Talk:Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Does this really need an article?
The basic facts: A Bank sues website, judge drops case, end of story - this article couldn't get more news-style than this, and I don't think there's really that many wider implications of this case.
Why is this story remarkable enough for an article of its own? Please don't say "a significant milestone for Wikileaks", when such milestones should be covered in Wikileaks article anyway, or "significant in regards to Internet whistleblowing", when there's been no such comparisons yet - and even if there would, it's still hardly a case for a separate article.
The closest historical equivalent I can think of would be the Penet remailer v. Scientology case, and even that doesn't get a separate article of its own on those merits!
In conclusion: Shouldn't this be merged back to the Wikileaks main article? I just a little bit fail to see why this really needs an article of its own, even when, as an event, it got significant independent coverage. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest it's too long. It's a notable lawsuit which took place between two entities each notable on their own merits and the topic doesn't fit in either subject's article. -- Kendrick7talk 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does it have to be long, or can it be condensed? (Not every minor detail in a history of a website or bank need to be discussed - you could just as easily discuss the details relevant to both parties in their respective articles.) What exactly makes this a "notable lawsuit" apart of the fact that it got media attention? It got thrown out! Did the dismissal of the case have some far-reaching, unique implications? This sort of lawsuits have happened before. Why do we have a whole article whose sole purpose is to say "The Bank sued Wikileaks and nixed their domain name, case was thrown out, domains were restored, The Bank looked silly"? Can we find the meat? Because frankly, I don't see where the meat is or even where the growth potential is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The stand alone article meets WP:N and the given details are relevant. If the article perpetuates the Streisand effect caused by the lawsuit... :shrug: not my problem. -- Kendrick7talk 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, but you still haven't said why it absolutely needs an article of its own. Neutrality doesn't require articles to be split. What does? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:N is the notability guideline, BTW. To answer your question: WP:ENC, I suppose. I gave the main reasoning above: a notable lawsuit which took place between two entities each notable on their own merits and the topic doesn't fit in either subject's article. -- Kendrick7talk 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, but you still haven't said why it absolutely needs an article of its own. Neutrality doesn't require articles to be split. What does? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The stand alone article meets WP:N and the given details are relevant. If the article perpetuates the Streisand effect caused by the lawsuit... :shrug: not my problem. -- Kendrick7talk 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does it have to be long, or can it be condensed? (Not every minor detail in a history of a website or bank need to be discussed - you could just as easily discuss the details relevant to both parties in their respective articles.) What exactly makes this a "notable lawsuit" apart of the fact that it got media attention? It got thrown out! Did the dismissal of the case have some far-reaching, unique implications? This sort of lawsuits have happened before. Why do we have a whole article whose sole purpose is to say "The Bank sued Wikileaks and nixed their domain name, case was thrown out, domains were restored, The Bank looked silly"? Can we find the meat? Because frankly, I don't see where the meat is or even where the growth potential is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added more content that should clarify some points that the two writers above did not understand. The ruling in favor of Wikileaks is not nearly as remarkable as the injunction that it dissolved - an injunction intended to destroy a publication rather than simply prevent publication of particular information. Anyone who does not recognise how destructive that injunction was should at least understand that it was highly destructive as evidenced by so many parties seeking to challenge it in court, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Jordan McCorkle, Public Citizen, California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC), Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP), The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), The Associated Press, Citizen Media Law Project, The E.W. Scripps Company, Gannet Co. Inc, The Hearst Corporation, The Los Angeles Times, National Newspaper Association (NNA), Newspaper Association of America (NAA), The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), and The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). 77.115.74.55 (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)rm
- Do not merge. Though the case was never appealed (and thus will not be cited), it is a landmark example of how one judge overreached himself. Sincerely , GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
