Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What's the point of this ridiculous, gratuitous article?

The subject seems to be clearly obsessed, probably unhealthily. It seems this article exists merely to highlight those characteristics solely to place the subject in an unflattering light. It's cruel, gratutious, and a sad attack on the part of whoever favors keeping it in the cause of some stupid pissing contest. BabyDweezil 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"What is the point?" The encyclopedia article, like all articles here, is meant to provide information to those people that seek it. Ms. Schwarz has achieved a level of notoriety that has met the requirements of Wikipedia, as this has been challenged on that ground on three times and lost each time. Non-notable subjects do not motivate hundreds of pages of discussion and attract numerous admins and editors. I would also encourage you to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Do not engage in personal attacks against other editors. You should also assume good faith on the part of other editors. Questioning the motives or intentions of other editors and administrators is not appropriate behavior. Vivaldi (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is factual information about a person who, through their own actions, has achieved a level of notability. Johntex\talk 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh come now, some scattered trivial articles meets WP:N? Puhleeze, this is just self satisfied gloating by mean-spirited usenet geeks. And that's not a personal attack on anyone in particular, it's a group attack, so don't shower me with WP:NPA warnings! BabyDweezil 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil Ms. Schwarz is first notable for her FOIA requests and lawsuits against the government accusing various agencies covering up proof that would prove her beliefs. It is not her delusions which make her notable here, rather her attempts to prove them by suing the U.S. government. The court documents are not original research, they simply show her attempts to get information the government doesn't have. She does/did this by filing suits against several agencies, field offices, and hundreds of individual employees of those agencies. It is a tragic, but true fact, that her legal quest to prove her delusion has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fees, time, and legal action.
She is also notable for the attempted deprogramming on her on the subject of cult intervention experts.
It is very important though that the article reflect the focus on the FOIA and deprogramming issues, and treat her delusions in the context of it's relationship to the notable issues. It should not be a page to ridicule her. Anynobody 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The only way to not ridicule her is to cut the grossly overextended amount of space given to her claims, which I will do. BabyDweezil 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've had reservations about her notability too, but on balance I think she narrowly meets the criteria. Don't forget this article has already been proposed for deletion three times - the community has voted on each occasion to keep it. See [1], [2] and [3] for the discussions - I suspect you'll find that your arguments have already been made by others! -- ChrisO 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence! BabyDweezil 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Or your winning smile? :-) -- ChrisO 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil the amount of information included in the article before you started deleting information was the exact amount needed to understand how someone could take things so far in their quest for "truth". The usenet posts were mostly by Ms. Schwarz and explains her saga and beliefs in great depth. If you read them you'd know that the article does not include A LOT of delusional information she believes. Please consider restoring the information you removed. Anynobody 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Usenet articles are not WP:RS's and including them to make a point in the absence of backing by WP:RS's is simply OR. BabyDweezil 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like you are interested in improving the article. From your very first post it is clear that you just want to see it deleted. Johntex\talk 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Which would greatly improve it, and Wikipedia. BabyDweezil 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this is discussed in some detail at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Usenet should not normally be used as a source but there are important exceptions in the case of self-published material. These are set out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. Schwarz's self-published material provides key background to explain why she is doing what she is doing, which in turn is what has made her notable in the first place. -- ChrisO 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That just seems like a back door attempt to try and find more notability than ther is. Analogy: (I love analogies, an analogy is to Wikipedia like ...oh yeah here is it)--If there were two little press articles about how I burnt down my apartment building because the obsessive pile of notes I obsessively stacked in the apartment caught fire, would this sad but minor story be shown to be more notable by explaining what the content of all these notes was? Ms. Schwarz is mildly notable for filing a bunch of requests and lawsuits, to the extent that there's a couple of minor news articles about it. Thats it. The Scientology thing is peripheral. Something can't be reliably connected to something else via a delusion. BabyDweezil 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand your analogy BabyDweezil but it doesn't actually apply to Ms. Schwarz's situation because it's too simple. Your burned down apartment did not involve the CIA, FBI, FDA, USDA, NSA, HHS and various others spending tax dollars trying to find information that doesn't exist and then having to defend themselves in court when they can't find what she wants. The Scientology thing is not peripheral because she sued for information proving that L. Ron Hubbard was her father and she seems to believe that a once prominent Scientologist is being held by someone somewhere for killing her which goes back to why she has filed so many suits. A more relevant analogy should address the many points in the actual situation. Here would be a better analogy than an accidental fire or arson in an apt building.
  • Analogy: Jill is certain that there is a book about her at the library, so when she finds out there isn't one she sues the library. Everybody but her knows that libraries don't keep biographies about just anyone, but because Jill has the right to do so she sues. She represents herself, and spends almost no money while the library has to spend money on a lawyer. Jill's case is rejected so she appeals, and because she found out the library two towns over doesn't have her book that they should be sued. In the end lots of time and some of your money (if you pay taxes) gets used to pay and deal with lawyers rather than buying new books. Anynobody 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But...but..but...where are all the secondary sources that would provide some reasonable indication that this is notable? In Jill's case, it's you opining about resources being wasted that would be better spent and all, and thats valid, and no one would disagree, but it aint news. Back to Ms Schwarz, all I'm seeing is a one-off article in the The Salt Lake Tribune. Should we have a Wiki bio for everyone whose had an article written about them in a local newspaper? Everyone who's filed a bizarre lawsuit or bunch of lawsuits? It's back to notability, and like Gertie sez, there ain't no there there. When it comes to WP:BLP, what wrong with erring on the side of Wiki Hippocrates and first do no harm, rather than satisfy voyeuristic desires (and worse) on the part of some here who seem to obsess about Ms Schwarz for some ungodly reason even more than she obsesses about whatever she obsesses about. BabyDweezil 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Having many secondary sources are actually not always necessary, but it does help. By "...it ain't news" I take to mean that by your interpretation of Wikipolicy nothing belongs on here that has not been debated in the news? That is wholly inconsistent with the idea of an encylopedia which draws on several types of sources to provide information. When discussing a subject for which there is no tangible answer, secondary sources in the media are essential. When discussing issues of fact, primary sources count because the media can offer different answers for already established facts. In this case there are actually so many that adding them all would make the article mostly a page of links. Here are a few to get you started: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Were you being sarcastic when you said you like using analogies? Because in the hypothetical situation I mentioned you seem to imply that there would be rational people supporting using tax money to pay attorneys to address a woman's delusions. In my analogy the libraries represent several states as well as the federal government, the books represent stuff they are supposed to use tax money for. Instead of spending it on rebuilding New Orleans, paying teachers and the other things tax money is for. I mean no insult to you but your analogy of a pile of notes spontaneously igniting and burning down an apartment building doesn't seem to apply here. (I used the term spontaneously igniting because you didn't mention if the notes were intentionally set on fire or not.) Anynobody 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


The appearance of BabyDweezil is my fault. I mentioned Barbara Schwarz in another discussion which he probably read, as an example for administrator intervention due to (apparently) a complaint, and how the article was forcibly deleted, but then rewritten from scratch, resulting in a similar article (differently written, but same contents).

Sorry. --Tilman 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I speak for the other editors here but there is no need to apologize for somebody else's behavior Tilman, I'm sure you were just trying to make a point illustrated with some evidence. BabyDweezil seems to have an interest in Scientology topics so he/she may have found their way here anyway. Keep citing Anynobody 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's a RS that she was president of Scientology/Germany?

I can't make out what that first reference is supposed to be. In any case, it certainly doesnt seem to be a reliable source. Any clues? BabyDweezil 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a scan of an official german court record (register of non-profits).
She was really the president. There exist also newspaper articles from that time.
You can confirm it by writing to the court and asking for it. It cost a fee, however (about 30$) --Tilman 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide some reliable sources? The scan is unverifiable; is there a secondary source that describes her as president? BabyDweezil 07:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it satisfy you if we changed the wording to something along the lines of "Ms. Schwarz claims she was President...". She has claimed she was so if the scan doesn't work for you we can fix the issue with a simple rewording. It was my impression you wanted to defend her, not remove her achievements. Why is the scan unverifiable though, because it's in German? I was actually working on translating the parts that have to do with her using Google's language tools. Anynobody 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not me that needs to be satisfied, it's WP:V and WP:RS.A simple WP:RS showing she was the president, or in the second case, a WP:RS showing she claims to have been president. If this is all based solely on her claims, then it just becomes circular and further reduces the marginal notability of this subject. I'm not trying to defend her (never heard of her until yesterday) or remove her achievements (I have no idea what they are); we're trying to make this encyclopedic. BabyDweezil 08:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil you are indeed the one who needs to be satisfied in this case. I, and a few others, feel that the scan abides by appropriate wikipolicy. (Let's face it, the scan has been on here for quite a while and then you remove it. You must realize that you weren't the only editor to have looked at this article.) When you accuse an editor or their information of violating policy, please also state why.WP:V,WP:RS, and other policy articles are not meant to be invoked without clarifying which part of that policy is being violated. For example earlier on this talk page you expressed the opinion that usenet and blogs are never acceptable and gave a link to the WP:RS page. As another editor pointed out Ms. Schwarz posts on usenet do meet WP:RS exceptional requirements. So please, explain to myself and the others involved here how specifically the article was violating any of these policies before you began editing here? The policy about assuming good faith means you must assume we know the rules and have placed the information here in accordance with them, just as I assume you are arguing your point to make the page fit in accordance with your interpretation of the rules to make it conform with wiki standards. Anynobody 08:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil is incorrect. A court document meets the requirements of WP:RS. There is no serious dispute that the cited court document says something other than what this article says. Just because you can't find the text online doesn't mean it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. In any case, besides Ms. Schwarz being acknowledged by the courts as the former President of Germany, there are numerous statements directly from her where she also makes the same claim as the German courts. This is just another non-issue. We've had numerous editors and admins here that have actually INSISTED that we allow Ms. Schwarz's own words defending herself to be included. An author's own words can be used in an article about themselves, especially when there is no claim made by anyone that these words are not in fact her own. And in any case, Ms. Schwarz admitted to the Salt Lake Tribune that she wrote the 92 part autobiographical stories on USENET. Vivaldi (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So what you both are saying is that there is no evidence that she was ever in Scientology except a scan of a supposed court document that exists only on someone's personal website, and her own delusional writings. These are your submissions for WP:RS, then? BabyDweezil 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the evidence convincing. Baby just wants the article deleted and will try every back door method possible to gut the article. Johntex\talk 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the scan of the german court file from the "Vereinsregister" of the "Amtsgericht München" is a forgery? --Tilman 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, who above used the word forgery? But, since you inquired, how would one know without a reasonable doubt that its not a forgery? In addition, this proposed source still runs into this problem in WP:V Any suggestions on how to address it? BabyDweezil 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barbara was president in Germany. So all reliable sources are in German. The policy says that english sources are preferred. Not that other ones are forbidden.
There is an easy way to verify the authenticity. Write to Amtsgericht München, Vereinsregister, Infanteriestrasse 5, 80315 München, Germany, and ask for a "Vereinsregisterauszug" of "Scientology Kirche Deutschland e.V.", Nr. VR6322. Attach 30 Euros to your request. (Don't know the exact fee). --Tilman 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman in the absence of there being a single reliable source in English stating that this subject of an English language Wikipedia article was president of Scientology in Germany, I'm supposed to go to considerable time and expense to conduct original research of the sort you describe? And even if I did, how am I to conclude that the Schwarz listed on that purported document is the same Schwarz who is the subject of this article? This is why we use WP:RS's on Wikipedia, Tilman, and why I've been asking for one—to avoid such conundrums. BabyDweezil 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I can pay you the 30 Euros. Oh, but now I see you're trying a new argument: that Barbara Schwarz from the usenet isn't the Barbara Schwarz from scientology and from the court records! --Tilman 20:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Requesting a court record is not "original research". It is no different than getting a book from a library, or a newspaper article on the WWW. --Tilman 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
How does it prove it's the same Barbara Schwarz? And no, its not the same as getting a book or article. It is using Wikipedia to make a claim thats published, apparently, nowhere else on the entire planet. Tilman, please study WP:RS, because it's getting tedious explaining this over and over. BabyDweezil 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is typical for court records, that they are available only from one court in the entire planet. And it is also typical that corporate agents are formally registered only in one court on the entire planet.
And even if I'd show you 100 documents that she was the president, you'd go to plan B (which you already mentioned), asking me to prove that it is the same person. --Tilman 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't win the argument. The goal posts are constantly moving. There's playing Devil's advocate, and then there's just being argumentative. Dave420 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, asking for a WP:RS is not a "back door method." It's the front gate for editing on Wikipedia. Using unreliable sources and personal websites to establish a faux notoriety, however, seems a back door approach. BabyDweezil 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's this weird obsession with Schwarz all about anyway?

I have noticed that there seems to be on the net some rather disturbing perverse, sexist and hateful obsession with Ms Schwarz on the part of certain fulltime Scientology/cult bashers. Can someone explain what this obsession is all about, and why it needs to be carried over into Wikipedia? I'm not really convinced that these urgent insistences that she is somehow "notable" is the full story. Comments welcome. BabyDweezil 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a great question. What is your obsession with deleting Schwarz? Johntex\talk 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's an honest question. Please resist the temptation to answer honest questions with bashing and please observe WP:NPA. thanks! BabyDweezil 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack. It is an honest question. Please observe WP:NPA yourself and stop projecting onto other people. thanks! Johntex\talk 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the past discussion. And don't forget that this article sortof has the "Fred Bauder Seal of Approval". He deleted it, he restarted it. --Tilman 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means or how it answers my question. Sorry. BabyDweezil 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize, BabyDweezil. This link will explain who User:Fred Bauder is. Anynobody 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't apologizing. BabyDweezil 19:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you threw him off when you said "Sorry". Dave420 11:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Without a full review of Fred's comments and any analysis of same, it is important to note that "this article" did not get any informal seal. What that might be true of is the revision that he last edited and it is a good exercise to take a look at it. I did. --Justanother 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think she is notable, but that is just my personal opinion. That said, I don't think the article should go into detail regarding her personal life. That is an invasion of privacy. She needs to be able to live her life without folks looking over her shoulder. She has published a sort of autobiography online. A link to that is useful, but using most of the material in it in a Wikipedia article is probably not appropriate. There may be more interest from Scientology related users than is appropriate. She has not been actually involved in Scientology for many years. My personal stamp of approval is not really worth much. Deleting the original article and its talk pages was worth something, as we (Jimbo and the community) had determined that biographies of living persons needed to meet minimal standards. The article needs to recount her internet prominence and a basic outline of the basis and nature of her freedom of information requests. These things should be briefly and simply stated. There is ample material on the internet for anyone who wants to look into all the details. Fred Bauder 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred. I presented some suggestions below, that, I think, line up pretty well with your recommendations. Please let us know what you think of them. Thanks. --Justanother 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman--conflict of interest editing this article?

Tilman, given your ongoing battle with the subject of this article, including mutual accusations of libel and other spats, shouldn't you recuse yourself from editing this article per Wikipedia's conflict of interest provisons? They pretty clearly seem to apply. BabyDweezil 21:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it is interesting that BabyDweezil thinks usenet posts are reliable sources when BabyDweezil wants to use them, but not when she doesn't like what they say. Johntex\talk 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a new rule now that only you can use them and I can't? No problem--let's remove them all. BabyDweezil 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am starting to think that you either do not understand or are ignoring the basic fundamentals Wikipedia is based on, BabyDweezil. You have accused editors of violating WP:NPA by simply asking you a fair question. This seems to be a pattern with you as there are similar instances of you citing WP:V and WP:RS on this page and other pages. Here you are accusing Tilman of having a conflict of interest. These possible instances of WP:COI come directly from the article:
  • Financial
  • Lawsuit antagonists
  • Self-promotion
  • Autobiography
  • Close relationships
  • Campaigning
  • Citing oneself
Which of these do you believe applies to Tilman and why? I am not saying Tilman doesn't have a COI issue and I don't mean to assume bad faith on your part. Which is why I am assuming that you are misunderstanding the nature of WP rather than ignoring it. Please understand it is a form of WP:NPA to make accusations you know to be untrue. Anynobody 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The COI seems pretty obvious. Other than that, I see no reason to respond to the rest of your rather abusive accusations and intimations. In the future, please respond to the substantive points I've raised--in this instance, an obvious instance of WP:COI in this article with respect to Tilman, and spare me and this page your condescendingly passive-aggressive speculations on my "misunderstandings." Thank you. BabyDweezil 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, I do not mean to imply any hostility. I am trying to figure out though whether you do actually understand what you are accusing editors of doing. Having read your talk page, I think we can agree that you tend to find yourself in discussions very similar to this one. You seem intelligent, so I have a sneaking suspicion you are ignoring the policies you are accusing others of violating. If I assume my suspicion is correct without giving you an opportunity to prove otherwise; Would not be assuming good faith which we all must do. I have simply asked you to back up your assertion that Tilman is not abiding by WP:COI. If you really think I am attacking you, perhaps we should involve a third party to ensure neutrality? Something tells me it would not be difficult to find someone else to begin a RfC about either this article or your behavior. Anynobody 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman is involved in a nasty, often vicious online dispute with the subject of this article? What, pray tell, are you finding so difficult to see as a conflict of interest there in him editing this article. BabyDweezil 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought you read the archives and past debates regarding this subject before you started editing BabyDweezil, so you must've missed the fact that Ms. Schwarz has had many vicious disputes with various editors here on Wikipedia too. See: User talk:The real Barbara Schwarz and the list of her sock puppets and disputes earlier in this talk page, ::Tilman did not violate COI by just arguing with her. To sum up, Tilman did not commit a COI violation:
  • Financial = Money is not at issue
  • Lawsuit antagonists = Tilman has not made legal threats regarding this issue.
  • Self-promotion = Tilman doesn't look like his/her comments are made to enhance his/her reputation or status.
  • Autobiography = Tilman can't write Ms. Schwarz's autobiography only she can do that.
  • Close relationships = Tilman is no closer to her than anyone else on the internet unless you can prove they know each other offline.
  • Campaigning = Tilman isn't running an organization or campaign designed to turn people against her. If Tilman wanted to do that, he/she could've included a lot more irrelevant but damaging information about Ms. Schwarz from her usenet posts.
  • Citing oneself = Respectfully BabyDweezil you are the only one on this page I saw who might even come close to this criteria, and even then it's not close to what I would call a violation. By referring to your silver tongued eloquence!, if the link were to your blog or journal rather than a picture of Alfalfa it might be argued as a case of Citing oneself. Your answer does make me pretty sure you weren't simply ignoring policy or acting in bad faith. Anynobody 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz has had a "dispute" with about every usenet scientology critic, so by the BabyDweezil logic, all scientology critics should somehow be prohibited to edit here.
I've been careful here - its even me who brought the evidence link, that she was president of scientology Germany. A pro-Barbara fact, after all. --Tilman 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
By the BabyDweezil logic, Wikipedia itself has a CoI: Barbara has threatened to sue Wikipedia, and has called Jimbo a "porn guy". --Tilman 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, you are being disingenuous and trying to make the whole concept of COI meaningless with circular arguments, You have a clear COI on this article, no matter how many attempts to justify it with twisted logical conundrums you attempt to make. BabyDweezil 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason Tilman should be disqualified from editting the article. Johntex\talk 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. BabyDweezil's argument is spurious and his constant edit warring is deplorable. I've protected the article to allow the dispute to be resolved here on the talk page. -- ChrisO 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, ChrisO. Just do a quick Google search of "Barbara Schwarz" and "Tilman" and you will get an indication as to how this pointless article is but an extension of a rather vicious, nasty, sexist and unencyclopedic internet war between this beleagured woman and a cabal of zealous, anti-Scientology editors who feel that their own petty POV-pushing is more important and exalted than trying to ameliorate even just a little bit the emotional distress of this clearly troubled woman, who has pleaded--to no avail against some apparently heartless zealots--to have the article pulled. Using Wikipedia as an extension of a petty, nasty, sexist pissing contest is morally reprehensible. And ChrisO, as an active Scientology critic elsewhere yourself, should you recuse yourself from administrative actions on this page? Your failure to acknowledge that is what might more accurately be called "spurious" than my argument, which clearly derives from Wikipedia policy. BabyDweezil 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is well sourced. But then, you're the one who won't even accept a court record as source.
I also suggest that you stop raising issues that have been settled long ago. This is just a disruption. --Tilman 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, you rather offensive response that these issues "have been settled long ago" and that an editor bringing up questions about this article is "just a disruption" amplifies my contention that you are far too emotionally involved in this article and clearly have a WP:COI that is hindering you from editing it in a non-biased manner and in good faith. BabyDweezil 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, enough of this. Tilman is right in saying that these issues have been discussed at great length before - there have been three unsuccessful AfDs for this article. Second, it's not the fact that you're bringing up questions that's disruptive, it's your persistent edit warring and refusal to listen to others on this talk page. Third, I don't believe that Tilman does have a COI. You are getting no support at all for your claims - I suggest you take the hint and drop it. -- ChrisO 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you cease the threats and acknowledge your own WP:COI as an admin on this page who is also a public anti-Scientology activist. BabyDweezil 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up needed

The below was my response to BabyDweezil's requests that I take a look over here. I think that we, just as human beings, should go through this article and clean it up and make sure that it complies with WP:BLP with only published information from high-quality sources. Who wants to go first? By, the way, that will solve the protection status too, if parties from both sides agree to get this article cleaned up and compliant with WP:BLP.

Anywho, this is just another dirty little corner of Wikipedia that I have not much taken an interest in (of course, I have seen most of her story over the years). I feel bad for her as she is obviously unbalanced and that is sad. Her major "notability" lies in that she is the laughing stock for an insular group of individuals that would publicly mock an unbalanced person. Yeah! The article should be cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD. But first clean it up so we can see what we have. Re Tilman's editing it. Hmmmm, tough call. My quick read of WP:COI would seem to indicate that he might want to stay away from it but, to be honest, so long as he stays very neutral on it (not taking sides in talk debates), I don't see a problem. Of course, I have no idea of how he edits there. --Justanother 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll help --Justanother 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A sus órdenes, as always. BabyDweezil 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As told before to BabyDweezil: read the discussions first. Many editors have gone through this article a few months ago. Start you read to learn why she is notable. Hint: it is not the usenet. --Tilman 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I already know why she is notable, FOIA requests. So the article should not contain much more than that, right? --Justanother 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sourced to reliable sources. BabyDweezil 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I am also still of the opinion that the claim that she was president of Scientology in Germany neeeds a reliable source beyond the document housed on an anti-Scientologist's personal website that is currently used as a source for that claim. A simple statement in a [[[WP:RS]], news artcile or whatever, that notes that the Barbara Schwarz of FOIA note was once President. The document currently used is too iffy. BabyDweezil 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So a newspaper article is more reputable than a court record. Interesting. --Tilman 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in this article that is trivial or non-notable. One should not let their sympathies get in the way of telling the true story. Johntex\talk 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Now tell me why, for instance, her newsgroup activity is notable. And perhaps some WP:RS's indicating that it is notable. And please tell me how using this source is anything other than an attempt to use Wikipedia to mock a troubled human being by publicizing their personal difficulties? BabyDweezil 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very simple. She spends a lot of her life on usenet. Her usenet activity is releavant to her life. Here life is the subject of the article. You make absolutely no improvements to the article. Your agenda is simply to delete. It seems that you want to do this out of a sympathetic, yet misplaced desire not to embarass the subject. If the subject is famous for doing certain things, then of course those things will be featured in their article. You may think those actions do the subject no credit, but that is not the point. Johntex\talk 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to assume good faith with him, especially considering that he's trying to raise issues that have been discussed in all their aspects already. It rather looks like he has some pleasure to "fight" with cult critics. --Tilman 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of either of you providing any reliable sources demonstrating the notability of her usenet postings, and your substituting usenet as a source (prohibited by WP:RS), I can only conclude that there is a personal desire on the part of her opponents to to extend the petty vendettas into Wikipedia. BabyDweezil 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, you appear to not have read WP:RS very carefully. If you look you'll notice that both sections Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet and Self-published sources refer you to WP:V which says:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as

  • it is relevant to their notability; her usenet posts document why she is using FOIA
  • it is not contentious; she (Ms. Schwarz) seems to stand behind them
  • it is not unduly self-serving; I think we can all agree that they are NOT self serving for her.
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; though her posts do involve numerous claims about many things, only her claims relating to FOIA and her experience being forcefully "deprogrammed".
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

does anyone really doubt whether she wrote them? Anynobody 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I pointed this out to BabyDweezil two days ago (see above). He's not listening, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm listening, and quite intently. I'm listening for that WP:RS that demonstrates her usenet posting are notable. Still dont hear it, just a lot of noise resulting from the mental gymnastics you all put yourselves through to justify to yourselves that its notable. Ultimately you'll have to justify it to editors other than those who seem obsessed with using Wikipedia to pile self-serving smears upon troubled people...But keep at it, I am listening! BabyDweezil 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the SLC Tribune article. --Tilman 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO I honestly didn't know if BabyDweezil would understand, but it was worth trying for two reasons. 1. BabyDweezil would understand our point that WP:RS is a guideline for WP:V, especially in this case. 2. If not, then at least two editors will have tried in good faith to explain why we think BabyDweezil is incorrect. Which means we could initiate a WP:RfC on either the article or BabyDweezil's behavior. I don't want to go there though unless there are no other options and there is one more thing I'd like to know. Justanother I noticed that BabyDweezil brought you in to give an outside perspective, so I'm interested if you agree with BabyDweezil about the points ChrisO, Johntex, Tilman, or myself have made about her usenet posts? You appear to agree that her FOIA use makes her noteable. The editors who wrote the article appear to have only used info relevant to her FOIA/Rick Ross experiences. I'm hoping you understand we are not out to make her look bad/crazy/ridiculous. Regrettably the facts of what makes her notable are tied to her beliefs. We are not making light of her illness, and it would be assuming bad faith if you think we are. I think I can speak for all you are accusing, BabyDweezil, by saying we have better things to do than make Barbara Schwartz look bad just for amusement. She has made herself a prominent figure in FOIA history. If she hadn't been so litigious she would not be notable, because there are millions of people out there with unconventional views. Sadly Ms. Schwarz's views make her the first and only person so far to use FOIA this way. Anynobody 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I will need to sleep on it. She is notable, I guess, for being the "informal queen of FOIA requests" but I think that the level of detail here goes well beyond her notability. I really think that if she were not the "whipping boy" for a clique of very active editors here then the fact that she filed a lot of FOIA requests and got a mention in the news would never even show up as a blip on the radar here and she would have no article at all. What does that mean and what do I think her article should look like? I will think about it. I do think this WP:BLP applies

"If someone appears (emphasis added) to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

I think I see material in the article that seems to be pushing an agenda by utilizing non-RS sources (usenet) or primary sources. She is not that notable and some "notability" seems to be being manufactured here. --Justanother 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so that everyone is clear about this, we do not have a blanket ban on using Usenet as a source. WP:V explicitly permits citing Usenet if a set of conditions (as listed by Anynobody above) are met. So please don't push the claim that citing Usenet is impermissible - this simply isn't the case. -- ChrisO 08:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know, we have WP:IAR for POV-admins like yourself to flood articles with their "ïnformation". But, in the spirit and words of WP:RS you would need to find (a) a relible source (not some anti-cult activist BTW) that shows that Usenet postings are notable and (b) a reliable source that demonstrates that the Usenet postings are indeed by Ms. Schwarz. You delivered neither (also, because condition (b) is virtually impossible to fulfill). Fossa?! 12:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that her FOIA history should be discussed, I also agree with you that the article could use some rewording or clarifications. Regarding her FOIA history, some of her ideas do need to be mentioned otherwise a reader is left to guess what she wanted to know so badly. For exmple, compare these three statements,

  • Barbara Schwarz has filed more FOIA requests than anyone in the United States.
  • Barbara Schwarz has filed more FOIA requests than anyone in the United States. She has done this in an effort to confirm her memory of being born and living in a private submarine base in the Great Salt Lake. She also requested information to prove that she is the daughter of L Ron Hubbard and granddaughter of General Dwight Eisenhower, as well as information regarding someone named Marty Rathburn is being incarcerated after being convicted of her murder. (Someone other than the Scientologist, because obviously he wasn't convicted of killing Barbara Schwarz).
  • Barbara Schwarz has filed more FOIA requests than anyone in the United States. She has done this in an effort to confirm her memory of being born and living in a private submarine base in the Great Salt Lake. She also requested information to prove that she is the daughter of L Ron Hubbard and granddaughter of General Dwight Eisenhower, as well as information regarding someone named Marty Rathburn is being incarcerated after being convicted of her murder. Ms. Schwarz has also been arrested for trespassing at the White House, disorderly conduct in a Washington D.C. restaurant, and shoplifting.

The first statement does not provide enough information, but is accurate. The second statement includes only the information Ms. Schwarz sued for. It is also accurate and complete in explaining why she made so many FOIA requests. The third statement is also accurate, but includes information that is irrelevant to explain her FOIA situation. I don't see anything like statement number three in the article regarding her FOIA notability. Which part of the article is using manufactured notability? The Cyril Vosper incident seems notable too for several reasons revolving around the controversy that approach has generated. The section about her usenet activity explains why she wrote her biography there.

I did want to ask ChrisO if we could change the title section about her conspiracy theories to something more like Barbara Schwarz's Beliefs. Conspiracy theory does have a bit of a biased tone, in my opinion. Anynobody 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objection to this change - go for it. -- ChrisO 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Having a section on her "beliefs" is simply ridiculous. Where is there a WP:RS indicating her beliefs or theories are of any note? And the explanation your about to give (I hear the wheels spinning) that its necessary because it "explains" why she did what she did is absurd. Are we all psychiatrists now explaining why people do what they do? Where is the evidence that she is acting out of those beliefs, or any beliefs? This is yet another excuse to pile more totally non WP:RS nonsense into the article to portray this unfortunate woman in a bad light simply because some editors have some sort of infantile grudge. BabyDweezil 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You should not call her a "conspiracy theorist" in an article.
Her beliefs is what triggered her FOIA carpet bombing and her usenet activity.
As said several times, read the SLC Tribune article. --Tilman 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither would I, in the spirit of WP:NPOV. I see it was BabyDweezil who added it [15] --Tilman 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No Tilman, I didnt "add it", I substituted the heading for the even more ridiculous "Relationship with the Church of Scientology" heading it previously had, since there was NOTHING in the section indicating a "relationship" with the CoS. So please don't twist my edit histories to make a case for your extreme biases--unlike the poor woman you helped get banned defending herself against your online persecutions, I can defend myself. All the information the reader needs is in the "FOIA Requests and Litigation History" section. The rest, of course, is just there for those of you who feel mocking troubled people in Wikipedia to enhance your petty squabbles is more important than WP:BLP.BabyDweezil 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You added it. Calling her ideas "conspiracy theories" is making fun of her. While this may be ok in a discussion, it is not in an article, which should be in a neutral tone.
Again (4), read the SLC Tribune article. The journalist made an excellent job in presenting her without making fun of her. --Tilman 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, spare me your faux concern for neutrality. And consult a dictionary for the difference between" "added" and "substituted." And my substitution was necessary since my editing out of the non WP:RS material was reverted. BabyDweezil 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
BD, lets get this clear - if the words were not there before and you put them there - you added the words. It's very simple. Johntex\talk 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality check: Do you really believe that anyone outside anti-cult circles, who reads the entire "debate" here would not figure your demagoguery? Most people do understand elementary logic and can figure out the distinction between "adding" and "substituting". Fossa?! 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL. Demagogy, I should have known better, is, of course, an abstruse elaboration of the concept of "demagogy". So, please don't cick and instead refer to Merriam Webster.Fossa?! 18:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of your statement. I myself am not in any "anti-cult" circle, so your post does not even apply to me. However, you may want to see my response to BD's sarcastic section below. Johntex\talk 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Public service announcement for those apparently unable to access a dictionary...

Addition: noun: the act of adding one thing to another. Added: adjective: combined or joined to increase in size or quantity or scope. Substituted: Exchanged; put in the place of another. This Public service announcement brought to you by BabyDweezil 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You are being incivil with this type of sarcastic post. I caution you to avoid this sort of trollish behavior or you will be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. Your logic, by the way, is flawed. Just becuase the word "substituted" could apply, that does not mean that it is the only word that could apply. If you take a house with garden and you cut into the garden to build a garage, then you have added a garage. Yes, you substituted it for the garden, but you still added the garage. If you tear out a bedroom to add a garage, you still added a garage. The words you put into the article were not there before, therefore you added them. Johntex\talk 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Your dispute is with a number of dictionaries, not me. Houses, gardens and garages notwithstanding I clearly substituted a heading, and did not add one. BabyDweezil 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two points here. The first is whether the word "added" applies. It does. Words have more than one dictionary meaning. For instance "something joined onto or used with something else."[16] and "to include"[17]. The second is your level of sarcasm and incivility, which I notice you decided not to adress in your post. Johntex\talk 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Again you are contradicting the dictionary (it is widely accepted that words have different meanings depending on usage), but that's your prerogative. As to the second point, I was attempting to be civil and humorous and foreshorten a pointless debate by supplying the dictionary definitions, but apparently that was to no avail. However, I continue to stand by the dictionary definitions, so you might want to address further disagreements to the publishers of any of the dictionaries quoted. BabyDweezil 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you look at my links? I am quoting dictionary definitions. They support my assertion that the word "added" was a proper description. To your second point, I think your brand of humor is not helpful. I suggest you stick to the issues and avoid further attempts at levity. I believe phrases like "...for those apparently unable to access a dictionary..." are insulting, not humorous. Johntex\talk 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously my brand of humor is not useful, and I guess its not going to foreshorten a discussion, so I will explain. If I "added" the subhead, Johntex, what did I add it to? If you say I added it to that subhead, that's not true, because I clearly replaced that subhead. If you say I added it to the article, thats clearly inaccurate, because it implies I accepted what was there and made an addition to it without significantly altering what was there. False again, and improper usage. Why does this matter? Because by saying I "added" it, Tilman is obfuscating the history of those edits, which is that I first challenged that entire non WP:RS section, and when that was reverted, I changed what I noted twice in my edit summaries was a strong disagreement with the subhead that I replaced, rather than added to. So in fact, Johntex, Tilman's implication that I am some butterheaded editor who "adds" things and then complains about them later is what's insulting. BabyDweezil 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's suggestions

Intro section

  • Expand to two paragraphs. Extremely early mention of her past position with the church is POV and agenda-push. That is not notable (there are lots of staff in Scn, and in other churches too). The intro should be like:

    "Barbara Schwarz is a German national living in the United States that achieved a level of notoriety as the "informal queen of FOIA requests". She . . . (some detail of FOIA).

    Schwarz is a former head of the (CoS detail) and in (year) was the victim of (deprogramming details). Her FOIA requests are based on her stated beliefs that (delusion details).

1 FOIA Requests and Litigation History

  • The main notable part of the article and should remain

2 Schwarz' Conspiracy Theories

  • Non-notable and overdone. Delusional people have delusions. They are not notable. Deserving of a mention in the lead only.

3 Deprogramming

  • Notable but can be covered by a line in the intro section

4 Newsgroup activity

  • Not notable. There are lots of kooks on usenet and lots of heavy posters and, I am sure, that lots of people get barred from library computers for misuse of them. Not notable POV-push.
I cannot agree. Barbara Schwarz's abuse of the internet and of the Usenet is a notable fact, particularly in light of her legal threats against Wikipedia, and her repeated attempts to continue to edit Wikipedia via a battery of sockpuppets after being banned. Barbara Schwarz has initiated smear campaigns against Wikipedia, Jim Wales, Fred Bader, and other Wikipedia editors by abusing the internet. Also, she has violated the privacy of other Wikipedia editors, and made unwelcome research into their private lives. Schwarz's ban from the Salt Lake Library's internet access is the result of her abuse of the Usenet, and the original citation is the article was discussed [18] prior to being added. It is not a POV push to state the fact that Schwarz was banned from the use of the Salt Lake Library's internet access after she abused it. For the purpose of this discussion only, it is worth noting Schwarz is the recipient of several kook "awards" as voted upon by posters to the Usenet in alt.usenet.kooks, who recognize abusers of the internet - not those who are merely heavy posters to the Usenet - in this manner. However for the purpose of the article, I do believe that Schwarz's Alt Usenet Kook Awards for Kook Of The Month and Golden Killfile Awards in May 2003 should not be mentioned in it. Including those awards would be reduce the article to tabloid journalism; making a NPOV statement about her banishment from internet access at the Library does not. Orsini 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While I would like agreement on my above points, the main thing is agreement that I want to see the article improved and am more than willing to work with other editors to do so. This is just to let you know what I see. --Justanother 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was stable before BD came in. Nothing should be deleted, it is all relevant to why she is notable. Read the SLC Tribune article. (5)
Language like "informal queen of FOIA requests" is not appropriate. --Tilman 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not the only editor on wikipedia, Tilman. BD's ideas of what this article should look like are as valid as yours. I think "pristine version" is mentioned somewhere in policy to describe statements like "This article was stable before BD came in", and the mention is not a good one. That "queen" term is mentioned is RS. It can be used a bit less bluntly though, so sure. --Justanother 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a WP:RS that she was the head of Scn in Germany? The document currently being used as a source doesnt seem to be sufficient, and I don't see that fact being noted in the news coverage. BabyDweezil 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this yesterday. Remember? --Tilman 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't know about yesterday but I would put it in if true and tag it "cn". --Justanother 17:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
sigh. It is sourced. It is an official court document. I have even offered 30 Euros to BD so that he can request his very own, private copy. Then he came up with a new idea - that it is a different Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, what is that German form anyway? --Justanother 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The document appears to be an extract from a "Vereinsregister", a register of companies. Check out row 10, which lists Schwarz as the "Präsident" of the Scientology Kirche Deutschland. -- ChrisO 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. While I am not disputing that she may have been the president (I have no idea) surely you can see that offering that as "proof" that the Schwarz referenced here as the subject of this article is one and the same the person mentioned on that form; offering that as "proof" is just ridiculous and BD's objection is well-founded. I get 7201 Schwarz just from switchboard.com and 29 Barbara Schwarz from intelius and that is just a partial sampling of the US. There are likely a couple hundred "Barbara Schwarz" in Germany and Europe. It just needs a better source. That is all. --Justanother 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'd call it a corroboration. Schwarz has said repeatedly in her Usenet posts (again, nobody disputes their authenticity) that she held this post from 1982 to 1984. The Salt Lake Tribune article refers to her membership of Scientology in Germany and her claim to have been "kicked out in the mid-1980s" - note that the timeframe fits. So we have two sources, Schwarz herself and the register, saying that she was the President of the CoS in Germany at this time. -- ChrisO 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Big diff between being a kicked-out member and being the president. Maybe she just shared a name? I don't know; all I am saying is that there seem to be very reasonable doubt. --Justanother 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How is it possibly a "corroboration?" (corroboration: noun: confirmation that some fact or statement is true). The SLC Tribune article says She describes herself as a "nonorganized" scientologist who was "kicked out" of the church in Germany in the mid-1980s. So she apparently never told the paper she was "president." As to her usenet postings, you can't possibly be saying that, given this whole discussion about the veracity of her claims, that this is to be taken as "corroboration."? BabyDweezil 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry Justanother - I appreciate your time and energy in making suggestions but by and large I don't think your suggestions are improvements to the article. Her conspiracy theories are certainly notable. So are her usenet posts. Possibly including the "queen" thing would be OK but I think unless that nickname was in very general usage it would need to be cited to a specific source: X called her the "queen of puclic information requests" or whatever the quote was. Johntex\talk 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, we can cross those bridges after the article is unprotected. --Justanother 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought you wanted to take the opportunity to discuss things here while the article is protected? Johntex\talk 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Why bother, you blew them all off without discussion or support for your opinion that her "conspiracy theories are certainly notable. So are her usenet posts." --Justanother 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I too would like to thank you for your good faith opinion, you do a good job of expressing your opinion in a civil spirit. Respectfully though, how do you reconcile removing all information about her "conspiracy theories"? I agree with your belief that this is not the forum to list all of her thoughts and ideas about everything she wrote about in her posts, doing so would hold her up to ridicule for no reason. I truly regret that her reasons for pursuing FOIA requests so aggressively are driven by ideas that many people find ridiculous. The fact remains that those ideas directly related to her FOIA requests need careful mentioning. I've been trying to point out that if we wanted to make a POV argument about her sanity there is A LOT more we could have added to the article. For example Ms. Schwarz talks about waitresses and police conspiring with secret Nazi agents to get her thrown in jail for not ordering enough food. This idea is just as ridiculous as the idea that she is related to Hubbard or Eisenhower, but to my knowledge she hasn't filled FOIA requests about it. Therefore mentioning it in the article itself would be pushing a POV. BabyDweezil I was under the impression you were looking to defend Ms. Schwarz from ridicule, but now I'm noticing your points seem to focus on her links with Scientology. Are you concerned about "anti-cultists" using her to somehow disparage Scientology? Speaking for myself, I have no interest in making a link between Barbara Schwarz and Scientology in order to make Scientology look bad. Again, if we were looking for a "poster child" against Scientology there are much better candidates out there. Jeremy Perkins comes to mind, also Lisa McPherson. Actually if you are trying to defend Scientology I would have thought you would support the article, since she has sued the church too for unusual information. Anynobody 21:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the props. If I sometimes seem a bit "quick on the draw" you have to understand where I got my "education" here. Kinda like a fellow learning to play b-ball in a prison yard and then moving to a neighborhood pick-up game; if I think that someone is fouling me then the elbow comes back kinda quick. Sorry. I really do not care about her Scn connection except where it is the lead-in to the article when it is far from what makes her "notable". That placement is agenda. But that is OK, I think that we have a nice mix here and can do right by Ms. Schwarz. --Justanother 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What more is possibly needed than to say she has filed requests about the man she says is her husband; Dwight Eisenhower; L. Ron Hubbard; and the Church of Scientology, claiming she is the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower, with a link to the RELIABLE sources if anyone wants to read more? Again, Schwarz is mildly notable for filing the requests, she is not the least bit notable for her beliefs, which don't warrant any more mention than the above.
Here's what Jimmy wales sez--""Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Anything beyond the sufficient information above is simply cruel, voyeuristic abuse of this article's barely notable subject, and self-serving to those who wish to see her misfortunes more publicly known. BabyDweezil 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil your statement: What more is possibly needed than to say she has filed requests about the man she says is her husband; Dwight Eisenhower; L. Ron Hubbard; and the Church of Scientology, claiming she is the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower, with a link to the RELIABLE sources if anyone wants to read more? Again, Schwarz is mildly notable for filing the requests, she is not the least bit notable for her beliefs, which don't warrant any more mention than the above. confuses me because that's pretty much what the article said. When I say belief, I mean her belief that she is related to Hubbard etc. I wasn't referring to her spiritual or religious beliefs, and apologize if that's what you thought I meant. I don't think anyone is arguing that we include intricate details of her beliefs about Scientology, except those that apply to her FOIA/lawsuit notability. (She believes that the Nazi infiltrated church is "hiding" information about his whereabouts and sued it. Her suit was dismissed, and the article even included a quote from a Scientologist regarding the issue.) I'm tired so I might be misunderstanding you, so is anyone else confused by BabyDweezil's statement? Anynobody 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good so then we agree--what I wrote above can basically constitute the article.BabyDweezil 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
BD said, "What more is possibly needed than to say she has filed requests about the man she says is her husband; Dwight Eisenhower; L. Ron Hubbard; and the Church of Scientology, claiming she is the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower, with a link to the RELIABLE sources if anyone wants to read more?". If you will take a look at the article, all of the information you are wanting to delete is what more there is to be said. Johntex\talk 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "president of Scientology" claim

WP:BLP seems pretty clear about the inadequacies in the current sourcing of this claim here.:
Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source.
So the purported court document would seem allowable only if the claim that she was "President of Scientology" had been reported in a secondary source. In the absence of such a secondary source, we shouldnt say anything beyond what is in the secondary sources, namely "She describes herself as" a former member who was thrown out of Scientology. BabyDweezil 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been reported by Ingo Heinemann, who is an attorney and a well known scientology expert in Germany. So no problem. --Tilman 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In what reliable secondary source has it been reported? BabyDweezil 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Asked and answered on 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC). --Tilman 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is sufficient that secondary sources have established she had a link to Scientology. The primary sources can then be used to elaborate on that fact. It is not proper to expect the secondary sources to list every detail about the relationship. If they did, then the primary sources wouldn't be needed. Johntex\talk 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
But there is no source shown that says she was the president of CoS. Just that someone with the same not uncommon name was. --Justanother 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's review the evidence, shall we? Barbara Schwarz is German and was a Scientologist - both established facts. She says that she was president of the German CoS in the early-mid 1980s. Her testimony is a primary source. Verifying that testimony, we have documentary evidence from another primary source (the court document) which says that Barbara Schwarz was president of the German CoS at this time. Occam's Razor suggests that the documented Schwarz and "our" Schwarz are in fact the same person. We would otherwise have to postulate a theory that "our" Schwarz has for some unknown reason taken on the identity of the documented Schwarz, complete with detailed accounts of what she did during this period. That's a textbook example of original research ("a novel narrative or historical interpretation" - WP:OR), to say nothing of ignoring Occam's Razor. WP:BLP says explicitly that "information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if [i]t meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies." In this case, we have information from Schwarz that she was president of the German CoS, and we can verify this with German public records from the period in question. -- ChrisO 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Like, I say, I really don't care one way or the other. If she was then she was. I just find it interesting that we take her word, of all people, that she once headed up the German church. And the only supporting evidence is a possibly totally unrelated document. Maybe it is "common knowledge" amoung ARS devotees but I just wonder what exists that passes any possible test that this project might have for inclusion (other that the ubiquitous WP:IAR, of course). --Justanother 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP is pretty clear. "where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source." It hasn't. It doesn't say you can substitute iffy, murky, sources for a verifiable second source. If its not notable enough to have EVER been reported in a reliable secondary source, why are some editors so obsessed with insisting it goes in the article? I don't get it. BabyDweezil 05:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Asked and answered. --Tilman 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that besides Hubbard, the CoS doesn't seem to post records about former leaders in the U.S. (I assume CoS in Germany operates in a similar way.) In fact if you just went by what the church says on their site, there wasn't even a guy named Rathbun either going by Mark or Marty in a top position within the CoS. (A search I performed on their site for "Rathbun" met with 0 results.) In the interest of compromise, perhaps the article could say something like:

  • Ms. Schwarz claims to have been elected President of the Munich Scientology org in the 80's. Though evidence of this is questionable by some, the CoS has not disputed this claim. Anynobody 08:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It is only questionable by one person, namely BabyDweezil. There is no need to compromise with someone who came in two days ago just for disrupting.
    • Rathbun has been removed some time ago, see his own article. --Tilman 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly. Next, BabyDweezil could argue that there could be many different Barbara Schwarz persons: (rem unsourced derog per WP:BLP) All different Barbaras, per BabyDweezil logic. --Tilman 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am confident that Barbara really was the president of the German CoS. This statement has been in the article all along and she has never disputed it. On the other hand I do wonder how notable that position is. How many members does the German CoS have? Maybe a few thousand? And how powerful can the position of president be if the members can kick that person out? -the real Steve Dufour 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am confident it shouldn't go in the article without a reliable source. BabyDweezil 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I have no prob with the claim remaining even though the sourcing is sketchy. It is to her credit that she held that post. I wonder what happened. Did she snap after the attempted "deprogramming"? Re notability, please see my suggestion for placement. Thanks --Justanother 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few thousands members. In german non profits, the managers are formally decided by a vote. The question whether this "vote" is a sham or not, is beyond the scope of this article :) The fact is, Barbara Schwarz was the german Nr. 1 for a short time. Like Bill Franks in the US, until Miscavige kicked him out. --Tilman 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I too believe she was president of the German CoS. My position is that even though Justanother may have a point about the information we have being sketchy it still bears including for a couple of reasons beyond the valid points Tilman, Steve Dufour, ChrisO, and Johntex have already mentioned. Reading up on Scientology, they don't seem to be the type to suffer a person making written and verbal statements like she has. If she HADN'T been president, and they knew nobody could prove otherwise, it seems like they could (and would) sue for libel and slander. Tilman do you speak German? If so would you mind looking at this rough draft of my translation efforts on the Germon CoS document?original. The translations Google gives are making me wonder if I'm getting all the äüß characters right. Anynobody 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, time to recuse yourself per WP:COI

Tilman, first you should removed the hostile non-sourced statements and rants you've made above about this article's subject per WP:BLP, which instructs that such abusive unsourced material be removed from talk pages. I would suggest per WP:COI, you excuse yourself from this article, since your statement above shows you simply csnnot remain objective, and in fact, you are seething with hostility against the article's subject. BabyDweezil 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You've made this argument before. It didn't get better this time. --Tilman 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, please remove your 15-point rant against Ms Schwarz you posted above or I will, per WP:BLP.BabyDweezil 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely inappropriate per WP:BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages (emphasis added), and user pages.

And Tilman, does this speak to the fact that you are perhaps invested too heavily in Schwarz and may want to lay off this article? --Justanother 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The text is sourced per her 92-part series. She has described her arrests, her being put into different mental institutions, and her deprogramming. That is the problem of you two: you want to edit here, but know next to nothing about the subject. Thus, you call someone who knows about the topic, "perhaps invested too heavily in Schwarz"? Amusing. --Tilman 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And, with all due respect Tilman, your problem is that you know too much about the subject You are like a neighbor fighting another neighbor and trying to score points by listing their foibles on wikipedia. That is why you should recluse yourself. You cannot seem to distinquish between what is RS (high quality sources) for making derogatory statements about her here and what is not. That is why "less-knowledgable" editors should probably take the lead here. Her Usenet "bio" is not a source for you to justify posting derogs about her! End of story. --Justanother 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
With that logic, you should not edit scientology articles, since 1) you have said that you are a scientologist :-)
2) you'd obviously not want this article to exist: the tragic life of german scientology President Barbara Schwarz does not look good for scientology.
Something is "derogatory" only if it is false. I did not write anything false; what I wrote is supported by Barbara herself. (It has also been mentioned by Fred Bauder somewhere) I did not even use it against her; it was to make a point against BD's argument that there might be several Barbara's.
So put my discussion contribution back in. You had no right to delete it. (I'd do it myself, but I'm too lazy) --Tilman 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Re my editing Scn articles: I have not lost my perspective.
Re the existence of this article: you reveal your agenda (or at least part of it).
Re the meaning the word "derogatory": you have a total MU misunderstood word there (misunderstood word) and, IMO, that MU misunderstood word is why you are misapplying WP:BLP. Please look up the word "derogatory". It does not mean what you think it does.
Please do not use such scientology expressions in an argument unless it is about a scientology article. As a non-scientologist and scientology critic, I consider this offensive and a violation of my religious freedom. --Tilman 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
oy vey. BabyDweezil 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Re putting it back: how can I, it is blatant WP:BLP vio. --Justanother 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I pulled it. I think Tilman left about an hour ago. BLP requires immediate removal. Thanks for pointing that out, BD. --Justanother 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Put it back in. --Tilman 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, guys. According to what you're saying, if Tilman ever dislikes anything anyone adds to his article, all he has to do to get them removed as an editor is to pick a fight with them. Then, because he chose to embroil himself and the other editor in that dispute, that editor is now burdened with a "conflict of interest" and expected to recuse him or herself -- not because he or she did anything wrong, but merely because Tilman started a fight and thereby created a new "interest" which could should not be allowed to edit any articles regarding psychiatry? Miscavige identified one of the two goals of the Church of Scientology as "to eliminate psychiatry in all its forms", that sure sounds like a humdinger of a conflict of interest to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman has a serious COI on this article, evidenced by his unrestrained and apparently uncontrollable urges to vent his hostility towards the article's subject, and his unyielding efforts to control the content. That's what's being said. You're free to extrapolate whatever hypothetical ramifications you like, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is Tilman's behavior here. BabyDweezil 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. That is indeed a clarification. So, all I have to do to get you removed from any article whatsoever is make vague but thunderous accusations that you are "full of hostility towards the article's subject". It will also help if, in place of any sort of facts, I use lots of "un-" adjectives: unrestrained, uncontrollable, unyielding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! But one small thing you're leaving out, effendi. You would also have to demonstrate that, like Tilman, I've been involved in a vicious, cruel, mutually hateful internet battle with the hypothetical article's subject over years outside of Wikipedia. Ya dig? So go right ahead and demonstrate how I meet those conditions and feel free to show me the Wiki-door. BabyDweezil 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
why would I have to demonstrate it? All I have to do is allege it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've demonstrated it with respect to Tilman. But do whatever you like. BabyDweezil 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not been involved in a "vicious, cruel, mutually hateful" battle with Barbara. Show me where I did something "vicious, cruel, hateful against her". --Tilman 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A number of links to your nasty fights and cruel comments have been posted above. BabyDweezil 08:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What you posted showed rather that Barbara was attacking me, not that I had been "nasty" or "cruel". Barbara has been attacking about every scientology critic on a.r.s., so what? --Tilman 09:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil you appear to be harassing Tilman and disrupting this article, I have added an incident report here. Anynobody 08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

His behaviour is quite annoying. Although I believe that he's having some sort of fun doing this. The whole CoI allegation is ridiculous. If taken till the end, the logic is that nobody should edit a topic she/he cares about. --Tilman 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
AFAIS almost everyone here is harrasing BD (and nobody gives a fuck about WP:RS and other WP policies, why should he be friendly to the bunch of POV pushers, which is congregating here? Fossa?! 15:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is that your perception isn't shared by neutral parties. There have been a lot of comments from other uninvolved editors expressing concern at BD's behaviour (see WP:AN/I#WikiStalking and blind reverting by Smeelgova) - SlimVirgin sums it up when she says that he "seems unable to write neutrally, is very aggressive, and can be very insulting to other editors." BD would be best advised to think about how he comes across to others, rather than posing as a martyr. -- ChrisO 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral parties?!?!? LOL. As Gov Schwarzenegger sez, "Dats a gut one" LOL. BabyDweezil 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Schwarz' Conspiracy Theories"

I think this title should be changed. For one thing we are not psychiatrists who can diagnose for sure that Barbara's opinions constitute a "conspiracy theory". Besides that there should be an "s" after her name. Steve Dufour 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This was done by BabyDweezil [19] and goes against the spirit of NPOV. See also my comment on 14:19, 15 February 2007 about this. --Tilman 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let editing resume...

I've unprotected the article and substantially modified it following the comments that have been made on this talk page (well, the useful comments, at least). See what you all think of the revised version. -- ChrisO 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You should change the word "claims" to something else, per WP:WTA :-) --Tilman 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me ChrisO, thanks. Anynobody 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsgroup activity restored

The portion of the article relating to Schwarz's abuse of the Usenet and the internet has been restored. Orsini 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it's not directly relevant to the subject of the article. Schwarz is notable because of her (mis)use of FOIA. Her beliefs are relevant because they explain why she has (mis)used the FOIA. Her banning from the Salt Lake City Public Library isn't relevant, because it has no bearing on her dealings with the FOIA. Please leave it out - as Fred Bauder says above, "I don't think the article should go into detail regarding her personal life. That is an invasion of privacy." -- ChrisO 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris, I do not agree with your reasons for its removal. The subject of the article is Barbara Schwarz, not an article about FOIA abuses. Therefore Barbara Schwarz's banning from the Library for internet abuse is entirely relevant to the subject of the article. As Schwarz was banned from the use of the Library's internet access for abuse of the internet, I do not see how the inclusion of these facts transgresses boundaries of privacy or unfairly intrudes into her personal life. It is a matter of public record that Schwarz was removed from library access due to the abuse of those facilities. If citing of Schwarz's abuse of the internet is a violation of privacy, it could be argued that the spammer Alan Ralsky's article must also intrude unfairly on his personal life - which would also be improper. Barbara Schwarz's abuse of the internet is mentioned on the Abusive Host Blocklist pages and is thus part of her notability, and is therefore noteworthy. Please also note that internet abuse and spamming activites are mentioned in Scientology versus the Internet and Schwarz's ban from the Salt Lake library's internet is a reflection of the results of following this scientology policy. Fred has also stated above that The article needs to recount her internet prominence and a basic outline of the basis and nature of her freedom of information requests. (emphasis added). For these reasons, I think this section on newsgroup activity should be restored, and ask that you restore it. Orsini 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, and I am disappointed that ChrisO removed this without discussing it first, thus making it a "stealth" delete, hidden by the rewrite.
Barbara's internet abuse isn't a private matter, she has mentioned it herself often, and has forwarded the details for publication. She has also attacked Nancy Tessmann publicly. --Tilman 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The lines "Schwarz has become well-known for her activity on Usenet where she has posted extensively to newsgroups, particularly alt.religion.scientology. She has posted her life story in 92 installments" are redundant. I've already said much the same thing in the biographical section and pointed to the relevant Google Groups link, the idea being that if you want more info about Schwarz, here it is. As for the ban from the SLC Library, why is it notable? People abuse library facilities all the time, and some get banned for it - but why is this inherently notable? Regarding Orsini's comments that her behaviour is "following this scientology policy", I find this hard to believe considering that she's not even a member of the CoS and (as far as I know) doesn't claim to be acting on its behalf. The claim seems to be unsupported speculation, which I'm afraid makes it original research. -- ChrisO 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
People don't "abuse library facilities all the time". Barbara Schwarz is the first case I've EVER heard. And being listed on AHBL is an element of notalibity. It even resulted in the library temporary getting blacklisted, for failing to stop her spamming.
While the question whether she is acting on behalf of scientology is indeed OR, so I am not asking it to be put back, but - FYI: she has posted about changes on RFW before others even noticed them, and had a WWW account with a scientologist provider for a long time. And after being kicked off the library, she suddenly had an internet account, a computer and a phone. --Tilman 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris, in response to you and adding to Tilman's comments with which I concur:
1. The article states [Schwarz] describes herself as a "nonorganized" Scientologist. While she may not be officially a member of scientology, by reason of describing herself as still retaining this philosphy, it is not unreasonable to expect that she would also still seek to further the objectives of scientology - which means following its policy. For example, one does not need to shave one's head or join the KKK to follow Nazi Party policy and to further its objectives.
2. I agree with you that by stating Schwarz is acting on behalf of the scientology organization itself is indeed speculation and OR, however her practice of following the doctrines or policies of scientology is not. I was not suggesting or implying any such statement should be included in the article; I was explaining the rationale for my assertation as to why the original deleted section should be restored intact. As Tilman has stated above re RFW, a new phone line and computer etc: it is widely speculated she is in the employ of scientology, but speculations have no place in the article.
3. To clarify Tilman's point re Barbara Schwarz's ban from the Salt Lake Library: her access to the internet there was banned specifically due to her abuse of the internet, not to a genaralized abuse of library facilities. Chris, while I agree with you that it is not uncommon for persons to be banned from library facilities for abuse of privileges, it is most uncommon and therefore notable that a State institution's internet IP addresses was blocklisted due to their non-response in dealing with the abusive activities of one client - and a non-employee at that. As Tilman states, this makes a very notable and very rare example of library policy enforcement.
4. You have stated the section covering her autobiography published on the Usenet is included in the article. However I think the current inaccurate section dealing with her biography should be moved into the restored Newsgroup Activity subheading with its original text, thus removing this redundancy. The aticle currently states: During 2004, she posted a 92-part account of her life on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology... This statement is inaccurate, as those articles were written over a period of several years, from 2002 onwards. Orsini 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now Barbara is no longer a german citizen, despite a court saying she is one. [20] --Tilman 10:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tilman for spotting another inaccuracy in this revision. Please also note Super7's edit of 13:29, 2006 September 18 (dual citizenship is a red herring), regarding the legal position of dual citizenship and Germany. Orsini 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Better

The article is looking much better. Thanks to all involved. --Justanother 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you too. Anynobody 04:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It just goes to show that assuming good faith and editing cooperatively is the best way to get results. Here endeth the lesson. ;-) -- ChrisO 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Never said otherwise. --Justanother 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an fyi, I split the sentence describing her basic beliefs into two sentences. I think it still conveys the same message but reads better with less "and"s. Anynobody 04:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that the article seems to feel a need to repeat her delusions novel ideas in every single section which seems to me a bit much. For example, her otherwise unsupported "ideas" can hardly be called "Biographical material" without further support. Why not just mention them in the lead and, somewhere else, spell them out to the extent required to provide support for the rest of the article. Otherwise it seems to be an effort to hold her up to scorn unnecessarily. --Justanother 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not supposed to evaluate the accuracy of her claims, just their relevance to the rest of the article. I left in the bare minimum of her autobiographical claims, as they provide necessary context for her FOIA campaign. She believes that the US government is holding information on her because they apparently own the secret submarine base where she was born; she also believes that she's entitled to relief because she's a US citizen (or at least thinks she is); and her belief that she's married to Mark Rathbun is obviously central to the whole campaign. I don't think it's necessary to include the rest of her many claims but these three points provide an essential element of background to explain her reasons. -- ChrisO 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship and birth?

It might be worth mentioning that she was born/raised in Germany for several reasons. From a FOIA angle the CIA declined/ignored her requests because she is not a U.S. citizen. I think she appealed saying that she was trying to prove she was born in the U.S. and it's not fair to refuse her FOIA requests when they will prove she was born in the U.S. (If they existed of course.) It also seems relevant because the more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that the FOIA doesn't really apply to foreign nationals.

Moreover, during the last couple of years in the states there has been a lot of debate about illegal immigration and how they may be draining government resources. Many people equate "illegal immigrant" with latino immigrants. As Ms. Schwarz proves, one need not be from Mexico to be an illegal immigrant. Anynobody 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, please note this issue has been discussed before. In summary:
1. Barbara Schwarz is a German citizen, as she has often stated she holds a German birth certificate (citations are in this Talk page's archives).
2. 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 her contention that she knows she is a United States citizen because she remembers being born in the United States. Her memories do not meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). Please also note she was attempting to obtain files from governmental departments who deal with issues of national security at the time.
3. Her actual immigration status in the United States is uncertain. Thus, it cannot be stated in the article that she resides in the United States illegally until there is evidence of this.
4. It is possible that similar arrangements were made for her as was done in the case of Antje Victore [[21]] but this is only speculation, and speculations don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Orsini 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to have stupidity as an explanation. The DHS is rather looking for hispanics and middle-east people to deport. Bavarian Germans aren't the typical illegal immigrants in the US :-)
According to the SLC Tribune, she is an illegal; however, this can't be added here, since this was the "cause" of Fred Bauder's appearance last year. --Tilman 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Orsini I have indeed read the past discussions, however my point does not appear to be addressed in way that answers all my questions. To your point, speculation and OR must be avoided of course. However, we do know her status as she has admitted it herself and has been pointed out by the government. To understand why I feel confident in making that assurance, let me explain, a little about how the CIA operates. As we both pointed out, she was denied info from them. This is indeed for strict security reasons but only because the CIA like all intel agencies, doesn't share ANY information with non U.S. citizens. If I were to write them regarding the same issue, as a US citizen I would probably get a reply indicating that the CIA doesn't deal with matters like familial relationships of US citizens. It simply isn't their job, and they are actually limited by law regarding operations on U.S. soil. The CIA's mandate is foreign intelligence collection, keeping track of intelligence matters her in the US are the people of the FBI's counter-intelligence division. If they (the CIA) felt helpful, they would probably refer me to the FBI for the kind of info she is asking for.
Respectfully, Orsini if the federal courts of the U.S. say a person is not a U.S. citizen shouldn't we AGF on their part? As you pointed out, her memory of being born in the U.S. didn't prove otherwise. To quote the ruling:
  • "Ms. Schwarz is a German citizen who seeks records from the Central Intelligence Agency..." and
  • "Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, we take judicial notice of the fact Ms. Schwarz is a German citizen and are unpersuaded by her contention that she knows she is a United States citizen because she remembers being born here."
There is other information indicating her status, in one of the articles about her, most likley the SLC Tribune, she mentioned how the government could throw her out of the country if they wanted to. I also read the very good summary you made of her USENET posts, she admits arriving in 1989 on a visitation visa. If I remember correctly, when she was arrested one time, she expected the judge to "give her papers" to get citizenship and instead she ended up being sent to a state mental hospital. Unless a person is going to school, or working here there is no way a vistor visa would be extended until 2007. The difference between Antje Victore and Barbara Schwarz is that Ms. Schwarz didn't/hasn't requested asylum as Antje Victore did. Anynobody 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, the US Federal Court stated she was a German citizen at the time of the case in 1990, and it is possible her immigration status has changed since then. But there's no proof it did, or it did not. I agree with you that a visitor's visa would not be extended until 2007. For example, the US Temporary Visitor's Visa (issued under the Visa Waiver Program) permits a maximum stay of 90 days in the US, and applications cannot be made by visitors entering the country under this privelege to extend that time while the visitor is still present in the United States. Under the progam, there are strict conditions imposed - applicants cannot undertake employment, attend an educational institution (this requires a different visa and application), apply to extend the visit, and they waive any rights to appeal being denied entry. I do not know the asylum application process; I know only that a process exists and there is a legal framework for it, and so I do not know if asylum applications are published. However I would presume such delicate matters like this would be done confidentially. The Antje Victore immigration case got attention after certain facts became known after her application was successfully made. It's uncertain if Schwarz has applied for refugee status, and I do not believe there is a legitimate way to confirm or refute speculation that she may have applied for asylum. The quote from the Salt Lake Tribune is noted where it was stated she knew she could be deported; could this action be done equally to a refugee granted asylum, or to an illegal alien, either of whom may have filed many frivolous and taxpayer funded court cases seeking nonexistant evidence of submarine bases, murdered cult husbands, Nazi brain implants, and presidental paternity? A refugee is still a guest of the host country, and not generally considered a citizen until he or she applies for citizenship. It's also possible that Schwarz was granted a status of LPA under an amnesty The article cannot state she is an illegal alien if her status is unknown. With regards to your questions: could you please clarify them? Orsini 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I appreciate the concerns you have expressed, honestly I don't want to accuse anyone of anything that can not be proven. However, Orsini I must respectfully point out that some of the information you cite is incorrect or unrelated, for example the case I was referring to was actually from 1999 not 1990 and it has been appealed since then as well. The unrelated info is about the nature of work/school visas, unless you were explaining the difference for any readers who might not know. To that end, a person on a visitors visa can get employment or go to school as long as they apply for and get the new appropriate visa. Back to Ms. Schwarz, the court documents are not the only source because she did after all admit as much in her biography. To be clear, I'm not saying she should be labelled an illegal alien. I'm advocating a sentence like: "Ms. Schwarz entered the US on a visitor visa in 1989 which has presumably expired, her current status is unknown." and then maybe a link to U.S. Immigration information. Anynobody 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifaction. Thank you also for pointing out my typo with regards the date of the court case. The point I made still stands; it's possible a change in status may have happened since the court case. However, the visa information is relevant to this discussion, because you've stated it is possible to extend a visitor's visa, and according to information at the State Department and ICE websites, it is not done in the way you suggest. I think it's important to point out that, as her immigration status is unknown, it may be inappropriate to label her an illegal alien etc, and I am glad you concur. While I think the statement you suggest adding to the article is a good addition, please note that cult symapathisers wish to see the article deleted as an attack article, and the addition of a link to the place you suggested my be viewed as pushing a negative POV with regards to the subject. Orsini 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I actually said or meant to say a visitor's visa would not be extended this long. 19 years is a bit long for a visit. Anynobody 06:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion as attack article

Sorry I was not able to figure out how to nominate it through the regular process. Barbara is a non-notable person who held a job with a minor organization, the German Church of Scientology, for less than a year. She filed some lawsuits, which is her right to do. The only people with any interest in her are a small group with an agenda known only to themselves and some others of us who feel sorry for the way she is being treated and would like to see this kind of thing removed from WP. If her attackers want to do something against Scientology they would be much more effective if they did that directly, here or elsewhere, and left Barbara alone. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... didn't you already make an AfD before? [22]--Tilman 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I would like to make another but couldn't figure out how to do it when it had been nominated 3 times before. Steve Dufour 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be a hint? Dave420 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the template, because this article has failed the afd process at least three times, so it is obvious that there are good reasons for it to stay. Personally I do not see this as an attack article, it is a biographical article about a person who has made herself notable through her actions, such as her record number of requests under the United States' Freedom of Information Act. As long as the article is NPOV, and adequately sourced, then there is no basis for it's removal. Sfacets 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not NPOV. And Barbara has no importance in the real world, except in the sense that all human beings are important. Steve Dufour 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - feel free to remove any unsourced content, but the fact that she is mentioned in so many media/govt sources clearly underlines her notability. Sfacets 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no interest in her in general society. Certain people don't like her and have spent years digging up these sources. Steve Dufour 07:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no interest in quantum mechanics in general society - should we remove all articles that don't pander to the mainstream? Wikipedia would be down to a handful of articles, about Coca Cola, gasoline, porn and the middle east. Brilliant. Dave420 11:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that may be so, but the fact remains that the sources exist... Sfacets 07:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A person should be notable to have a WP article. As it was there were a few newspaper articles about her FOIA requests and a few random mentions here and there and her own posts on Usenet. Steve Dufour 07:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you actually understand what the notability requirements are. From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Primary criterion:
All subjects of Wikipedia articles should meet the central notability criterion for inclusion, summarized here:
  • The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  • This criterion includes published works which meet the reliable source guidelines in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.
Schwarz's appearance in multiple newspaper articles and court cases going back 20 years plainly does meet these criteria. -- ChrisO 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements. Of course, the only real reason she is here is because some editors here have an agenda to discredit Scientology so the fact that this poor woman was once associated with Scientology and that Scientology plays a prominent part in her delusions and her internet abuse guarantees her a nice long article here going into considerable depth to the non-notable parts of her story. I, as a Scientologist, could care less about her having an article (and I wonder what part the "deprogramming" played in her current condition, but that is beside the point). As a human being, the nature of the article is somewhat offensive to me in its purpose, and "need" to drive home her illness in every single section. --Justanother 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that assuming bad faith?. The "only real reason" you cite has no basis in fact. Many people come across her postings who are not the slightest bit interested in Scientology. Her rather zealous internet usage being the most common. She is more than notable enough, regardless of anyone's feelings towards the Church. Dave420 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve, you have been around long enough to know that Articles for Deletion is a more stringent process than speedy deletion, and that if an article has survived the more stringent process, it cannot be regarded as a suitable candidate for the less stringent process. There is no excuse for this; this is blatant disruption in bad faith on your part. Stop immediately. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The tag for attack article perfectly expresses my feelings about this one. Steve Dufour 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Use your personal blog to express your feelings. Don't disrupt Wikipedia in bad faith to express your feelings. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If Barbara was an evil person who deserved to be attacked I would think you would welcome that being brought to people's attention. Steve Dufour 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not try to change the subject from your acts of deliberate disruption to your inaccurate and blind allegations of what I supposedly feel about Barbara. I do not think she is an evil person, I think she is a mentally ill person. I do not think she deserves to be attacked and I do not think she is being attacked. I think that by her record number of FOIA requests and the nearly unprecedented response she has provoked she has made herself notable, and the fact that this is something that she may not want to be notable for, or that you might wish she wasn't notable for, is irrelevant, just as these accusations are absolutely irrelevant to your acts of deliberate disruption. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not think she is being "attacked". She is "just" being held up to scorn and ridicule. She is being turned this way and that so that all can get a good look at the "crazy Scientologist". All in the most "encyclopaedic fashion", of course. If we really only thought she was notable for FOIA requests then there would not be much more than that here and a mention of her delusions that underlie her requests. Actually, if we really only thought she was notable for FOIA requests then there would just be a mention under "Trivia" in the FOIA article. --Justanother 17:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The only people who will see this article are already strongly anti-Scientology. No one else has any interest in Barbara. I only know about it because she herself mentioned it to me. And, BTW, I only know about her since I sometimes post on alt.religion.scientology on Usenet along with Barbara and Tilman. Tilman introduced me to ARS. Steve Dufour 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That's obviously untrue, Steve. The article lists how her internet activity brought her to light in anti-spam circles. They're STILL interested in her, as her spamming continues to this day. That is one non-Scientology reason people are interested in her, which is just enough to demonstrate your assertion was rubbish. Dave420 11:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Except for the fact of WP:AVTRIV, Justanother, that's a very good point. There should be a mention of Barbara Schwartz in the FOIA article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Actually, it looks as if someone has already thought of that; she's listed in the "See also" section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not object if this article were to disappear. Just because a subject "meets the criteria" does not necessarily mean that there should be an article about it. This article has always been on the verge of being an attack article. - Crockspot 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour please stop removing information from this article without discussion

I'm sorry to have to revert your last edit, but you appear to be embarking on a course of unilateral editing. In this case, see the 99-4016 -- Schwarz v. Central Intelligence Agency link to see where Ike fits in. I have noticed you have done this with other parts of the article today, and been reverted for the same reason. Anynobody 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Should Barbara be mentioned in Ike's article? Steve Dufour 16:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added information on Barbara's views to Eisenhower's and Hubbard's articles. Steve Dufour 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done. WP:POINT to be sure, but nicely done. And, Oh Look, Barb is not an RS for her own biographical data. Then why do we see it here? --Justanother 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You and BD are right. To the degree that she is notable enough to have an article here then the Eisenhower claim for sure belongs in the trivia section of his bio. --Justanother 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if Barbara is also in the two other articles. But yes, this is really a case of WP:POINT, since you don't really want to have her there. (Or do you?)
But there's one error in your logic. Babs is notable for being a FOIA champion, not for being the daughter of Eisenhower and/or Hubbard. --Tilman 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tilman, you can certainly put her on both pages. Please bear in mind though that she has a sort of inverse importance relative to both figures. That is, Hubbard and Ike mean a lot more to Ms. Schwarz than she did to either. I doubt Hubbard even knew her, and I'm confident Ike didn't. I can't guarantee that the editors working those pages will feel the same way about her as you do though, so I'd recommend mentioning the idea on their respective talk pages before editing or the other editors may indeed cite WP:POINT.
Please remember, the Hubbard-Ike-Schwarz connection is part of her motivation to pursue her FOIA requests which is why they are mentioned here. On either the Ike or Hubbard pages she really doesn't bear mentioning except as trivia (Kind of like mentioning that woman who claimed to be Anastasia Romanov when discussing the end Nicholas II of Russia reign). Anynobody 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Biographical information" edit warring

A few editors are reverting my removal of the below from the "Biographical information" section:

Schwarz says that she was born around 1956 in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake in Utah, where she lived until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents. She says that she later married a prominent Scientologist, Mark Rathbun, whom she says was imprisoned on the false charge of having killed her.

I find this inclusion disingenuous and an abuse of wikipedia. I daresay that the editors that insert this material know full well that it is NOT "Biographical information" but is delusory information. There is no RS that this is anything more than Schwarz' stated beliefs and not a one of these editors would consider her an RS on the subject. The "Biographical information" section should contain only material that is actual "Biographical information", not delusions not supported by any RS whatsoever. Please stop putting KNOWN non-RS material in a section that should be trustworthy. THAT is abuse of the project. Thanks. --Justanother 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me repost something I said above, as you've not responded to it:
We're not supposed to evaluate the accuracy of her claims. I left in the bare minimum of her autobiographical claims, as they provide necessary context for her FOIA campaign. She believes that the US government is holding information on her because they supposedly own the secret submarine base where she says she was born; she also believes that she's entitled to relief because she's supposedly a US citizen; and her belief that she's married to Mark Rathbun is obviously central to the whole campaign. I don't think it's necessary to include the rest of her many claims but these three points provide an essential element of background to explain her reasons. -- ChrisO 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris, these claims do have meaning in the context of the FOIA requests and I never said that they should be expunged from the article. However, they are not "Biographical information" and we both know it. So it is disingenuous to put it under that heading. The "Biographical information" section should conform to a quite stringent WP:BLP standard even if the rest of the article does not and self-provided infomation of that sort (extremely debatable) and from that source (usenet) does not make the grade, even if we knew no more about Schwarz. BTW, very nice job on the Siberia Bill article. Do you happen to have the full text of the original House Bill, before it was modified by the Senate? Thanks. --Justanother 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we'll take it to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and see what they think over there. Regarding the Siberia Bill article, as it happens I do have the text of the House bill - I'll add it to Wikisource so that we can all see it. -- ChrisO 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I would rather it went to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to get people more interested in bios. --Justanother 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a bit of time to kill and can set up the RfC now. --Justanother 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) OK, I've asked for the article to be protected while the latest dispute is worked out. I suggest that we take this question to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources for some outside input. -- ChrisO 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An outside perspective may be helpful, you have my support. Anynobody 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


RFC on "Biographical information"

This Request for Comment is regarding whether the below material is appropriate for the section entitled "Biographical information" in a WP:BLP:

Schwarz says that she was born around 1956 in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake in Utah, where she lived until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents. She says that she later married a prominent Scientologist, Mark Rathbun, whom she says was imprisoned on the false charge of having killed her.

This is something that the subject of the article has stated that she believes but no other substantiation is presented. When it is presented in the article, it is also attributed to Schwarz and presented as "Schwarz believes", and not as undisputable fact. This RfC is not about whether the material should remain; just whether it should be presented as "Biographical information". The material can be presented elsewhere as appropriate to support the FOIA issue.

Comments by previously-involved editors

  • Comment - I agree that these claims do have meaning in the context of the FOIA requests and I never said that they should be expunged from the article. However, they are not "Biographical information" and involved editors know it. So I find it disingenuous to put it under that heading. The "Biographical information" section should conform to a quite stringent WP:BLP standard even if the rest of the article does not and self-provided infomation of that sort (extremely debatable) and from that source (usenet) does not make the grade, even if we knew no more about Schwarz. There is no RS that this is anything more than Schwarz' stated beliefs and not a one of these editors would consider her an RS on the subject, IMO and experience. The "Biographical information" section should contain only material that is actual "Biographical information", not delusions not supported by any RS whatsoever. --Justanother 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That section is only the most egregious example of how this article hopefully flies in the face of WP:BLP The advice here to exercise restraint and "do no harm" is apparently lost on a small but noisy and vindictive claque which feels it's agenda is more important than basic human decency. I expect they will have the usual self-righteous justifications in defense of their efforts. Oh well. BabyDweezil 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
BD, please comment on content, not other contributors. You have been warned before to follow WP:CIVIL. Johntex\talk 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think we should be in the business of including only autobiographical information that we can corroborate. Many of our biographical articles include autobiographical information that can't realistically be corroborated with any external source (details of private life, beliefs etc). Furthermore, while it's certainly true that the claims aren't believable, they're central to Schwarz's reasons for mounting her FOIA campaign in the first place - omitting them will leave the article without any explanations for her activities. -- ChrisO 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and that is why I say present them elsewhere then as "Biographical details". --Justanother 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is very unfortunate that the actions for which she is notable depend so heavily on her unique view of reality. This view is indeed one which is held up to ridicule by many, sadly there will always be people who find others misfortunes entertaining. The truth is that her delusions by themselves are not notable, as millions of people globally experience delusions everyday. Some of them became notable when she acted on them and affected hundreds if not thousands of employees of various state and federal agencies. Other misperceptions of reality which she believes are not appropriate for mention because she has not pursued them in the same way through FOIA. I believe the best way to address concerns about defamation or intent to ridicule, is to only mention "delusional" information she has sued for. This can be confirmed in a RS like Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case as Frivolous, Judge John D. Bates, 24 September 2002. www.fas.org. Anynobody 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but you did not address the question covered by this RfC. --Justanother 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Justanother It is my understanding that the whole Barbara Schwarz article is a biographical one. If I understand your specific request seems to treat sections within the article as being biographical. For example you agree that the info is notable, just not as "Biographical information". You also say it shouldn't be expunged from this article, but it seems like that is exactly what you want. I apologize if my answer wasn't clear to you, but I feel the material in question belongs here. Anynobody 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • This RfC has a very specific question that, I think, is clearly presented. Please let me know if that is not the case. Her delusional material is presented . . . and again . . . and again . . . and again. No opportunity is missed. One opportunity that, as a minimum, should be given a pass is in presenting what is known about her biography. We do a disservice to her and to the reader by presenting such material as "Biographical information". If you would care to comment on that issue, I would be interested in what you have to say. Thanks. --Justanother 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The whole article is a biography. Just because one section contains the word "biographical" does not make the other sections any less biographical. Moving the content would change nothing. The information is fine, and having it in that section is also fine. Johntex\talk 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I asked you to address this below but I see that you do here, so thanks. Presenting this material as the beliefs that underlie her FOIA requests does not make it "Biographical information" if by that we mean true data about the things that have happened in her life. The section headers have meaning and that section should be reserved for things that are known to be true (or at least likely). --Justanother 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Justanother If your issue is where on the page the info appears; we could move the delusional info to the "FOIA history" section. I just think you should understand that WP:BLP applies to entire articles, not sections of them. The entire article about Barbara Schwarz is of the biographical type (as opposed to an article about a work of fiction or a historical event). When you say it (info about her belief of her biography) should not be included under the biographical info section, you are saying it should not be in this article. Anynobody 01:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Hey, cool, you get my point, so thanks. Do you also see that saying that cetain beliefs form the basis for her FOIA activity is quite different from saying that those same beliefs are "Biographical information"? Let's just put all the "unsupportable" (to be generous) material in the FOIA section then. That has been my point all along and why the article is protected again and why I started this to RfC work past the impasse. --Justanother 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Justanother, Steve Dufour has called attention recently to Wikipedia:Words to avoid. That page cautions against the use of the word "claim" in a sentence such as the following: "Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them." This is given as an example of dubious usage of the word "claim". Why is it dubious? Because it implies that these beliefs are not true -- even though in the context they are almost by definition delusions. It seems that policy is pretty clear on this point already, but it seems as though what you are saying is that because of the context (i.e., that we believe Schwarz's accounts of a submarine village under the Great Salt Lake, etc. to be delusions) we should exclude the POV of the subject of the article about what her biographical information is from the "Biographical Information" section. Well, there is in fact some policy that supports actions in the form of "policy as written says one thing but the context suggests something different." That policy is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Given how fervently you have decried WP:IAR in the past over matters far smaller than completely excluding the POV of the subject of an article, there would be an obvious problem if you tried to invoke it here. Even if you were to do so, WP:IAR should be invoked only very cautiously. "The rules say one thing, but there's no evidence that anyone ever foresaw how the rules would apply to this particular situation" is an argument that might hold some weight. That argument does not apply here, however, because clearly it was foreseen that we might need to write about a POV that everyone but the subject would agree was delusional. Now. If you would care to examine alternatives, the alternative that I would suggest is that we start the biographical section with a sentence along the lines of "Unchallenged biographical information about Schwarz is hard to obtain," follow that with the best biographical sketch we are able to compose from reliable sources, and then follow that with Schwarz's account of the same time frames. This way Schwarz's POV is in the section where it has to be but it is clearly marked as her account and clearly contrasted with a more reasonable account. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Justanother I do understand your point, but you seem to not understand the more relevant issue. That being, even under a different heading name like "FOIA history" doesn't change it being "Biographical Information", because it's in a biographical article. An article about a person is a biographical article, regardless of the sections it includes each and every section should directly deal with a part of the persons life. Please have a look at Wiktionary: biographical. It's because I understand your point that, unfortunately, we must discuss this impasse further as it proposes a contradiction. That being, you advocate keeping information in a biographical article under a section not to include the term biographical in it's title. Johntex summed it up perfectly: "Moving the content would change nothing." Incidentally, BabyDweezil I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't refer us to Wiktionary in your comment about editors here not having access to a dictionary. Anynobody 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • While there may be a point there I really think that "the devil is in the details". The simplicity of it is that her delusions have no place in a section entitled "Biographical information". Going yet again to the dictionary:

      Biographical - Containing, consisting of, or relating to the facts or events in a person's life.

      The biographical relevance of her beliefs are 1) they are her beliefs and 2) they are the basis of her FOIA actions. They are in no way facts or events in her life. They have no place in that "Biographical information" section. Does that clear it up? Do you see what I see? --Justanother 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I see you do not want to include information regarding her delusional beliefs about her past in a biographical section of the Barbara Schwarz article. You do not see that every section under an article about a person named Barbara Schwarz is biographical, whether or not the word is in the title. To see what I believe you see, I would have to accept a contradiction;

  1. The delusions are relevant to her FOIA motivation and should be mentioned
  2. Delusions do not belong in a biography

Delusion can be relevant if it motivates one to do things which affect others, and even though they don't happen for everyone they are very real to the people who are having them. A similar, more dramitic, example is Charles J. Guiteau. He got it in his head that is he campaigned for McKinley, then he (Guiteau) would be appointed ambassador to France. Since this promise was in his head, he became enraged when he was not sent to his ambassadorship in France and then assassinated McKinley. If Guiteau had gone to his grave feeling slighted and done nothing about it, his delusion of a Presidential appointment is irrelevant. In this case the delusion drove him to murder a man, and please do not think I am saying Barbara Schwarz is anywhere near a murderer. The only thing she shares in common with Guiteau is a false view of reality and desire to right a misperceived wrong and took action. Because they did take action, and because those actions affected others, the delusions that drove them to it are notable. Anynobody 04:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I really see no contradiction at all. She has delusions. Those delusions led to her making all these FOIA requests. Those delusions are not facts about her life. She is not LRH's daughter or whatever. They are not facts. They have no place in a section section section entitled "Biographical information". This is not jumping through hoops. This seems to me a no-brainer. Mention the delusions. For kindness sake and lack of RS call them "beliefs" instead of "delusions" but we all know what they are. Mention them as her beliefs in the FOIA section. Not in the "Biographical information". That is my entire point. I know ChrisO gets my point 'cause I have seen his writing. I am sure other "anti-Scientologists" do too. This is not about Scientology. I want to say it is about common sense but I do not mean to be insulting, just exasperated. Sorry if it shows. --Justanother 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can illustrate it for you, I have created a page on Wikipedia:Sandbox to help. Please edit it the way you think it should be edited. FYI I am not attached to the word biography for the section regarding her beliefs, I can accept history/background/etc. If you don't want the information under the section to be associated with the word biographical please either change the section title or move the info where you think it should be in the article (or not at all). I would like to mention that use of the word delusion was never implied to be in the article. Anynobody 07:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you'll wanna pull it up from the history page Anynobody 07:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, perhaps you'd like to create a user subpage for this purpose? [23] Orsini 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that, thanks for pointing out the option Orsini. Before I go any further though, I'm going to wait to see if Justanother will participate. Just as a heads up Justanother, you won't want to go directly to the Sandbox because it gets erased every 12 hours. If you go to this link though it'll take you to my proposed example. Anynobody 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you like. Thanks for thinking of me. This article was frozen cause of the issue that I raised in this RfC. To the degree that we can come up with a compromise on the subpage then the purpose is certainly served. --Justanother 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, here is the new link User:Anynobody/Sandbox. How would you change the article Justanother? Anynobody 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your edit Justanother, as you probably know there are several types of articles on Wikipedia. For example:

Even though the page as you edited it works for me, it shouldn't work for you based on the arguments you've been putting forth. Your argument is that information about her delusional beliefs should not be included in a biographical section since it is not part of her biography. Your solution is to change the name of the section in question so it is not biographical. Respectfully your view is missing the bigger picture of what a biographical article is. Using your logic, you or I could add anything to any article about a person as long as it doesn't mention the word biography in the section heading. To prevent this from happening every section of a biographical article is by definition biographical in nature. Simply changing the name of the section within the article about Barbara Schwarz does not change the fact that the article is a biography. The sections are each parts of her biographical article. It can't logically be argued that information inappropriate for a biographical section of an article about a person is appropriate elsewhere in the article. In other words every section of a biographical article is supposed to conform to the rules about biographical information. This is the contradiction I was talking about yesterday, I hope it makes more sense today. Anynobody 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Anynonbody. Actually I still think that you are missing my point. A section specifically specifically specifically entitled "Bio Info" should clearly include only those facts and details about her life that are known or likely. If someone were to believe that she were a robot and, based on that belief, commited some crime then the "Bio info" section would not say:

      Jones says she is a robot. She says she has a robot husband, William Sr. and two robot children, William Jr., 6, and Jenny, 8. She says that she was manufactured in Kansas and moved to NYC where she worked as a graphic designer from 1988 to 1996. She then went back to university where she studied architecture . . . "

      No, that would be silly. The robot bit would be discussed in relation to her crime.

      Jones stole motor oil, claiming that she was a robot and had a robot family to feed.

      I hope that clarifies my issue. And since my mod works for both of us, let's say we propose it as a solution to this dispute. Thanks --Justanother 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Justanother I promise you, I understand your point. You are saying that a biographical section should clearly include only those facts and details about her life that are known or likely. My point is that the ENTIRE ARTICLE should clearly include only those facts and details about her life that are known or likely because the ENTIRE ARTICLE should be composed of biographical information when it's about a person. Your point is her beliefs about her history are not known and not likely. If I agreed with your belief that it shouldn't be included in a section describing a persons biography, that belief would carry forward to the article as a whole. Please don't take this as sarcasm: How can you say the info is inappropriate for a biographical section, but is appropriate for a biographical article? An article is made up of sections, each section in a biography should list biographical information don't you think? Otherwise it isn't a biographic article. Anynobody 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anynobody. What did you think of my robot analogy? Does that clarify my point for you? BTW, one of the lessons that wikipedia has taught me is that you do not always get the other to see things exactly as you would like (and certainly not to act as you would like but that is another topic). The important thing is that you work out a compromise that both are comfortable with. So if you are comfortable with my proposal, rather that try to get me to think the way you want me to (and vice versa), let's just call it the compromise. Sound good? --Justanother 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


I assure you I am not trying to be obstinant. At this point I'm trying to get you to see that you have accidentally selectivly applied Wiki policy to come to this compromise (seriously I don't believe you are noticing your error or doing this on purpose). If I'm right then we are sure to encounter problems again in the future because one of us doesn't understand some basic facts about Wikipedia. I don't mean to give the impression that I can't possibly be wrong about this, and if I am I'll accept whatever feedback I get. Your view is that a section ceases to be biographic if the word "biographic" is removed from the title of said section (Correct me if I'm wrong). Your robot analogy seems to be arguing this point; some info doesn't belong in a section titled biographic (Again, correct me if I'm wrong). To understand my point we first assume you are right about the info not belonging in a biographical section because it violates the rules regarding what a biography is. WP:BLP applies to entire articles (every section of it). The core of my point is this; the BLP rule applies to every section in a biography article. You have successfully resolved a (possible) violation by changing the nature of the section under which the disputed info appears. This appears to fix the issue with the section, but because the section is in a biographic article the nature of the article hasn't changed. Again, how can you correct a violation of BLP by simply changing a section name when the info itself appears as part of a biographic article? Seriously, this is the second time I've asked you to explain why rules about a section of an article can take priority over the rules for an entire article which in this case are the same set of rules. Unless you are saying that the rules for an article are less strictly applied than the rules for a section of the article? On the subject of whether a person's delusional belief should count as part of a biography, I was watching A Beautiful Mind (film) and realized that a person's delusions do happen to them in their mind. They have to be convinced delusions didn't happen, and until that happens they operate as if the delusions are real. Their actions reflect the influence of the delusions as if they had actually happened, like Ms. Schwarz did when she embarked on her legal quest. Even though the delusions don't happen in real life, it is because they affect real life that they are worthy for mention here. Anynobody 04:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Help I love ya, Anynobody, but we are obviously talking past each other. While I am pretty sure that I get your point (it does not matter where we say "Barbara Schwarz believes X" as it all falls under the super-heading of bio) I cannot seem to make you see that that statement being placed as her reasoning for her FOIA requests is different than that statement being presented as "Biographical information". I was sure the robots would do it but apparently not. I say help because I am hoping that there is any other editor (or admin, hint hint) that understands my point and can phrase in a better manner than I appear to be able to. --Justanother 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Bingo, Anynobody, you've hit it on the head and made an excellent case for why all of that information regarding her "delusions" etc should be summarily excised from the article per WP:BLP. We are writing a biography here (on an extremely marginal, barely notable fellow human being) not a psychohistory, a screenplay, or any such thing. What makes you are I or anyone here knowledgeable or competent enough to conclude that her actions result from her "delusions?" You are making an entirely original research claim--and one that clearly violates WP:BLP--to wit, putting up an artcile that says "here's her delusional beliefs, in her own words, here are some things she has done, like file lotsa FOIA requests, now, fellow armchair psychohistorians, lets put two and two together and conclude that A caused B, and not have to worry about bothersome niceties such as seconadary sources, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V or any such thing because we are all just so durn clever and superior to this silly woman who is banned from defending herself here that we can make pseudo-smartypants psychobable conclusions about why she did what. So, sarcasm aside, I truly do thank you for making the case for sacking all of this interpretive and abusive nonsense from the article. BabyDweezil 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words BabyDweezil, but really you should thank Justanother as it is really his argument. I just needed someone to help me remind him, but I must respectfully remind you that I am of the belief that the info does conform to WP:BLP and thus can go in any part of the biographic article about Barbara Schwarz. Justanother seemed to have overlooked the fact that if a section tries to solve a possible violation of WP:BLP by moving "inappropriate" to a different section in the same article is not solving the WP:BLP problem for the article. Justanother I hope you understand now why I've kept on this point so long, we can't continue until we agree on the rules. Should I presume that you will now be arguing for the removal of references to her delusions? I've been looking forward to discussing with you why SOME of them do in fact belong here. Anynobody 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

well not exactly... I'm not sure I was taking a position one way or another, Anynobody, in your debate with Justanother, since I'm arguing to drastically trimming this article down, along the lines Fred Bauder suggested above (and which has been ignored) to simply include the basic facts. And that includes NONE of the delusions, the inclusion of which, I continue to maintain, is merely cruel taunting by a entrenched Wiki Scientology haters group here. As an "outsider" to the whole dispute, I have to say, this group seems no less, and perhaps far more obsessive than poor Ms S by a long shot. Added to the obsession is a cruelty in the manner that this group bands together as a wolf-pack and almost rabidly and ferociously defends even the slightest questioning of their use of Wikipedia for acting out their obsession (witness the responses by members of this group on my current ANI--you'll notice that they are the ones howling repeatedly most loudly for blood and vengeance. You gotta ask yourself what that's all about--surely not simply some relatively insignificant edits I've attempted to make (fully within keeping to WP:BLP concerns) to an exceedingly insignificant article that NO ONE (more or less) is ever going to read. So who is obsessed and delusional, anyway? I ask ya. I'm sure this wolf pack will now once again adopt that wounded angel halos and righteously and plaintively wail and slap the obligatory No WP:NPA tags. But hey, if Ms Scwarz is fair game for psychobabblish scritiny and judgement, so are the rest of youse mugs! BabyDweezil 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, I wasn't saying that your position solved the basic dispute about content. I am saying that Justanother is respectfully, mistaken about WP:BLP in regards to how it applies to articles. My point was that if he feels that such info should not be included in a biographic section of an article, those rules would also have to apply to a biographic article as a whole which I see as your argument. It is important to understand that I disagree with you, and feel that some of the information does belong in the article. Justanother seems to genuinely care about following the rules in good faith, if it were obvious that he didn't care I would not have spent this much time trying to explain that WP:BLP applies to everything. Please don't get the impression that I've changed my view that the article was perfect before the recent debate began. In hindsight since the discussion is more about how WP applies rather than the article itself, I probably should have recommended bringing the conversation to one of our talk pages. Anynobody 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments:
1. The information with regards to Schwarz's claims and beliefs cited in this RfD are based on a reliable source, specifically Schwarz v CIA, No. 99-4016 (D. Utah) (D.Ct. No. 97-CV-85-B). This source is not from the Usenet, but from a site operated by the US Government. Other sources and court documents are available in which the same information may be cited
2. The matter of searching for her biographical information is her stated motivation for her numerous FOIA abuses requests. Cite [24] in addition to many published FOIA requests from Government websites. Therefore, its correct place in in the "Biographical information" section.
3. It appears to me that Justanother and BabyDweezil appear to have become involved in this article in attempts to disrupt Wikipedia and attempt to have the article deleted by stealth. Both editors claim affinity with the scientology organization, which can reasonably presumed to be embarressed about the actions of its former German president. The scientology organization is clearly embarressed by her actions, with scientology spokesperson Linda Simmons Hight's statement of "we're cluessless about this person". [25]
4. It also appears to me that Justanother and BabyDweezil are intent on stripping this article of relevant and well-sourced infromation which is not flattering to the subject or scientology, and are thus pushing a pro-scientology POV on Wikipedia by stealth. What organization could fail to be embarressed by such antics of someone whom the organization appointed as its President? Given their ties to the scientology organization, these editors cannot be seen to be acting with impartiality or neutrality in their editing of this article. I find it difficult to AGF given their edit history in this article and their comments on this talk page, particularly with their demands for Tilman to recuse himself, while not insisting the same for themselves despite their own clear conflict of interest.
5. I see this RfD by Justanother as nothing more as a example of WP:DE. Orsini 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Cult agenda. Scientologist cabal. Ho Hum. --Justanother 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also noted what I believed was collusion between Justanother and BabyDweezil to get this article deleted. Please see: Example from Justanother's talk page Anynobody 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Anynobody. Like one other editor here who falsely states there is "so little information" about the subject, it seems apparent they are both making comments on this Talk page only to provoke people. WP:DFTT is a good guideline to remember. Orsini 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Orsini, WP:NPA. Warned on your talk page. Please do not continue in this vein. Thanks --Justanother 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"Warned" for what - citing a Wikipedia guideline? I have read about those who falsely accuse editors of personal attacks and their motivations for same when they are unable to defend their position. Justanother, just say the word if you wish to escalte this matter; if I had made a personal attack on you, you'd know about it. Please stop making false accusations and disrupting Wikipedia. You have failed to address any point I made above with regards to your RfD - in particular point 1, regarding your claim that the Usenet was the primary source for these biographical delusions, and point 2 which addresses what she states consists of the facts / events in her life. As her FOIA abuses requests have not any uncovered evidence to support them, they must be identified as her claims and not a factual account, and I think mentioning them in the "Biographical information" section is appropriate in these circumstances. In my opinion, this makes the alleged basis of this RfD frivolous and disruptive. Orsini 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, pu-leese, Orsini. You clearly implied that I was a troll and not to be "fed". Why would I escalate this, I already gave you the warning it deserves. If you don't want to own up to calling me a troll then so be it. Trust me, I am hardly unable to defend my positions. Your questions do not, in my opinion, address the subject of this RfC, which is that "Bio info" section should be limited to facts or likely facts, not "beliefs" that are highly suspect. There are other sections of the article where those fit better. And regarding your repeated and somewhat ad hominem attack of this RfC (that is what you mean by RfD, no?) as "frivolous and disruptive"; well, if I told you what I really think then you would have the valid charge of WP:PA. Thanks for the harmonious editing. Always a pleasure. -- Justanother 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)\

Oh, BTW, Orsini. You may be really excited about thinking that you have come up against the type of editor that F451 describes but take a chill pill, friend. That ain't me and I am sure that F451 will be happy to set you straight if you but ask him. --Justanother 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What you have come up against is a conscientious, productive, and respected editor that has had it just about up to here with bigots walking up to me and thinking that they can slap me around because I am a Scientologist and it is unlikely that anyone will call them on it. So if that shoe fits you or anyone else here then what say we just don't. Thanks --Justanother 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, man, Anynobody. And here I had a high opinion of you. Oh well. Let me give you my standard schpeel. I take the reference to "collusion" as a bald-face lie and a personal attack. Take a look please at the definition of collusion:

Collusion - A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

Now 1) exactly just how secret is it? and 2) how is it fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful for me to state that the article should first be cleaned up to comply with WP:BLP and then see if it is deserving of AfD or not? Sheesh. This is all ad hominem bull crap. As far as the WP:NPA, everyone gets one free shot at the Scientologist. That was yours. Same goes for Orsini with his accusations. --Justanother 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly Justanother I used that word very carefully, I do not mean to insult you but what I cited on your talk page is collusion regarding the Barbara Schwarz article, which I will explain. Let me first explain that I will be as thorough as I can in an effort to prove that I have given great thought to making this accusation. First the secrecy aspect; when you discuss a plan to have the article deleted with another editor from that page on a separate page you are having a secret conversation. If I hadn't become curious about your sudden change in tone and checked your talk page, I would not have seen the discussion. If it weren't secret then why not have the discussion here? The collusion I believe you are attempting to commit is being done by you and BabyDweezil . If I misunderstood your discussion please explain what you meant when you said "The article should be cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD." which by itself I could accept if you hadn't called the article a "dirty corner of Wikipedia". It sounds to me like you and BabyDweezil are working together to get the article removed by advocating the removal of information until there is not enough information left to justify it's existence on Wikipedia by feigning editing concerns. Anynobody 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can AGF with you, Anynobody, as you have never given me cause not to. Yes, you misunderstood my words. First, thinking that a talk page is somehow a "secret conversation" is a bit of a stretch but let's forget that one. The real silly thing and why you are going to apologize to me now (I am not gloating) is that I posted exactly what I had to say to Dweezil and what my "secret agenda" was RIGHT HERE as my first edit on this talk pages. Listen man, I have no secrets about my editing here. I have no hidden agenda. I have no cabal (I want a cabal!!) --Justanother 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, I missed your first post here and it does make me feel a little better about assuming AGF on your part. Anynobody 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted, Anynobody. Thanks. --Justanother 05:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also think this should be removed from the Biographical Information section. On the other hand the fact that there is so little information on Barbara's real life shows how un-notable she is. Steve Dufour 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for Orsini

Above you claim that I am one of the editors who "claim affinity with the scientology organization..." as well as make other references to that effect. Could you please point out where I have made this claim? If not, would you please edit your remarks to accurtely reflect the facts please. Thank you. BabyDweezil 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not answering for Orsini, but in the interest of a second POV here is my impression. [the way, to anybody listening...On the Wiki-abuse of Barbara Schwarz I thought were defending Scientology by identifying a group of anti-Scientologists.] I'm not saying you are or are not a Scientologist, but you seem to have an affinity for the organization. Anynobody 22:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, this is exactly what I saw and I concur. There is nothing more which I need to add to what you have written under this provocative and disruptive subheading, which has nothing to do with the article and borders on a personal attack. Orsini 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Orsini, how is this possibly bordering on an "personal attack." You said I am one of those who "claim affinity with the scientology organization..." Why is it "provocative and disruptive" to ask you to show me where I made that "claim" and if you can't to edit your comments to reflect reality? BabyDweezil 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"you (BD) seem to have an affinity for the organization" Why, because he is my wikifriend and I am the most obvious Scientologist here? That sounds more like an affinity for me (aw shucks). Because he fights against the abuse of wikipedia, i.e. the use of it as a propaganda medium, by a group of POV-pushers (or, as you'all call them, "anti-Scientologists")? That sounds more like an affinity for truth, justice, and the wikipedian way. If I had to guess, I would say that, before meeting me, he probably did not give much thought to Scientology at all and he may well think it is the most dangerous cult in existence but Justanother sounds like a nice guy, the poor sap. Anyway, careful about being nice to me, Anynobody; you might get tarred with the same brush --Justanother 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother people will think what they want to. I'm just saying I've seen defend Scientology on more than one article. That doesn't make BabyDweezil a Scientologist, but it seems to indicate a feeling of affinity to me. (Please understand I don't mean to imply anything negative about said affinity). Anynobody 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think he is just insulted by some of the same stuff that insults me and that insults many neutral editors that make a wrong turn at metaphysics and end up at a Scientology article. I have seen it again and again on the talk pages. --Justanother 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds logical, BabyDweezil doesn't have to be a Scientologist to defend them in the same way one need not be Jewish to argue against holocaust deniers. I'm sure there are plenty of people out to insult Scientologists, as is the case with many religions. It's also important to understand that there are people out there that have genuine concerns and opinions about Scientology's negative aspects, but aren't looking to insult anyone. Anynobody 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
True true. Trouble is that you can only get away with openly insulting Scientologists and members of other select NRMs here on wikipedia. As I mention on my talk page, my treatment here is very much a blessing in disguise. --Justanother 03:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not set up some kind of Manual of Style for Scientology like the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)? Personally, my views of L. Ron Hubbard as I've encountered his legacy through U.S. Navy records and FBI correspondence keep me from looking into what Scientology believes. I'm not sure I want to know, but I do know that right now the U.S. government lists Scientology as a religion. I see your point about getting experience dealing with intolerant people, it's smart but on the flip side it must be a pain in your posterior all the same. Even if it isn't, surely not all Scientologists on here want the sorts of blessings you mentioned? Anynobody 06:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

<My chatty response moved to my talk page> Justanother 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by non-involved editors

  • The information should stay - the current section is fine - I came to this article very recently, so I don't know the full history of edit warring and I don't care to know. I have commented a few times in the section above and I have reverted a few attempts to remove information from the article. I have no desire to either promote Scientology or to bash it. I have never had any conflict with Barbara Schwarz in this or any other forum. It is clear to me that the subject's views, however delusional they may be, are important to understanding her as a person and her drivers for filling so many Freedom of Information requests. It would be a dis-service to our readers to take out this information from the biography. Johntex\talk 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is starting to sound like straw man arguing. And again, I said leave it in as appropriate but not in the section that should be about what is known to be true about her past. PS: You have as much a dog in this fight as I do and have taken a position so you are hardly un-involved. Why not let this section stand for those that are truly "non-involved"? --Justanother 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. You did not make the RfC very clear (in my opinion at least) that the only two possible outcomes were to leave the information in this particular section or to move it to a different section in the article. If those are the only two options, then you may want to clarify your wording.
  2. I don't think BD wants to keep it all - so it is certainly very relevant for people to remark that they want the information to stay. And Steve has already said he wants the information to be removed. Your selective labeling of my comment as a "straw man" argument was not very nice, was not accurate, and shows that you are campaigning against all comments that don't agree with your view.
  3. As I explain above, I am not a long-time editor to this article. I don't know Barba Schwarz, and I am not for or against Scientology. Therefore, I don't consider myself involved. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to move my comments again. To pose a question back to you: Why are you so worried about where I comment? I suggest that you take a less argumentative stance and just welcome comments. Johntex\talk 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am free to disagree and I do. You have already argued that the article should be a certain way and therefore, you have a stated position, and you are not non-involved. I am not being argumentative, simple stating a fact. This is not the section for "neutral editors that have already been involved here" which is how I imagine that you would describe yourself. It is for previously non-involved editors. Re my statement of the RfC, well, it is a wiki, you can edit it. But I think it is clear enough especially when the first line of my comment is that the material should remain somewhere in the article. So rather than complain about me 'cause I complained about you first, would you like to address the issue of the RfC? Thanks. --Justanother 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I clarified the statement of the RfC. --Justanother 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the issues with this RfC is how it is presented. It is not OK to say, "It is a wiki, you can edit it." Not after others have already commented. It is also not OK for you to say that the reader will be able to figure it out by reading your comment. How are they to even know you wrote the RfC? Why should they have to read your viewpoint in order to properly parse the meaning of the RfC? You are eseentially saying they have to read and understand your view on the RfC before they can understand and comment on the RfC. That is very improper. The RfC should be posed in as neutral a manner as possible. Also, I reiterate that it is unfair to criticize my post for saying the material should remain while you choose not to criticize those who say it should be removed entirely. You are being very selective in your criticisms by only criticizing those who are not agreeing with your position. Johntex\talk 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One thing that does have to go is the citation (currently number 10) that reads: Schwarz, Barbara (2004-09-04). "Part 92: Barbara Schwarz reveals shocking news!". alt.religion.scientology. (Google Groups). Unsenet posts are not considered reliable sources under both WP:RS and WP:V Blueboar 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read those policies. WP:V does not mention usenet posts at all. WP:RS allows for exceptions for self-published sources. Thanks, Johntex\talk 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the ban on usenet posts seems to have been removed from WP:V (it was there for a LONG time... and I have just added it back)... the exception for "self-publish sources" in WP:RS definitely does not extend to usenet posts (note that usenet posts are not talked about at all under that heading, while other exceptions are discussed). All of the other sources in this article look good... it's just the usenet post that has to go. Blueboar 00:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar, please see this Talk page's discussion archives where Fred Bauder stated Schwarz's autobiographical publications on the Usenet were acceptable as a self-published source. Orsini 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the RfC, Blueboar. I understand your points but respectfully though, I believe you are incorrect in your assertions about both WP:V and WP:RS. Under WP:V it says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, usenet postings and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Emphasis added on largely because there are exceptions, when you say USENET posts are banned it implies that they are never acceptable. Also, please look closely at WP:RS, it DOES mention USENET as a possible exception (emphasis added): 5 Self-published sources (online and paper) 5.1 Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions. Anynobody 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that there are already well-established examples of Usenet being used - entirely uncontroversially - as a source, particularly in computer science articles: see for instance Linux, which quotes Usenet postings by Linus Torvalds and others (simply because that's where they were communicating with others during the development of Linux). The key issue is that normally "we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them", but in this case we do - the Salt Lake City article explicitly attributes Schwarz's Usenet autobiography to Schwarz's authorship, and she's always publicly claimed authorship as well. -- ChrisO 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So a delusional person filing a bunch of meritless FOIA requests is as notable as the development of Linux. Now thats shocking news. BabyDweezil 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Shut up, Dweezil, you are just part of the Scientologist cabal (funny thing is I never even thought you were a Scientologist). --Justanother 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of delusionalism going around. :-) Steve Dufour 03:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a preposterious statement. We have articles on topics ranging from Spoo to Oxygen to St. Patrick's Day. That does not mean they are all equally important topics. Barbara Schwarz's usenet posts are as relevant to her article as Linux Torvalds' are to the Linux article. Do you really think people were going to fall for your false comparison? Johntex\talk 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that history will judge that L. Ron Hubbard was a few degrees less important than St. Patrick, but that's just my opinion. Steve Dufour 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's it Dufour. Pack your bags, you are out of the cabal. You're fired! --Justanother 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Justanother, since you added the section below for people who have "never seen this article before", I have a question for you: Since you have seen this article before, will you be refraining from counter-commenting and arguing about any posts that may be made in the new section? Johntex\talk 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, OK, since you asked, then let's just say that I will not be the first to counter-comment. After all; "Good for the goose". Does that sound fair to you, Johntex? --Justanother 05:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does. Thank you. Johntex\talk 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by editors that have never seen this article before

This edit war is frivolous, futile, and unworthy of this encyclopedia. Well-sourced statements should be kept. This discussion should not have even begun. But if I gave it more attention than these few sentences, I would be lending it credence. Cheers. Greyscale 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft page at User:Anynobody/Sandbox

At the suggestion of Orsini we've set up a proposed draft in my sandbox. We can use it to illustrate proposed changes. Anynobody 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article could be improved, but I don't think there are any changes that could be made that would make Barbara notable enough for a WP biography. Steve Dufour 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve Dufour please edit the draft page to make it appear how you think it should. This is why it was set up, when you say it could be improved it would be clearer if you edited the draft to show how. On a related subject, since you know her, does she still stand behind her 92 part autobiography? Anynobody 22:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never met her in person, just on the Internet. As far as I know she stands behind her autobiography. I think she would tell us so if she didn't. Since you asked I will take a try at editing your draft article. Cheers. the real Steve Dufour 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Steve Dufour, I really appreciate it. I have only one request concerning the version you've proposed. I'd like to expand the lead in just a bit more to mention the deprogramming attempt. I'm not saying that the deprogramming attempt was justified or good, but there are probably people out there who are debating the entire concept of deprogramming. I'm gonna take a stab at it myself but if you don't agree with what I write, thinking of those people, would you mind adding what you feel would be appropriate? Thanks again Anynobody 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought I'll wait till your done. Sorry, I figured you would only need one edit for the whole article. It looks like you're making an edit for each section. Anynobody 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've finished now. I question putting the info on deprogamming in if the purpose is too show how harmful it can be (thereby inviting original research). The same with the quote from the Scientology spokesperson if the purpose of that was to show how mean and nasty Scientology people can be. Steve Dufour 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a link to the page you created on the WP:BLPN. I was thinking about doing the same for myself, but since Orsini and I created the original it seems obvious which one I support. Anynobody 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents is on the talk over there. --Justanother 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I must have missed something. Justanother is now making large-scale changes and implying that these changes have consensus because they were produced at User:Anynobody/Sandbox.([26]) Try as I might, I can't seem to find any discussion that indicates a consensus agreement to adopt without further discussion any text produced at User:Anynobody/Sandbox. If there was such a consensus, it should be pointed out so that all can find it; if there was no such consensus, then this action is very improper. Sandbox pages are (as the name implies) for experimenting and trying different options without being constrained by anything you produce automatically winding up in the live production version, and yet it seems that editing experiments which were conducted in a private user sandbox are being presented, not for consensus, but as consensus. Of course, if someone can show me the discussion where the larger group of editors here actually endorsed sight unseen whatever came out of the editing experiments privately conducted by a much smaller group of editors, I will gladly withdraw the question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was an absolutely WP:BOLD move on my part to simply take the material that had been developed by (4) editors very much from mixed positions and put it in the article. I certainly think that the prot was premature. --Justanother 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not what the draft page was set up for Justanother. It was intended to be something an editor could point to illustrate what he/she thinks the article should be. For example, if you wanted to know how Steve Dufour feels the page should look you can look at the link to his version on the history of the draft sandbox in the section above. Anynobody 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

reality check

"drastic change"? "large scale changes"? "huge deletion"? C'mon, we're getting a little dramatic here. We're talking about mundane changes to an obscure article about a non-notable person that no-one is ever going to read beyond the editors here. It's not like Justanother snuck into a museum in the middle of the night and changed the words to the Song of Solomon. BabyDweezil 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I DO NOT appreciate your characterizing my usage of the phrase "drastic change" as being a "drama queen"!!! This is not constructive to the discussion in any way whatsoever, and is again another violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks... Smee 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Awwww, poor you, so battered. Fossa?! 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cough cough. Easy, boys. Funny thing is that the bit I am doing does have consensus - it was created by (4) editors from both sides of the fence. While I do not agree with it completely, I think it is an improvement and if we take (4) plus (2) (counting BD) we have (6) that like it better and (2) that seem to be simply objecting to any change at all in the "pristineness". --Justanother 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Q.E.D. BabyDweezil 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara's Nationality

You might not know this but German-Americans make up the largest ethnic group in the United States. Barbara's being from Germany is not at all notable, or interesting, so that it should be the first thing said about her. Steve Dufour 13:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"German-Americans" are not the same as "german nationals living in the US". In other words: Barbara Schwarz and Sandra Bullock do not belong to the same category. --Tilman 20:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We Americans look at that kind of thing differently. However, if the very first thing that is said about Barbara is her nationality that would be a very good indication that she is not a notable person. Steve Dufour 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nationality is just basic information. Like sex, age, birth, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilman (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
People in the USA have a little different point of view about nationality than people in the DBR. Steve Dufour 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve Dufour, the fact that she is a German citizen has implications on some of her FOIA cases. The DOJ guide to FOIA states that foreign nationals have essentially the same rights as American citizens, with one notable exception: Second, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2003 (53) amended the FOIA to now preclude agencies of the intelligence community (54) from disclosing records in response to any FOIA request that is made by any foreign government or international governmental organization, either directly or through a representative. (55) This means that agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and even some parts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the new Department of Homeland Security may refuse to process such requests. (56) As a non-American citizen theoretically she could be representing another government. I strongly doubt she is of course, and I'm guessing the CIA probably knows she isn't either but because she could be they gave her a brush off. The CIA isn't known for being "open", so any excuse they have to not say something is used. Anynobody 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


If you would like to work on the article on the CIA please do that, but the information has very little to do with Barbara. Steve Dufour 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


In this case it does have to do with Ms. Schwarz. She has not only sued the CIA but also the NSA as well. She appears to have not requested information from the counterintelligence dept of the FBI (which is the part of the FBI mentioned in the quote). These agencies (CIA and NSA) appear to have ignored her requests. Were she in fact a U.S. citizen they would have processed the request. (Please understand by "process" I mean either approve or decline, but as part of the process a response would be received). Anynobody 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
All of which is original research unless some published source has said that this is important. Steve Dufour 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
99-4016 -- Schwarz v. Central Intelligence Agency Anynobody 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't say that the case is important, just that it happened. Steve Dufour 05:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I put that in there as a "throwaway" line just to make the intro line a bit more interesting. If you look at articles like Evel Knievel or Frank Zappa or Vincent van Gogh, you see that nationality is one of the primary descriptive terms. I really could care less about where it appears but if are going to have an article here then data like her nationality and where she lives are the most basic data that would be included. And Tilman, Bullock is not a German-American, she is an American. My mom is a German-American (born in Germany); I am an American (born here). As was Sandra Bullock --Justanother 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point, Justanother other articles do include that as basic background info. Anynobody 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It makes the story less interesting. The first sentence should be about why the subject of the article is important. Steve Dufour 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Which brings me back to 99-4016 -- Schwarz v. Central Intelligence Agency and how her nationality applies to it Steve Dufour. This is my point about why it's important above. This is also why I've changed the name of the section to Barbara's Nationality, the fact that she's German doesn't matter it's the fact that she is not an American that does in cases like 99-4016. The question of whether it's interesting is secondary and irrelevant when the information is tied to the subjects notability. Please remember that "interest" is a relative concept, so while it may sound uninteresting to you it isn't necessarily so for someone else. (Plus, and this isn't a formal argument, but if you found the article interesting I doubt you would have agreed to help get it removed in the first place). Anynobody 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No book or newspaper article has been published which says that this legal case is important (as far as I know). If Barbara's notability is based on that then her article should be deleted. Steve Dufour 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:V have become WP:ATT, you should probably take a few moments to look it over if you haven't already. Why is a court document not reliable in an article mostly about court cases? Anynobody 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't question that there was a court case. There are thousands of court cases every day. Steve Dufour 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara's notability

In Wikipedia:Notability it says: "In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." It is clear to me that Barbara is not notable by this standard. Are people in society talking about her? Are the newspapers writing about her? Is she being mentioned in the history books? Steve Dufour 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Schwarz's notability was previously discussed at length. The SCOTUS and other courts of the United States, as well as the Salt Lake Tribune are unbiased and unaffiliated sources meeting standards of WP:RS. Why are the same discussion and excuses about non-notability being tried again as a reason for an AfD, unless it's purposely being done to disrupt Wikipedia? Orsini 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Notability also says: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." Clearly this article fails this test. Steve Dufour 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
On what basis do you judge that it "clearly" fails? Unless you are accusing all those who have already considered this issue before you, and not come up with the answer you favor, of bad faith, then clearly it does not clearly fail this test. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I base it on the fact that Barbara has not been the subject of reporting by reliable, independent secondary sources in any depth or non-triviality. Wishing you well as always. Steve Dufour 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
False. The Salt Lake Tribune and the court documentation are reliable and independent secondary sources of reporting, and their standards of reporting facts were not based on trivia. Orsini 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour, WP:N is a guideline. As a guideline it can have exceptions. My reason for pointing out your personal stake in trying to remove the article is that your feelings are probably not allowing you to evaluate what is or is not an exception. That is the essence of a Conflict of Interest, when you put your personal feelings first in a situation where personal feelings should be ignored. Anynobody 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A great example of one's feelings of friendship getting in the way of decision making might be happening in how Jimbo Wales is treating the situation with an editor called User:Essjay. This is speculation on my part, but Jimbo may have assumed that User:Essjay was not doing anything unethical because they are friends. I just want you to understand I'm not saying you are a bad editor, just that perhaps your desire to make your friend happy has made a neutral decision on your part hard. Anynobody 08:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never pretended to be neutral about this article. From my first post I have explained that I know Barbara and she asked me to help get rid of the article which she feels is an attack against her. I am not saying that I should be the one making the decision on the deletion or not of the article however. Steve Dufour 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve Dufour writes: I've never pretended to be neutral about this article. If this is the case, a conflict of interest clearly exists for you in editing this article. Orsini 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that fact is very clear to me Steve Dufour, after all I pointed it out on the BLPN. Steve Dufour editing and voting only to support your friend at the expense of Wikipedia:Consensus. This comes from nobody putting their foot down about your conflict of interest on this article. It is a violation of WP:COI to mount the campaign you have but I have let it go because I don't really favor leaving anyone out who wants to help. To be clear, I am not discounting your opinion in general. I am saying that your opinion here is interfering with what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I realize this is not pleasant to read, but I will attempt to be as brief and painless as I can. When you made your request to put this article in the list of AfD for the third time, you were disregarding [[Wikipedia:Consensus}} which unlike BLP, RS, or COI is a policy. In the first two AfD votes the overwhelming majority was to keep this article. I have been hoping you'd come to understand that you have been going against a bedrock policy. I don't want to make a big stink about it because I don't want to see you banned from editing this article, which could very well happen if somebody else wanted to take this issue higher. Please do not take this as an attack or a threat, because I do NOT want to see it happen. Seriously ask yourself what would Wikipedia be like if everyone who had an article about them had a friend lobbying to have it removed? Anynobody 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So should I stand by and let someone be hurt for the sake of "consensus"? Steve Dufour 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


On Wikipedia, in this case, yes. I promise you I am only interested in her notability as it relates to her FOIA and the deprogramming attempt made on her. I have doubts about her abusive nature on USENET being mentioned, but since she posted her autobiography on it the fact that she has a well documented USENET may be minor notability there. Having browsed through the 92 part autobiography I can assure you I am not looking to put all of it in the article. Much of what is in the writing should be left in Ms. Schwarz's own words, but the parts relevant to her beliefs/motives for filing litigation must be mentioned in a way that does not imply derision, but must all the same be mentioned. Her lack of US citizenship/birth certificate was a factor which relieved some of the agencies she filed requests with of any responsibility to respond to said requests. Because of the intimate relation with the FOIA matter means it too must be mentioned. Information I see as out of bounds are things like her arrests at the White House, a supermarket, and a restaurant. I don't want to list each and everything I think should be left out, because that would kinda defeat the purpose of keeping it private. You would have us keep EVERYTHING out for the sake of your friend, and that is a form of censorship. Anynobody 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[27] is the results of my editing of the article on your sandbox page. I tried to cut it down to only what was documented by reliable sources. I still think that she is not notable enough to merit a WP bio in the first place. Steve Dufour 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD (4th Nomination)

I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can google "most parking tickets" and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco. Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here. If a few of you here agree, I will put this up again for AfD. --Justanother 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again Justanother, but in insisting on media coverage as a link to notability you are ignoring the many guidelines I've seen cited by many of the editors who do not support the article. In considering this, I'll put forward a hypothetical scenario. I apologize for it's morbidity and am not implying that Ms. Schwarz's actions are as bad as the example I'm about to give.
  • In a major metropolitan city a serial killer murders 10 people. The press do not cover the deaths. Local law enforcement publishes details such as victims appearances, dates of disappearance, possible suspect, etc. Is it notable? In my view it is for several reasons, two of which I'll detail in the interest of keeping this as short as possible.
1) The public's safety is always notable.
2) The media's failure to cover an important crisis like an active serial murderer is notable for their astounding incompetence.
In an article about the failure of the media to cover an important story, one can not rely on information from the media itself. Barbara Schwarz is not a serial killer, but her actions have impacted the professional lives of thousands. Sadly, like many serial killers, her behavior is affected by her own unique view of reality. Would you write an article about David Berkowitz without mentioning his delusional beliefs? Since her actions are based on unusual beliefs they must be discussed to a point that balances the need for information with the privacy of the subject. To those who believe it is an attack article, I ask you to read her 92 part autobiography and then reread the article. I believe you'll find it quite conservative when it comes to using embarrassing and irrelevant information in the article. Anynobody 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not WP's job however. Besides that, no one would have any reason to read this article unless they knew about Barbara already. If you feel that she is a problem to society you need to take that information elsewhere. Steve Dufour 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
p.s. If I found out about a serial killer on the loose I would inform the police not write a WP article about him. :-) Steve Dufour 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve Dufour I'd never heard of Barbara Schwarz until I was researching FOIA here, so your assertion that one needs to know about her to have reason to read the article is incorrect. You also appear to have not read or understood the example I gave. In it I clearly pointed out that: The press do not cover the deaths. Local law enforcement publishes details such as victims appearances, dates of disappearance, possible suspect, etc. On the chance you didn't understand what local law enforcement is, it's the police (sheriff, highway patrol, etc.) Are you saying that police/judicial/gov't reports can not report anything notable since in my example the press are not covering the issue? Anynobody 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In this case it seems to me that the lack of media and public interest in Barbara is evidence of her lack of real importance, except in the sense that all human beings are important. Steve Dufour 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh Lord, so now she is as notable as a serial killer, the media is covering up this fantastically important story, and she has impacted the lives of thousands(!!!!!) of people (LOL). I think some editors on this page are actually the ones affected by their "own unique view of reality," not Schwarz. BabyDweezil 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No BabyDweezil she isn't, but like some serial killers she acted upon her unique beliefs. I suspect you know that, and are simply trying to bait me. Honestly, I welcome your taunts because they prove that your are editing here in bad faith. Anynobody 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"they prove that your are editing here in bad faith": Anynobody, no personal attacks please (warning on your talk page) --Justanother 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and I'm not trying to bait you, Anynobody. I'm simply suggesting that it seems apparent that some editors here are acting on their "unique beliefs," namely, the belief that this person is notable beyond the tiny and rather obsessive milieu of Scientology bashers (one only need see the articles they are responsible for starting, maintaining and zealously defending from any encroachers for clear evidence of the extent that they are "acting" on their unique beliefs). To seriously claim that Schwarz has impacted on "thousands" of people is a good example of the aforementioned "uniqueness." BabyDweezil 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 3rd 4th AfD. --Justanother 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support However I think it has already been nominated 3 times. Steve Dufour 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Steve, if you would check into that I would appreciate. That way I'll know what to call it, 3rd nom or 4th nom. Point is if a number of editors believe it deserving of nomination then it is and it is not abusive to renominate it. --Justanother 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The only reason the first 3 attempts at deletion failed is that there is a small group of people supporting the existence of the article. Other than that there is almost no interest in Barbara so very few uninvolved people bothered to vote. Steve Dufour 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Steve, but the reason the last one failed was that you made no persuasive case for deletion on the basis of notability. Trying to base an AfD on "it is an attack" as the sole reason will not get the article deleted, just rewritten, and is, IMO, actually not a reason at all to go AfD. BLP/N, RfC, even AN/I, are all better means of handling an attack article, I think. All three previous AfDs garnered quite a bit of interest from other editors and I will not ask for their time again without considerable support here first. --Justanother 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right. Please see my comment below. Steve Dufour 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Correct, this would be the 4th nomination, the last 3 were unsuccessful. And there are enough reputable sources for an article. Smee 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose. No new reason for deletion has been proposed and we don't start a new AfD just because we didn't like the last one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi. Well, that is why I did not start one. But if there is sufficient belief here that it is deserved then it should go up again. --Justanother 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You will not find much support "here". :-) Steve Dufour 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve, you might be surprised. --Justanother 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See links to previous AFDs at top of page... Smee 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Thanks, Smee. --Justanother 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No worries. Smee 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Looking over the previous discussions, I was the one who nominated it the third time and I did not know very much about WP policies back then. Barbara herself seems to have nominated it the first two times. Steve Dufour 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest a block for Justanother, who is wasting time by raising issues that have been discussed so many times already. --Tilman 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Tilman, and I do support that better alternative for action. Orsini 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oooooohhh, a block. Heaven forbid we should discuss something so near and dear to your heart, Tilman. --Justanother 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I have supported deletion of this article in the past, and still do. I just don't think she is notable enough, outside of a small circle of people who want to attack her. Nothing personal. I just don't think fanaticism has a place at WP. If an AfD does open up, I would appreciate notice on my talk page. - Crockspot 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Better be careful, you don't want someone requesting a block on you (smile). Anywho, I will let you know if we proceed. --Justanother 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No one has ever been able to block me yet, so I'm not worried. BTW, I can probably deliver quite a few delete votes on this article from the cabal I edit on behalf of. *snort* - Crockspot 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh man, you are lucky! I'm still waiting for my cabal to chopper in. --Justanother 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Crockspot. And Justanother should definitely be blocked—he was once spotted wearing socks with sandals. BabyDweezil 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow. You got my number, BD. --Justanother 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose You're nominating this for AfD without making arguments that haven't been made in previous requests. Anynobody 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We have been through this before. I have not seen any NPOV reasons or any new arguements put forward. Orsini 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is "we"? Steve Dufour 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support if new arguments can be brought forward so as not to waste anyone's time. Sfacets 09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
An easy way to avoid having your time wasted is not spend it working on this article. :-) Steve Dufour 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to contacting the editors who voted in the last discussions and asking them to vote on this? I noticed strong indications of support for this article in many of the comments made my those voting in the previous 3 AfD debates. Some of them may have changed their mind, so I'm not saying we should apply their previous votes to this one. However based on the comments I think many would still want the article in a neutral form. Anynobody 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Thank you Anynobody; go for it. Orsini 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the wording of said contact. I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a neutral sounding invitation I could use to invite both those who voted for and against? Anynobody 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There has been a suggestion raised to bring the Barbara Schwarz article up for WP:AFD for the fourth time. If you feel like providing your comments, you may do so at: Talk:Barbara_Schwarz#AfD_.284th_Nomination.29.
    • Neutral and to the point. Smee 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I like it. I was also thinking of putting it under a statement like: "You have previously voted on an AfD for this article in the past and it has been nominated for AfD again without substantial changes since the vote you participated in." I know if I was one of the to be contacted former editors, I'd like to know why I'm getting the notice. Anynobody 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Anynobody, that would be inappropriate. Just let them know that there is an AfD and invite them to look at it. --Justanother 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There have been substantial changes to the article. Steve Dufour 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be inappropriate Justanother. It seems to me if we don't explain why the particular editors are receiving the invitation, others might wonder why they didn't. Plus, if someone was inviting you to vote again on an article you voted for months ago, your memory might need refreshing. Anynobody 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording is ridiculously inappropriate. You are trying to bias them against the AfD before they even look at it. Can you not see that?? --Justanother 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How does it bias someone by telling them that they have voted before, without mentioning which way they voted? Please understand I mean to say that to those who voted both for and against it, after all they may have changed their minds. Are you sure it's the wording you have a problem with, or is it the concept? Anynobody 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you really unable to see that this: "without substantial changes since the vote you participated in" is wildly inappropriate and a clear attempt to get them to vote the same way as they did last time. Instead you throw up the straw man that my objection is to reminding them of their interest and you try to get us to go after the red herring of my supposed bias. --Justanother 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This version from August 2006 looks much rougher and doesn't mention the deprogramming attempt but it is otherwise the same. I assume that anyone we invite would take a moment to look over the page before voting. Have you looked at the last AfD in 08/2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (third nomination) it was 17 - 1 to keep. The 1 was Barbara Schwarz.. The one from September 2005 was 21 to 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (2nd nomination). These people took the time to comment on the article when they voted, i'm guessing they are going to look again. Justanother I've decided to keep the discussion about your bias to the WP:RFC, since you mentioned not wanting to talk about it anymore. Anynobody 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for a 4th AfD. Therefore, any discussion of how it should be publicized is superfluous. Johntex\talk 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If WP worked according to its own policies the article would have never been started in the first place. Steve Dufour 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if WP worked on its own principles/policies (that of being the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world and the "sum of all knowledge" as Jimbo has said) then everyone would be working to improve this article instead of looking for ways to delete it. Feeling sorry for her is not a valid reason for wanting to erase knowledge of her. Johntex\talk 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If WP policies were being followed I would have to stop editing this article because I am her friend. Also anyone who is editing this article because they want to use it as a way of making Scientology look bad (which, BTW, is a very inefficient use of their time and energy) would likewise have to leave off the article. If that took place there would be no one with any interest in Barbara, so the article would have never been started in the first place. Steve Dufour 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz nominated for AfD, again notice I sent to Orsini

If you have the time, would you vote on this? Talk:Barbara Schwarz Thanks, (feel free to delete this from your talk page) Anynobody 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING is an interesting topic. There is nothing wrong with asking another editor to vote on something. Of course you would not want to tell them how to vote or hint at such. When you do excessive canvassing of only editors sympathetic to your partisan position then it leans toward the unacceptable. I do not think that one or two is a problem. --Justanother 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, Justanother even if I hadn't read WP, I would never tell anyone how to vote on anything because I'm not comfortable telling people what to think. Ordinarily I would thank you for your word of warning, however in this case I feel it is a bait of some kind. The reason I feel this way is that in the time we have delt with one and other, the only mistake about a WP has been made by you on Talk:Barbara Schwarz#RFC on "Biographical information". I don't enjoy bringing up the mistakes others have made, but in this case I have to in order to illustrate the fact that pointing out a possible area of violation regarding a guideline implies bad faith for several reasons after considering our history: 1. I did not tell Orsini how to vote. 2. Since he has put a lot of effort into the article, I am making him aware that it is now an AfD. 3. Canvassing is gathering groups of outside editors (which Orsini is not) to influence the vote. 4. I have stated my opinion of your motivations in editing the Brabara Schwarz article appear to be influenced by your spirtual beliefs which you won't discuss. Instead you have tried to imply wrongdoing on my part by notifying Orsini about a pending AfD vote, proposed by you, of the article we have been talking about.. To address your concerns directly: If you catch me inviting a bunch of new editors with known bias to come and vote against AfD then by all means take some kind of action to redress me because at that point I will be canvassing. Sorry to take up so much space on your talk page Orsini. Should we move this discussion to the AfD, the WPLBN, or both Justanother? Anynobody 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Your "feel free to delete this from your talk page" caught my eye and it seemed an odd suggestion. Without getting into what might have motivated you to make such a suggestion, I simply mention that asking one or two editors whose opinions are known to you to take a look at something that they have already expressed interset in would hardly, in my opinion, violate the spirit of WP:CANVASSING. Don't know why you got so defensive in your reaction to my pointing that out. You should have stuck with your first instinct rather than rehash how we might not see eye-to-eye on another, unrelated, issue that has not yet to come before a neutral panel (why not wait for that before getting all "high and mighty"; I usually do pretty well before neutral panels). --Justanother 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Justanother in case you weren't aware of it deleted talk page sections can still be accessed, so there was nothing being "covered up" so to speak. I also don't mind explaining myself to you, because it seems like you think I'm out to get Scientology. Since I'm not, it's no bother to explain what may appear as suspicious behavior to you. With that in mind, here's why I said that. Some editors don't like to clutter up their talk pages with reminders, especially once the reminder is not necessary. It also was because I hadn't planned to post anything else here. I honestly don't mean to sound defensive, I'm trying to address your concerns as completely as possible. When you mentioned WP:CANVASSING you didn't say how you felt that particular guideline was in danger of being broken when you first mentioned it. This puts me in the rather difficult position of trying to figure out what you meant. Since I cannot be sure which part to address, I just went ahead and addressed the whole concept rather than interpret what I think you meant. Since you are now saying you aren't concerned by my activity in regard to canvassing, I find it odd and interesting you'd mention it in the first place since my actions have not changed since the topic was mentioned. Seriously though, we've said enough here that it now probably needs to be included in the AfD discussion. I want to make sure everyone understands what's happened here in case anybody else gets suspicious. Since this is your show, I'll give you the opportunity to post it. Anynobody 07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the talk, joking or not, about cabals. Now that I have the section I added seems more relevant which is why I've decided not to wait for Justanother to post this discussion we had on another editor's talk page. Anynobody 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Okey-dokey --Justanother 12:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE: - This is not an actual AFD above, merely Justanother's question to see whether there is enough support for an actual one... Smee 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee is right, I included it for the sake of transparency on my part. It doesn't belong in the AfD discussion itself. Anynobody 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The request on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Schwarz 4

Is anyone else puzzled why it was archived with no resolution of any kind? Anynobody 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is in the archives. Anynobody 07:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidently that was the third request they've had on the BLPN about this article. Info about the others can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Schwarz 4 Anynobody 08:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Justanother

Due to a failure to communicate, I've decided to set up this RfC. I honestly think that Justanother has violated the policy WP:CONSENSUS with his attempts at another AfD for Barbara Schwarz. I would like to invite everyone who has participated here to comment. I also welcome any views critical of me, but ask that any criticism be given with advice on how I can improve. Thank you, Anynobody 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. this would not have been possible without help from Smee, thanks again) Anynobody 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Patently ridiculous. I made no "attempt" at an AfD. I asked for input from interested editors. Based on that input I see reasonable support for setting up an AfD but have not yet decided if I will do so. Reasonable use of the process here is not violation. Anynobody has a disagreement with me over this "Biographical Information" point I raise. So what? If you disagree with someone you ask on BLPN or set up an RfC or ask your favorite neutral experienced editor or whatever. You don't take the ad hominem approach of accusing them of COI, accusing them of violating WP:CONSENSUS, and starting an RfC against the advices of the experienced admin that was helping you, User:Bishonen. As my friend, Mr. Smee, would say. Sheesh. --Justanother 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Bishonen, he/she seemed to be under the impression that I was the only editor supporting it. That of course was incorrect, otherwise the RfC would not have been accepted. Bishonen appears to be a very busy admin, so I'm not implying anything negative when I say he/she missed Smee's support. Essentially you are saying that I should accept advice I know to be incorrect, if I understand you correctly.

Justanother if you were really setting up the AfD discussion in good faith, you know (or should know) accepting a vote from User:Steve Dufour would be inappropriate. He has said over and over he only wants the article deleted as a favor to Ms. Schwarz. I think you know that is a clear COI since "personal favor" isn't a criteria for deletion, but would have accepted it in this case as a means to get the article removed. The fact that you would overlook such an issue, is what proved to me that you just want the article gone no matter what. Anynobody 11:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because I believe that everyone is entitled to their vote. Unlike you, I am not engaged in stopping people from rightful use of the process here. I accepted a vote from Tilman, whom I beleive has a very clear COI, and from all the anti-Scientologists too, that I believe have more COI than I do. But that is OK, this was just to see what everyone thought and it is clear that there is basis for a 4th AfD and I will likely post it soon. --Justanother 12:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Anynobody, this is a joke, right?

"With all due respect to Bishonen, he/she seemed to be under the impression that I was the only editor supporting it."

Because if it is not a joke then you are severly misrepresenting the truth for your own ends. Where I come from, we call that lying. As you well know Bishonen's help on the RfC was originally requested by Smee, not you (see User talk:Bishonen#RFC minor formatting) and most of the postings on her page about it are from Smee, not you. I think it is pretty clear that she knew that Smee "supported" the RfD. Not only that but she specifically told the two of you that Smee should not be the 2nd party to certify having "tried and failed to resolve the dispute":

"No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)."

But you ignored all that good advice, didn't you? And after this "very busy admin" spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help you two with the RfC, you come here and lie about it. This is not a personal attack. This is not uncivil. This is the truth for any other editor to check for themselves. You know damn darn well that she had not "missed Smee's support". --Justanother 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please count on my vote, although I know that sympathy is low on the tone scale. :-) Steve Dufour 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Things like friendship and the desire for justice transcend the tone scale and speak to the basic nature of the thetan. The restoration of said basic nature being the only goal of Scientology. Thanks. --Justanother 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for saying so. :-) Steve Dufour 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I'm honestly amazed at the lengths to which you are going to avoid this matter. With all due respect to Bishonen's advice, once he told me I was ok I assumed he meant Smee's efforts were what he was talking about. IMHO they were not what he made them out to be, so I submitted the RfC rather than arguing our POV over Smee's efforts. After all, the worst that could happen is that it got rejected and I'd know I was wrong about my perception of Smee's efforts. I can live with being wrong, so I submitted the page. It was approved, and drawing comments as you know from your time editing there. Ordinarily I would also take time to point out several errors you've made about the history of the request itself, but frankly your perception of the genesis of the request is irrelevant. If you want specifics, I can include them in our discussion about why the erupting volcano seems offensive to you after you return from your break. For the sake of others though I will move on to explain why your actions are probably going to make things worse than they were. The point of the RfC was to get the opinion of outside editors who didn't know either of us. I don't mean for this to be taken as spiteful, but your actions have possibly crossed into censorship and corruption. (To be clear:Censorship of community discussion and corruption by asking Bishonen to delete a process you disagree with, and him actually doing it after it had already been approved.) It's hard to imagine anyone who understands how things are supposed to function here, coming to defend actions like that. I just met Bishonen, and i really don't want to see him get in trouble for doing you a favor. I'll wait for a bit and give him a chance to restore it before I take action. (Seriously though, it didn't occur to you that going to the admin you complain to and asking him to delete an RfC about you didn't seem like a WP:COI? Or that having an active RfC deleted by the same admin is probably a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, since a non-involved admin approved it being there and people were commenting?) Anynobody 07:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Consensus Article

[28] This is the the version of the article which I edited at Anynobody's request. I didn't write any of the words but just used what is written in the orginal article taking out repetitions and things sourced only through Usenet. I think it gives the basic facts about Barbara and why she might be thought important. Although I still think that she should not be a subject of a WP article at all, if people would agree on my article being the version that should appear on WP I would not object. For the sake of consensus. Steve Dufour 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Too short, most information missing. --Tilman 17:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Too short indeed, removes tons of citations. Smee 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
It is longer than the articles of many people who are far more important than Barbara. Most of the citations that were removed were from Internet postings. Steve Dufour 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You know how I feel by now :) Steve Dufour Anynobody 10:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A question

Is Barbara's article really about Scientology? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is not about Scientology I will remove the info box that says it forms a part of a series on Scientology. Steve Dufour 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The box is simply a navigational tool, and does not imply anything in particular about the article. The article is not about Scientology, but does fit within the parameters of being within a series related to the subject matter. Smee 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
If you say so I will assume that there is some logic which I do not understand and not remove the box again. Steve Dufour 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Aye, given that Barbara's "claim to fame" so to speak is in regards to Scientology (along with all her notability), it would make sense to have the Scientology template on this article. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Tilman 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
About Scientology, no. Related to Scientology, yes. It's my understanding that the box can be included on subjects who are known for their relationship with Scientology, whether part of it or not. (Like Tilman Hausherr) Anynobody 10:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't someone say that Barbara's notability was for her freedom of information requests and her lawsuits? Steve Dufour 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but many of those FOIA requests and lawsuits were Scientology-based. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There are three listed cases where Schwarz has filed suit against scientology. Please see the litigation list in Archive 8. Please note that many of her FOIA cases were not against scientology. Schwarz's notability was also discussed and argued at length here, and why this article is part of the scientology series was discussed here. Orsini 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, FOIA requests are never "against" another person or entity. However, her requests often had to do with inquiries regarding Scientology. [[29]] .V. [Talk|Email] 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. However, the requests were more to do with the scientologists Hubbard and Rathbun, rather than the organization. I may have misunderstood your statement when you said above that most of the cases were scientology based, by thinking your reference was more to do with scientology the organization itself. Her non-scientology FOIA abuses requests were similar to this item against the NCUA. Orsini 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I probably should have been more explicit in what I meant. Anyway, I think that inquiries into Hub/Rathburn are pertient to Scientology insofar as Hubbard was Scientology, and Rathburn held a high position in the organization. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how Barbara's article forms part of a series on Scientology. Would you recommend it to a person trying to understand Scientology? Steve Dufour 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Smee 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Tilman please forgive me for using you as an example twice here. Steve Dufour would you recommend Tilman Hausherr to someone wanting to learn more about Scientology? If yes, then the box is there already. If no, do you think it should be removed? Anynobody 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against Tilman's article. In fact, I voted against its deletion. I wouldn't especially recommend it however. Steve Dufour 04:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything against Tilman's article, but he isn't a Scientologist. Does that mean you would support removing the Scientology infobox from his page? Anynobody 06:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Because his article is about him, not about Scientology. To me it does not seem to form a part of a series about Scientology. Steve Dufour 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to your query under the new section at the bottom you last replied on. Anynobody 02:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.