newspaper, a bathroom wall, etc. This is wikipedia. Dave420 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In reality almost no one will have any interest in this article. People who are against Scientology will not be made more so by reading Barbara's story and no one else will have any reason to come across it. I only heard about it because Barbara herself mentioned it to me. Have a nice Thanksgiving everyone, or whatever fall holidays you celebrate in your nations. the real Steve Dufour 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta Question

I noticed that User:Centrix suddenly appeared and deleted massive parts of this discussion page, yet made no comments about it or even asked about it.

Is this considered vandalism?

Sould the edits be reverted?

(Damn, forgot the sig again...)

Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 15:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Super7

It appears the page wasn't deleted, but moved to Archive 8. However, the edit history was not included. In my opinion, archiving this page ought to have been done some time ago, and I would have done this myself had I known the process to preserve the edit history at the time of archiving the page. It would have been preferable for User:Centrix to discuss it here before doing it, but it isn't vandalism. I don't think the edit should be reverted; most of the archived debate was a lot of straw man argument from one editor, and the replies to same. Orsini 23:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to archive it myself, since the discussion is no longer ongoing. No changes have been made to the article in over a month. It is appropriate to put finished discussions into an archive. If you want to rehash one of the discussions that is already in the archive -- then you can restart the discussion here. Hopefully you will be able to present a novel argument that will be persuasive, rather than a simple rehashing of the old discussions. Vivaldi (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "murdered" vs. "killed"

In the sentence: "She says that she later married a prominent Scientologist who she claims was imprisoned on the false charge of having killed her." I changed "killed" to "murdered". My thinking was that "murder" is the name of the crime he would have been charged with. Not a very big point since Barbara is still alive. :-) Steve Dufour 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since she is alive, she claims that he is being wrongly held for her murder. She of course is his only relief witness. Although there aren't any arrest records or newspaper stories to corroborate her story. Now that Marty Rathbun has gone missing, I am kind of worried that he might be dead now. Scientology has nearly completed erased him from all their computer systems. Its almost as if he hadn't spent 30 years working for them for peanuts. Vivaldi (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Trödel took the correct action to remove the emotive term "murder" and restore it to "killed". Since Rathbun was never charged with any such act, it is pointless to quibble over words related to nonexistent charges based on the claimant's delusions. Orsini 10:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a minor point. The reason I thought "murder" was a better word to use is that it is not always a crime to kill someone. It could be done in self defense. Therefore if he really had been imprisoned it would have been on a charge of murder, not killing. But as you said it's a minor point. Steve Dufour 16:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a charge of manslaughter in most countries, so "kill" is far more accurate that "murder". Dave420 10:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially since it really didn't happen. Steve Dufour 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW. If Barbara's theories about Mr. Rathbun are so off the wall why are they repeated in his article? Steve Dufour 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve Dufour, you are making statements to provoke people. The subject's delusions about Rathbun and "the submarine base under Salt Lake" are cited in many court cases, as are the subject's other delusions. They were grounds for dismissal of the subject's FOIA requests as frivolous. No credible theories about Rathbun have been or were ever presented by the subject. Have you finished debating the Bigfoot article on the WP:BLPN noticeboard already? Orsini 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot deserves a fair article too. :-) the one and only Steve Dufour 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the Rathbun article on this article's Talk page is as inappropriate and out of place as your discussion of the Bigfoot article was on the WP:BLPN. As suggested by Antaeus Feldspar, please read WP:POINT. Orsini 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More people believe in Bigfoot than in Xenu. Steve Dufour 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve was extremely unclear in his statement, which is why I too misread it at first -- he wasn't asking why they were in "this" article, but why they were in "his" article -- i.e., in Marty Rathbun's article. (The fact that it's off-topic for this talk page is, I think, another reason why people didn't follow what he was trying to get at.) BTW, I had a look at the Bigfoot debate on WP:BLPN -- "There is much more public interest in Bigfoot than in Barbara S. :-)" Boy, someone really needs to read WP:POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

psst....the main reason i am working on barbara's article is to let her know that someone cares about her. the article itself has almost no importance. it is one of 1.5 million or so here on wp. happy thanksgiving. Steve Dufour 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are genuinely "someone [who] cares about her", then recommending a course of psychotherapy by a qualified and licensed practitioner would appear to be a more practical extention of this sentiment than quibbling over words in an article you say "has almost no importance." Orsini 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reasonable reason I could see for having them there is that they seem to be the only theories on where Rathbun has gone to after his sudden disappearance -- me, I think it's more likely that he's running the pole in an RPF camp somewhere, but, well, no one asked me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

hmmm....He could be the victim of murder or imprisonment by Scientologists (or by Nazis pretending to be Scientologists as in Barbara's theories). He also could have gotten tired of Scientology and decided to leave it behind and become a private person. Steve Dufour 07:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The first three theories are actually better at explaining the evidence than the fourth -- plenty of people have gotten tired of Scientology and decided to leave it behind and become private people, but few have done so so completely that no one knows where they are or whether they're even still alive. If he is still alive, and his departure from the presidency of RTC (how many organizations make no statement when their president suddenly leaves?) was voluntary, it seems like "gone into hiding" is more accurate than "become a private person". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible that they are blackmailing him to keep silent. Steve Dufour 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with studying the Church of Scientology: What would be a fantastic, outlandish conspiracy theory about nearly any other organization may be just plain truth about the CoS. Faking hit-and-run accidents to sabotage political careers? Framing journalists for bomb threats that never happened, including the utilization of impersonators staging nervous breakdowns in laundromats? The CoS has done it. As for blackmail, well, what do you think all those supposedly confidential auditing records are collected in writing for? According to numerous former members -- not to mention according to GO 121669, written by Mary Sue Hubbard -- they're for keeping members and former members in line if they ever pose any perceived danger to the organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarbara_Schwarz_ee6c.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | B-Class biography articles | Biography articles with comments | Notable Wikipedians | Wikipedia controversial topics