Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 8

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

Deleted and archived

Due to sustained violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons the previous contents of this talk page have been deleted and archived. In order to avoid the necessity of having to delete prospective content please avoid violations of that guideline. Fred Bauder 07:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I wish you wouldn't delete so quickly, because now all involved will have to make the same arguments again. Barbara might appear with a new IP adress again, and make her attacks again. In the past, this was solved by simply deleting the worst attacks or XXXXing alleged names / employers. --Tilman 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah really, now we can't see Fred's comments about your behavior on this article, Tilman. :) --HResearcher 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Nor my response to that :) --Tilman 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Contributors to this talk page are requested to observe basic community standards, in particular no personal attacks, no "outing" of other users and no legal threats. I have blocked User:The real Barbara Schwarz and her alias 216.190.11.36 indefinitely for repeated and egregrious violations of these policies. Barbara is welcome to contribute but I have asked her to provide assurances that she will not continue to "out" users and post personal attacks. Unfortunately she has not yet done so and has continued to do the same things for which she was blocked. If you're reading this, Barbara, please reply on User talk:The real Barbara Schwarz. -- ChrisO 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet, "Just the facts, Ma'am." Fred Bauder 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I think the facts she may present aren't the facts you'll want to be seeing. --HResearcher 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting that you've stated this, as an unflattering article recently appeared on the Usenet about Mr Bauder. [1] This article appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate and smear Mr Bauder. Orsini 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't know and I didn't mean anything against Fred Bauder by my joke. I was just thinking about how Barbara presents A LOT of information about many people and many things. --HResearcher 08:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As Tilman states below, this is a typical modus operandi for those who follow the ways of the scientology cult. Dig into anyone's past deep enough, and there is sure to be dirt, or something that can be twisted and then presented as dirt. Fair Game (Scientology) Please forgive the suspicious nature of those wise to the ways of the scientology cult, as I'm sure you meant no harm to Fred Bauder by your joke. Orsini 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a typical modus operandi. First, some "facts" appear "anonymously" about someone whom Barbara doesn't like; next, Barbara Schwarz quotes them all over the usenet. This "happened" to several people, including me. --Tilman 05:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at User talk:The real Barbara Schwarz. Not sure what to make of it all because honestly I haven't read past the first couple paragraphs. And this is what I meant in my joke above. I think Barbara really is into investigating and exposing people who attack her or her religion. ChrisO, I think maybe someone else should be contacting her because she says you are an enemy of her religion. --HResearcher 12:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
She does say that, and she's wrong - I've never interacted with her before. As you've seen from her talk page she's refused to comply with our no harassment and no personal attacks policies, and has in fact continued to "out" other users. These are fundamental and non-negotiable requirements that apply to all users. Given her refusal, she's going to have to remain blocked indefinitely. -- ChrisO 07:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here I spent a lot of time making comments here last night only to have them deleted and no record of the history. What a waste of time. --HResearcher 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Category of this article

This article should include the Scientology tag as part of the Category.

  • Barbara Schwarz was the former president of the scientology cult in Germany.
  • Barbara Schwarz sued the scienology cult in the US courts.
  • Senior scientology cult executive Mark "Marty" Rathbun is a central point of her FOIA requests, where Barbara Schwarz claims a marital relationship to him.
  • The scientology cult's former spokesperson, Linda Simmons Hight, claimed the cult did not know her. However this is at odds with other documentation which clearly shows that Barbara Schwarz was a senior figure in the scientology cult. Hight's claim is clearly false, and her statement is noteworthy in relation to the scientology cult and how it disconnects itself from its members whom it considers embarressing.
  • Although Barbara Schwarz claims the scientology cult is full of infiltrators, she defends the cult and follows its practices, and she refers to herself as a scientologist. Orsini 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove page?

To continue the now-deleted discussion on deleting the page due to lack of notability.... I had made a few points.

  • Schwarz has four news articles about her. One in the Asbury Park paper, one in the Oregonian, a blurb in the Deseret News, and the front page article in the Salt Lake Tribune. Just because you were in the paper four times doesn't mean you deserve an article.
There were six articles about in the news media, not four. Specifically:
  • Getting at public records tests intent of new law, Asbury Park Press, 13.3.2005
  • Utah woman without rival in pursuit of public records, The Oregonian, 3.5.2004
  • E-mail at heart of battle, The Deseret News, 23.8.2001
  • S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System, The Salt Lake Tribune, 11.5.2003
- which you have mentioned, plus:
  • 'Neutral reportage' privilege recognized, rcfp.org (The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press), 11.5.2005
  • Utah appeals court backs reporting privilege, First Amendment Center Online, 14.6.2005
The Asbury Park article in particular described Barbara Schwarz as notorious for her nationwide quest for documents [2] in her use of the FOIA process. A noteworthy point here is New Jersey Government Records Council chairman, Vincent Maltese, suggested lawmakers should consider amending the law to keep libraries from being forced to undertake private research projects, like Schwarz's. While merely being the subject of news articles on its own may not be deserving of a biographical article in Wikipedia, Barbara Schwarz’s effect on FOIA process, the controversy surrounding her requests for records to verify some extraordinary allegations about her personal life and the resulting litigation, and her part as a national president in the scientology cult are of lasting and noteworthy significance and Barbara Schwarz is deserving of an unbiased and factual encyclopedic biographical account. Orsini
And these are just the ones that were online... ChrisO wanted to make a NEXIS search. This might bring even more articles. --Tilman 16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I did, it didn't... -- ChrisO 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I count four articles in print media. The two references are more of the online newsletter variety. They are reliable sources for purposes of WP:RS (in that they are real organizations that generally don't publish lies and cite their sources) but don't count for purposes of establishing notability. Calwatch 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The articles do not establish her notability. What does the policy say about notibility and media coverage? --HResearcher 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The notability guidelines are not policy, and does state, in part, that "non-notability does not attract editors". It also states "Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion." WP:N The news media articles provide verifiable primary and secondary sources of data. Orsini 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what is happenning here with this article is fascinating, I'm not here because it is notable. If my presence indicates notability, then I'll leave right away (just kidding). --HResearcher 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a very interesting story, rife with life lessons for our readers. It is supportable by a few good conventional sources and reasonably reliable non-conventional sources (her own postings). Fred Bauder 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder, I'm sorry for my comment and removed it. I misunderstood what you were saying and realize now you were giving two different opinions about two different things. --HResearcher 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a fascinating story, I didn't need to get a novel this week! :) --HResearcher 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • She is not a notable Usenet personality. Somebody cited McElwain, but he had spammed lots of newsgroups. Nowhere near Kibo or Joel Furr levels.
    • She is a notable type of Usenet personality. Fred Bauder 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • She is a more noteworthy personality on the Usenet than Archimedes Plutonium. Orsini 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Whether or not she is a notable usenet personality is debatable. What I see that she is, is a notable critic of critics who investigates heavily into those who criticize her and her religion and she uses USENET and the web to propogate copies of court cases, prison records, etc. This is why the critics do not like her especially, she gets down to the undeniable meat of things. I wouldn't get involved in this dispute if you have any questionable background or criminal records :) --HResearcher 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Barbara Schwarz will attack anyone and everyone who cannot and will not subscribe to her point of view. [3] The "undeniable meat" you state Schwarz gets down to consists of Schwarz intentionally taking unverified statements (or statements from questionable sources) and facts out of context, mixing the facts with her imagination, and publishing the results on the Usenet over and over again. If it were not for the fact that Schwarz has no assets, she would have been sued for libelous defamation, and she has invited people to sue her [4] knowing the exercise will only leave a prospective plaintiff suing her out of pocket. Her ““undeniable meat” she publishes about people would fry with her if presented in court as part of a defamation case. Having a "questionable background" isn't a prerequisite for her smear campaigns; for example she attempted to smear a German church-going Christian woman who dared to disagree with her. [5] You don't need a "questionable background" or "criminal record" as those following the ways of the scientology cult can quickly invent one.[6](time-limited reference link) I will assume good faith here and presume your suggestion above for some people "not to get involved with this dispute", is meant in humor and is not a threat. Orsini 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (citations added) Orsini 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        Ok, I'd rather not get into all this. I came to the article from an AfD and noted violations of WP:BLP. I think most of it has been cleaned up already. --HResearcher 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        In that case, I'm glad you can assist in getting the article tidied up by testing all the source materials and ensuring their accuracy, which can only result in a better article. Orsini 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        I think I've done all I can and even got blocked for doing so in the beginning. But now, I'm interested in this deprogramming case. --HResearcher 12:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In any case, do we know that she wrote her 92 part life story on Usenet? And is it verifiable?
    • I find no reasonable doubt that she wrote it. Specific facts in it are not verifiable. I think we might go slightly beyond its mere existence to include a few broad facts, for example that she was homeless in Salt Lake City and Washington DC; was twice subjected to deprogramming; and was jailed for petty charges and institutionalized. Fred Bauder 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There was only one deprogramming attempt (involuntary) in 1987. (After "Washington" and before "Salt Lake City") Two people were convicted and sentenced to three months on parole. (Which is amazingly low, and suggests that the parties made a "deal" with the court but I'll keep the speculations outside of Wikipedia). --Tilman 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Tilman, how do you know there was a deprogramming attempt on her. What is your source, where can I read about this. --HResearcher 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I know it from a german attorney who is critical about cults [7] (who was not involved in the deprogramming), herself, an alleged court decision posted on a scientology site which she often reposted [8], I found also a short mention in a book at print.google.com by searching for her, and in a short english article posted by a scientologist. So both sides mention this involuntary deprogramming. --Tilman 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the links. The first one (http://www.ingo-heinemann.de/Hartwig-Schattenspieler.htm#Depro) is in German. The second link (http://web.archive.org/web/20030216200355/http://www.jeack.com.au/~parkdale/cultaware_unzipped/judgmnt.html) is in english, but the victims name is deleted: "On 14.11.1987 towards 13.00 hours the accused, in conscious and intended collaboration with the person Douglas Reynolds who is being prosecuted elsewhere, at the instigation of [deleted] who is being prosecuted elsewhere, lured [deleted]'s daughter, [deleted], a member of the religious society Scientology Church, from her apartment at [deleted], to an outbuilding/annexe of the property of Dr. Schleuter at [deleted], using a sham telephone call. In the telephone conversation by a so far unknown woman,[deleted] was deluded into believing that her mother had suffered a fall and was in urgent need of an inhalation apparatus and the respective medication." Is this "daughter" Barbara Schwarz? --HResearcher 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How vexatious is this litigant, and how does she compare to other vexatious litigants in history?
    • Not very vexatious, just voluminous and persistent. She apparently believes her assertions, which are, after all, her memories, and tries to demonstrate them using discovery techniques. The problem arises when the searches produce little. She resolves the cognitive dissonance by creating "facts" which would explain them. Fred Bauder 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, carry on. Calwatch 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Schwarz is one of apparently two people that SCOTUS has permanently barred from filing civil cases due to her frivilous filing of lawsuits. Ms. Schwarz has also filed more FOIA requests than any other individual on Earth. She is a notable Usenet personality due to her posting of tens of thousands of posts, many of which caught the attention of spam watchers that put the Salt Lake City Library on a spam list because they refused to limit Ms. Schwarz's internet use. SLC Library ultimately banned her from their computers due to her prolific spamming. She is probably the only person in the entire country that has been barred from a public library's computer system for Usenet abuse. do we know that she wrote her 92 part life story on Usenet? And is it verifiable? We know that she did because she admitted to the Salt Lake City Tribune that the life-story series posted to Usenet was written by her. Vivaldi (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a semi-lengthy post here just a few hours ago about this matter, and for some reason it's gone. I don't see why it had to be removed along with everything else. wikipediatrix 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch:

  1. There was also an AP article [9], that was based on the Oregonian article. Is there a certain amount of articles that is requested to be notable? Maybe 5? 10? 20? 100? MacElwaine had none. --Tilman 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    Last night we were debating this. Policy as quoted by another editor indicated frequency of media covereage as the criteria. She has had about 6 articles, but not frequently. So this media coverage does not establish her notability. --HResearcher 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    I couldn't find any policy mentioning frequency just "memories" of another editor mentioning it. :) At this point, I am not disputing her notablity. Why? Because her deprogramming case was notable enough to already be mentioned in deprogramming. --HResearcher 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. As I already told before the removal, she is also a notable usenet figure. She did spam newsgroups, see [10]. That was the reason that her access from the SLC public library was terminated. Joel Furr was never a spammer, he was just a popular guy on the usenet in the early 90ies, although never notable outside of the usenet. --Tilman 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    Is this AHBL a reliable source? --HResearcher 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Judge yourself... they even have their own wikipedia entry: The Abusive Hosts Blocking List. Maybe User:Bruns can answer your question better than me (I think he's following this page). --Tilman 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, AHBL is a reliable source. The information on that page is compiled from our experience with Barbara over the year+, plus stuff from her own court records and such. And yes, I do monitor this page, but if you have specific questions, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll see it alot quicker. Brian 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. She did admit it right here (it is now deleted) that she wrote the 92 part article. Her opinion is that somehow, usenet articles should expire. (At the same time, she routinely uses the archive feature of google groups) She never disputed having written the story. --Tilman 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. She has been partially banned from filing to the supreme court [11]. I don't know if this happened to anyone else. --Tilman 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. As I already told before the removal, this definition survived 3 AfDs. Feel free to submit a 4th one. However, it must have new arguments, so please, please, take the time to read the previous AfDs. --Tilman 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. So here's what we have that makes her notable: 1) several newspaper articles 2) usenet legend 3) more than 80 court cases. That's certainly more notability than Tilman Hausherr, Robert McElwaine, Joel Furr and Green Helmet. --Tilman 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to be plenty of information here to justify an article. Johntex\talk 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree - there is enough to justify an article --Trödel 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I was sceptical before but I think this does meet the criteria. BTW, Tilman, thanks for mentioning the Green Helmet article - it was so awful I promptly rewrote and moved the whole thing. :-) -- ChrisO 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
See my comment there. --Tilman 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not we have enough information to justify an article is not the question. The issue was violations of WP:BLP and the tone being presented by certain editors who seemed to have an agenda. --HResearcher 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Certain editors also seem to have an agenda to remove the article entirely. Orsini 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What was in dispute was the contents and tone of the article which was a violation of WP:BLP. Most of it has been cleaned up. There are still at least one statement in the article that doesn't quite sit right to wit: "Barbara Schwarz has posted extensively to newsgroups, particularly alt.religion.scientology where she is the object of extended discussion, much of it derogatory." This is Original Research. I guess original research is allowed in some cases such as in biographies about living people... --HResearcher 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. The No Original Research policy is clear on this point. If there was a reliable and verifiable source that said something like "Barbara Schwarz has been discussed in a derogatory way on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology", that would be fine; but we can't conduct our own research to support this assertion. -- ChrisO 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The link to the Google Groups search in the reference searches the database for mentions of the name "Barbara Schwarz". The link does not support the allegation that "Barbara Schwarz has been discussed in a derogatory way on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology"; it supports only the facts that (a) Barbara Schwarz is a poster to the Usenet and (b) Barbara Schwarz is a topic of discussion on the Usenet. The link does not support the statement as a verifiable source. Orsini 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I thought. There is not verifiable, reliable source for this. It is simply original research and derogatory, it must be deleted immediately per WP:BLP. But the page is locked so administrators are required to remove the statement. As I said, WP:BLP, WP:V and the tone of the article are/were the main issues here, not whether or not we have enough information to compose an article. --HResearcher 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Inclusion is a question that has been debated and, as has been pointed out, essentially resolved by three AfDs to date. Notable, if for no other reason, because the subject is of continuing interest to those involved in FOIA work. No question that the product must be wholly NPOV, completely sourced, and, insofar as is possible given the situation, un-sensational. Robertissimo 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
However, a point that was made last night was that votes tended toward inclusion a) due to the bizarre behavior of Ms. Schwarz and b) due to the tendency of wikipedians to err on the side of keeping articles, and especially not to be swayed by sockpuppetry or outside influences (look at the cascades of "delete" votes any time a couple of anons start putting their two cents in on a AfD). If we took Ms. Schwarz out of the picture, could it be deleted in AfD? Probably, although at this point it's gotten famous enough, so maybe the best we could hope for would be "no consensus". So I'm not going to do the work to put it up again for AfD, although I would vote for deletion if it came up. Calwatch 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm suprised Daniel Brandt hasn't popped up in this discussion yet, BTW. Calwatch 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
He has come up numerous times. You just can't read the archives unless you are an admin. Vivaldi (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A critic of critics

She is notable for her criticism and exposure of what she believes to be critics of her religion or herself. She has criticed some of the "notable" critics of Scientology such as David Touretzky and her exposure has drawn a lot of attention. The article should cover this because I see this as what is notable about Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Her "exposure" is usually reposting articles from religiousfreedomwatch.org, a scientology smear site. --Tilman 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just forget for one moment that we're talking about Barbara Schwarz and Scientology. If we were talking about a woman in, say, New Mexico, who used similar abusive FOIA and Usenet tactics to further a crackpot conviction that Fluoride deposits in her molars were part of a conspiracy to keep her from learning the truth about Buzz Aldrin's love child, and garnered about the same amount of minimal press for this crusade as Schwarz has for hers, we would not be sitting here debating whether she is notable enough for an article or not. Practically no one on the planet has ever heard of Barbara Schwarz. wikipediatrix 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as having anything to do with Scientology. I know others do, and are here for those reasons, but I am not. I am quite neutral about that aspect. Fred Bauder 23:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, this article was previously part of the series of articles in Wikipedia on the scientology cult. The fact Barbara Schwarz was once the president of the scientology cult in Germany, and claims to have a marital relationship with senior cult exectutive Mark "Marty" Rathbun in her court pleadings [12] and FOIA searches, as well as in her 92-part published autobiography on the Usenet, makes this article something very much to do with the scientology cult. Orsini 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think that Scientology gets way too much coverage here for its importance. What do they have 100,000 members world-wide? Steve Dufour 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
They say they have 10,000,000, but this probably isn't the place to debate that. As you well know Steve, this debate has raged on for years at A.R.S. It has also been discussed in most of the Scieno articles. Vivaldi (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If they really did have 10 million that would be another thing. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the CoS is an evil organization then compare it to other evil organizations, as to the amount of Wikipedia coverage. How about the Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, the Mafia, the Jesse James gang? My point is that Scientology is not all that important so critics of Scientology are not that important (I don't mean to hurt their feelings; just not so important in the flow of world history.) and a critic of critics of Scientology is even less important. Steve Dufour 11:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the real grande scheme of things, none of this will matter one iota in a thousand years, and in 100,000 years, or 1 billion years from now, in a history of the universe, I would suspect that the entire planet Earth and our solar system will be relatively unimportant. Heck, even the entire Milky Way Galaxy is sort of insignificant and unimportant. It really only matters to people that happen to be alive right now and want to learn more about a topic that they've heard about. And I would put forth than many folks on the Internet are curious to learn more about Ms. Schwarz's vast FOIA records persuits, her large numbers of frivilous lawsuits, and her posting of her life story on Usenet. Why are people interested? Probably for the same reason people look at train wrecks and say "Wow". Vivaldi (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix writes, "If we were talking about a woman in..." It is perhaps true that a similar person in a similar situation may not garner an entry, it depends on how many people and what kinds of people that they become notable to. B.S. captured the attention of SCOTUS and the watchful eyes of A.R.S. discovered that she had filed lawsuits against the Church of Scientology -- a notably litigious cult. Its no surprise to me that she meets the requirements of Notability. Heck, we have an article about Sollog here, and another one about the Gaynigger Association of America. Now if we were talking instead about a group called Concerned Beekeepers of Western Idaho, they might not get an article like the Gayniggers. That is Wikipedia for you, and its the nature of the beast. Vivaldi (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW I am going to put in a deletion request on the Sollog article too. It is one of the most stupid I have ever read here.Steve Dufour 11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just checked out the article on Salt Lake City and there are a little over a million people in the area. How many of them do you think have Wikipedia articles? Steve Dufour 02:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends how many other people in Salt Lake City have also been the president of the scientology cult in Germany, and have attempted to sue the President, and have forced government officials to review the mechanisms for Freedom Of Information Act processes and has established a reputation for notoriety in government circles due to their volume of these requests, and have been permanently barred from in forma pauperis filings of noncriminal certiorari petitions by the SCOTUS. I would suggest there is only one such person fitting all of the above noteworthy criteria. Orsini 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Stever writes, "I just checked out the article on Salt Lake City and there are a little over a million people in the area. How many of them do you think have Wikipedia articles?" Do you think there should be more or less than we currently have? According to Category:People from Salt Lake City we have at least 21 articles about people from SLC. I suspect there are probably more than that however. (Probably all the people on the Utah Jazz at least) Vivaldi (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just afraid that some of the other people there might feel slighted if Barbara is mentioned in Wikipedia and they are left out.  :-) the real Steve Dufour 11:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The other people will be included as soon as the Supreme Court of the United States specifically censures them. Vivaldi (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Personally, I find the 2nd paragarph awkwardly worded, and feel that the use of, "She says...", "According to...", "She claims..." does not provide a neutral presentation of the information:

Schwarz stated purpose in seeking information is to verify her personal history. According to Schwarz's memories, she was born in Utah, the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower, where she lived in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents. In Germany, she married a prominent Scientologist who was falsely imprisoned, for having killed her, in a secret prison in the United States.[1] However, the requests for information Schwarz has made have not been able to verify her recollection of the preceding events.

Or something similar where the intro clearly identifies that it is her version of events and then uses a sympathetic tone. --Trödel 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence needs to clearly state that it is Barbara's assertion of an alleged event. The SCOTUS said her claims were frivilous and other judges said her claims were fanciful. And obviously they are. But you can't just leave a ridiculous claim like that in the article without clearly specifying that it is B.S. that is making the claim. Vivaldi (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but how would you phrase it in a neutral way? Fred Bauder 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
See my attempt above. It gives her description of the events, and then asserts that the requests for info have not verified her claims - just the information - no assertion that she is claiming, or whatever - the reader can draw their own conclusions of whether she is delusional or there is a conspiracy against her. --Trödel 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Her descriptions of events are "claims" that she is making. It is not "asserting that she is claiming". A persons descriptions of events can rightly be called their claims as to what happened. Goldman claims OJ murdered his son. Bush claims Iran is a part of the axis-of-evil. Newton asserted that F=M*A. You are tripping over yourself for no reason. Vivaldi (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"She says" and "she claims" are about as neutral as you can get. The only reason it sounds dismissive is because the claims are so absurd. If you write, "David Touretzky claims that neural networks can be usefully modeled and studied by utilizing rat populations". Or if you say Einstein claims that E=MC^2, it is pretty neutral. But when you say, "Tom Cruise claims to know the history of psychiatry", then it sounds like you are being dismissive. The whole point is that absurd claims will sound absurd to anyone that reads them. We are under no obligation on Wikipedia to make absurd claims sound plausible or believable or more believable than they appear on the surface. Every claim that is made in the article should be attributed to someone or some group. Vivaldi (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think people need to be told not to believe Barbara's story?Steve Dufour 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi apparently does not, for the reasons stated above; stating that Albert Einstein claims that E=MC^2 is a neutral statement of fact and it is left to the reader to believe or doubt if E=MC^2. Stating that "Barbara Schwarz claims she lived in a submarine village in Great Salt Lake owned by the de Rothchild family" ([13] paragraph 106) is a neutral statement of fact, and it is left to the reader to believe or doubt her claim. Orsini 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Steve writes, Do you think people need to be told not to believe Barbara's story? Do you like asking questions just to waste people's time? Obviously I don't think that people need to be told to disbelieve B.S. I just want any claim that is attributed to Barbara's words, to be attributed to Barbara in the article by using "Barbara says..." or "Barbara claims...". It is not appropriate to say that Barbara is the granddaughter of Eisenhower and the wife of L. Ron Hubbard and also the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard (yes...both wife and daughter since her "thetan" moved from mother to daughter during her childbirth) -- and then just source the claim to B.S. with a link to her writings. It is appropriate to say "Barbara claims she is the granddaughter...". This is as neutral as you can get. We are under no obligation to pretend that Ms. Schwarz's claims -- that are absurd on their face and mocked by numerous judges -- have any merit whatsoever. But we also don't need to waste time by pointing out that invisible pink unicorns controlled by nazi psychiatrists probably don't exist outside of Barbara's mind. We just need to say what Barbara claims and attribute it to her. Then we can present the claims of others in a similar manner. Even those that are not astute can figure out "the Truth" without a Big Chief Tablet(tm) and a set of crayons. Vivaldi (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was asking why you, and others, think it is so important to have an article on her. Are you afraid people will believe her stories if there is not one? Steve Dufour 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We are going in circles. No I don't think anybody will believe Barbara's stories, whether they are posted on Wikipedia, nor if she writes them on stone, nor if she shouts them from rooftops. The article isn't here to disprove Barbara's claims. Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of "Truth". Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability and not "Truth". The reason she is "so important that we must have an article about her" is because many people on the internet are interested in learning more about her and they have made it known that they want this article here. The process is called consensus and after three attempts were made to completely remove the article in AfDs and the resounding voice of Wikipedia editors was they want the article. I can't speak for all the people that said we should have this article, but I know it would have saved me some valuable time if there was an article like this to read when I first had the displeasure of running across Ms. Schwarz. Vivaldi (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz' 92-installments is very long almost a book so why bits and pieces are being cherry-picked is beyond my understanding. --HResearcher 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
One has to make some decision, what parts of her life were notable and what not. For example, she mentions her wedding dress somewhere (in the marriage to Jürgen Schwarz) and that she hated it. That is probably irrelevant for wikipedia. --Tilman 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha! Unless the wedding dress was a gift from the Queen of England or something. :) What I meant was that information about a submarine base etc seemed to be a major focus, but absolutely no mention of the deprogramming attempt and the involuntary psychiatric treatment. Those 2 events are much more notable than what someone believes about their past childhood. --HResearcher 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The deprogamming attempt is notable and should be included in the article. The claims about her past childhood are also notable as these claims are the center of her FOIA requests. Orsini 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz' 92-installments is very long almost a book so why bits and pieces are being cherry-picked is beyond my understanding. HResearcher, why don't you "cherry pick" some choice quotes of your own from the series? Everyone's life story will contain nuggets of information that are unusual and notable because they distinguish those folks from "normal" folks. Most people don't say they had sex with L. Ron Hubbard and died in the process and then became their own child. That's an unusual claim that Barbara makes and it is one of the more interesting bits. The few parts were she talks about mundane and "normal" things in her life aren't why she is notable. Vivaldi (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Newsgroup activity

It is noteworthy to add to this section the fact that Barbara Schwarz was permanently suspended from the use of the Salt Lake City Public Library's personal computers and internet [14] due to complaints regarding her spamming [15] of the Usenet. Orsini 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a better reference than usenet for the claim that she was "suspended from the use of the Salt Lake City Public Library's personal computers and internet" or is that all we have? --HResearcher 09:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Barbara (or rather, a supporter of her) posted the letter from Nancy Tessman. (One might verify this letter through a GRAMA request [16] if there is doubt that her access was terminated) Plus, AHBL mentions it too, and that they removed the UEN block [17]. --Tilman 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The second linked reference above supports the first linked reference which was posted to the Usenet on October 24, 2005. It states: "As of October 21st 2005, it appears that the Salt Lake City Library has terminated her access to their computers and network. As per AHBL policies, we have delisted the UEN netblock that she was posting from." The Abusive Hosts Blocking List is considered to be a reliable reference, since its IP block lists are used for filtering corporate email. Thirdly, on the archived talk page that was deleted about 24 hours ago, Barbara Schwarz herself stated in reference to this matter: "One day they [the library] gave in and denied Internet access to me." There are many other references posted on the Usenet by Barbara Schwarz herself stating that she was permanently suspended from the Library's computer and internet use, however the reference above from the cited Usenet message above accurately quotes the letter dated as October 21, 2005 by Nancy Tessman, the Director of the library. Barbara Schwarz's response to that letter appears above it in that post. Orsini 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's negative and poorly sourced to USENET. What does WP:BLP say about this? How deeply have you researched into Barbara Schwarz related USENET postings? Have you found anything positive to say about her based on usenet postings or are only the negative things important? --HResearcher 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. 1. There are at least two sources to verify the allegation; one source is the Usenet. The second source is The Abusive Hosts Blocking List reference. A third source is from Barbara Schwarz herself on the Talk page that was removed.
2. Noting the concerns stated in WP:BLP which may be of issue here:
  • Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. I don't consider the material to be poorly sourced. The AHBL and the poster of the Usenet message are on opposite "sides"; the person posting Schwarz's email to the Usenet is a friend of Schwarz.
  • The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. The statement Barbara Schwarz was permanently suspended from the use of the Salt Lake City Public Library's personal computers and internet due to complaints regarding her spamming of the Usenet can be amended to Barbara Schwarz was permanently suspended from the use of the Salt Lake City Public Library's personal computers and internet due to complaints based on allegations she was spamming the Usenet while still citing the same references and retaining accuracy with a softer "tone".
  • Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. Reference is made to WP:RS guidelines: Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. Also: Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. Reference sources have been provided. More than one source confirms the validity of the statement. The statement has been verified by both of the stated references, and by Barbara Schwarz herself.
  • Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. I am satisfied that the information is accurate and is not defamatory.
  • The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. As I am the editor who added this material to the article (this time around), I am accountable for it, and I am satified the material is correct and accurate.
I notice there is a project which Fred Bauder is on, (WikiProject Fact and Reference Check) and as Mr Bauder has been looking at this page already, his comments on this matter would be welcomed.
3. The only positive posting I have found Barbara Schwarz has made to the Usenet was a report of the opening of the Salt Lake City branch of the scientology cult in December 2005. [18] It shows Barbara Schwarz is capable of writing a good article when she chooses. She often appears to choose differently. Orsini 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deprogramming victim

I don't know anything about this particularly, but am very interested in what it was all about. I'm going to research into the references Tilman provided and any others that I can find. I'll try to make sense of it for inclusion in the article. --HResearcher 08:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So far I have 3 references, http://www.ingo-heinemann.de/Hartwig-Schattenspieler.htm#Depro, http://web.archive.org/web/20030216200355/http://www.jeack.com.au/~parkdale/cultaware_unzipped/judgmnt.html, and http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/barker.htm. The first 2 were provided by Tilman, the last was found in the Deprogramming article. The very first one does me no good because I don't know German. I am assuming that in the "violent deprogramming" by Cyril Vosper, the victim was Barbara Schwarz. Is there a confirmation on this, because at this point it is original research due to the fact that the victim's name is deleted in the 2nd reference and CESNUR also doesn't mention the name of the victim. --HResearcher 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is her. I know it because 1) Barbara reposted the court decision and mentions "Vosper" in her 92 part series, 2) attorney Heinemann mentioned the case with all the names 3) a book mentions her name [19]. However we can't be sure that the text of the court decision is really correct; it appeared originally on a scientology smear site, and it has a contradiction about the length of the sentence (5 or 3 months?). --Tilman 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is Barker used as a reference when she does not even mention Schwarz' name? Andries 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz recently posted three articles to the Usenet relating to her involuntary deprogramming. Article [20] appears to be a transcripted copy of a letter from Doctors Slavin and Häser, detailing the injuries she had sustained and assessing her psychological trauma. Article [21] appears to be a transcripted copy of a letter from Doctor Kühnemann, stating her estimated recovery time from her injuries. Article [22] appears to be a transcripted copy of a letter from the police or a police report. Barbara Schwarz's transcriptions of letters and documents are mostly accurate; it's when her interpretations of these documents are added that matters tend to become confused, or when parts of the original are omitted. Is there an independent copy or scan of these letters and documents available? By this account, it appears her own exit counseling / involuntary deprogramming experience explains much of the venom she expresses for the practice. Orsini 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of these documents before. I'd advise Barbara (who is hopefully reading this page) to put up scans of the originals on her website. Btw, there was no "exit counseling" for Barbara, since it was never volontary. "Exit counselling" is by definition voluntary. --Tilman 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that I used the term "involuntary deprogramming". Per se, deprogramming does not mean a kidnapping, although the word is often represented as something illegal, which is why the term "exit counselling" is used today. In the "old" days, Deprogramming could also mean that cult members agreed to talk with a "deprogrammer" hired by the family to hear another side of the story about the cult. Usually the deprogrammer brings an ex-cult member with him. --Tilman 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are two more references about the involuntary deprogramming which included kidnapping and violence: Watching for Violence, A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups, by Eileen Barker, CESNUR and Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions, by Elisabeth Arweck, 2005, page 114. The deprogramming attempt was done mainly by Cyril Vosper with the help of a few others. --HResearcher 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Involuntary psychiatric treatment

According to Barbara's story, she was illegally detained and abused at a German psychiatric hospital (University of Munich). She gives names of people involved, judges, lawyers, witnesses, etc. She mentions court hearings and cases she has won. So she has won cases, contrary to the previous version of the article that said she has never won a case. Are there any alternative sources to support these claims? --HResearcher 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are only sources that she did undergo psychiatric treatment in Germany (the Heinemann source I mentioned before, which names a person (Barbara) mentioned without name in a state attorney document about scientology, as an example of a member whose mental condition got bad because of scientology).
Germany does not have "public" court records like the US. We can only get the documents through Barbara, her family, her german attorney, or any other people who were involved in these court cases. --07:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually it seems her condition was worsened by the involuntary psychiatric treatment, she seemed perfectly happy being a Scientologist. --HResearcher 08:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Barbara's story, she is also the daughter of L Ron Hubbard and lived in a submarine village in Great Salt Lake. She gives names of people involved. In the same manner, she may mention court hearings and cases she says she has won in Germany, however there are no scans or records of documents which supports these claims. She also claims the lawsuit her friend Richard Scoville lost against the AHBL wasn't dismissed. Put simply, she does not have a record of being honest in what she claims. Orsini 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be biased against Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be biased towards removing and deleting this article. If there is little positive information in this article, it is because it is not possible to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. The fact remains that Barbara Schwarz constantly makes claims about herself and about others which are demonstrably untrue and /or have no basis in reality. Given her record, her unsubstantiated claims cannot be considered to be reliable. Orsini 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You're intent seems to be to discredit Schwarz. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to discredit living individuals. I found postings of Barbara Schwarz with reference to legal documents, yet you keep insisting that Schwarz has no credibility. This proves that you are biased and only here to discredit. Please remember NPOV. Failure to follow NPOV reflects badly upon the editor and damages Wikipedia's credibility and puts it at risk legally. --HResearcher 04:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make assumptions on my intent. This article should not reflect any opinion or bias. As Fred Bauder has stated above, the article should contain just the facts. Key claims Barbara Schwarz have made under oath are that she is L Ron Hubbard's daughter and lived in a submarine village in Great Salt Lake. Any person or agency assessing the charges she makes about others without substantive evidence ought to bear her history of these claims in mind, especially when she accuses other people of criminal acts and activities. In response to you in the section "Remove page?", with regards to your comments on "undeniable meat": the same facts apply here. The article does not need to make a statement on her credibility, as a key point of WP:NPOV is Let the facts speak for themselves. As it stands, WP:NPOV is being violated by the current article in omitting verifiable sources. WP:BLP states If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Also: editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Many references have been removed which have been relevant to her notability because of accusations of negative bias; I repeat: we cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I do not dispute you have found postings from Barbara Schwarz with reference to legal documents, but are they copies or transcripts of the documents, or are they her interpretations of them? As her numerous postings on the Usenet have shown, Barbara Schwarz will mix one or two facts with her own fictitious interpretation and present the result in a manner favorable to her. Please also note you have also previously dismissed the Usenet as being reliable source material, even when this material has been supported by other publications. Do you now propose to allow Barbara Schwarz's recollections posted on the Usenet of the court cases she claims to have won as statements of fact? As a suggestion, it is worth noting in the article that: Although her court challenges in the United States have been dismissed as frivolous, Barbara says she has pursued litigation in Germany with success, including the cases of (cite the material you have found). Adding this statement is NPOV and is more favorable to her than stating only that Schwarz has responded by resorting to litigation, most of which has been dismissed as frivolous as the article curently stands. Orsini 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about the involuntary psychiatric treatment. Note the header "Involuntary psychiatric treatment". --HResearcher 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you veer off and start talking "legal documents"? Vivaldi (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, again, Tilman. Last night a found a couple other web sources that proved she is telling a story about something that really did happen to her. --HResearcher 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this the most difficult problem. It is quite likely she was subjected to deprogramming at least once; was homeless for extended periods of time; jailed; and institutionalized. In a word, suffered. An article which passes over those things is not very authentic. But perhaps just leaving the link in to her 92 part story serves. Fred Bauder 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I Agree. Specifically what I was referring to was the deprogramming and involuntary psychiatric treatment. --HResearcher 04:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It is quite likely she was subjected to deprogramming at least once; was homeless for extended periods of time; jailed; and institutionalized. In a word, suffered. Fred, if you are willing to accept that her 90+ part story posted to Usenet is authentic (since it was verified by the SLC Tribune and presumably by the subject Ms. Schwarz), then you can mention those facts in the article as long as you say that Ms. Schwarz claims "blah blah blah..." I don't object to having more of her notable quotes about events in her life from being talked about, but I think you'll find that the subject of the article will not be happy with any summary of her story that you can possibly come up with. However I am concerned that you and HResearcher have deleted a number of claims about Ms. Schwarz that are notable and verifiable from news sources. Namely 1) The CoS has specifically disavowed Ms. Schwarz. 2) She is in the country illegally and costing taxpayers thousands of dollars 3) You erased links to a number of lawsuits and hearings that she was involved in, these documents further bolster the claims made by the newspapers. 4) She has sued thousands of people and agencies. Negative information is perfectly acceptable in a biography of a living person when that information is properly sourced to a verifiable source. A sow's ear is a sow's ear -- and when you have numerous sources to back it up, then it belongs in Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't be concerned with Fred's deletions. If he wanted to he could delete this entire article. I has been pretty apparent that you have been using this article as an attack page. Usenet is not a reliable source, and your cherry picking certain pieces of information and ignoring other notable facts further proves that your intent is to use this as an attack page. --HResearcher 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred cannot singlehandedly make a decision to delete this entire article. He does not own Wikipedia. Mr. Bauder has already stated that he has no intention to delete the article anyway. And I am not the only editor nor admin that has objected to the manner in which Fred has handled himself with his edits to this article. I am warning you not to engage in personal attacks against other editors, HResearcher. It is inappropriate for you to question my motives here. I have no intention to make this an "attack page", I only want to include information that is notable and verifiable. And claiming that "USENET" is not a reliable source would only leave you in the strange position of arguing both for and against the inclusion of Ms. Schwarz's own words in this article. Barbara Schwarz's 90+ part story that was posted on USENET has been verified as authentic by Ms. Schwarz and also by the Salt Lake City Tribune. Do you now wish to argue that the story is not acceptable to be quoted here? Vivaldi (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We should mention the involuntary psychiatric treatment, there are alternative sources such as the ones Tilman mentions. --HResearcher 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to mention it, although I find it odd that you would think that including her mental health history and history of commitments for insanity would tend to put her in a more favorable light. It seems like this kind of information might be construed as just another attempt to defame Ms. Schwarz. But if you want to include her long history of mental illness in the article, then feel free. Vivaldi (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You're claiming that I think "that including her mental health history and history of commitments for insanity would tend to put her in a more favorable light". Well you are wrong. It has nothing to do with favorable/unfavorable. --HResearcher 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You accuse me of "cherry picking" negative information from her story, when in all reality, I wasn't the one who put in anything in the article at all, let alone anything that came from her life story. If you want to accuse someone of "cherry picking" then you need to address your comments to the proper editor. Vivaldi (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The involuntary psychiatric incarceration should be mentioned because has been notable enough to draw a lot of attention in Germany when it occured. I'm still waiting for Tilman to provide the German sources. If he doesn't, I'll just get them from someone else in Germany. --HResearcher 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you the source before: [23]. This is Ingo Heinemann, attorney and longtime scientology critic (who has spoken out against involontary deprogramming long before the Barbara Schwarz case, but is often attacked by scientology and Schwarz): Offenbar hatte die Mutter den Engländern nicht gesagt, dass ihre Tochter nicht eine beliebige Scientologin war, sondern die frühere Pressesprecherin Barbara Schwarz. Die war während ihrer Tätigkeit bei Scientology psychisch krank geworden und wurde wegen Selbstgefährdung zwangsweise in eine psychiatrische Einrichtung eingewiesen. Summarized: The mother had not told the deprogrammers that Barbara was the former spokesperson and had been put into a psychiatric institution because she was a danger to herself. This is a german issue. So it won't be available in english. There are other germans in Wikipedia who can confirm this text. --Tilman 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If you find notable information that is verifiable then it should be included. I've said numerous times that I think her long history and battles with mental illness should be included if they come from verifiable sources. We should also include in the article that Ms. Schwarz has recently been publicly disavowed by the Church of Scientology in her local newspaper. We should also include that she sued the Church of Scientology. We should also mention her status as an illegal alien, wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars with her frivilous and fanciful claims. Vivaldi (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

please remove the link to the pay site

for the Salt Lake Tribune article. Wikipedia is not an advertising service and we don't attach Amazon ordering links to cites about printed books, for example. We do have the special ISBN page that generates a bunch of such links and maybe we could do something similar for newspaper archives. But for now we should just cite the newspaper article with the {{cite news}} template and let the reader deal with getting hold of it. This particular article is available through the ProQuest database which is accessible at no charge through lots of public libraries, so we shouldn't go linking to a pay site. Phr (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also available here [24]. I have no reason to believe that this is a copyright violation. --Tilman 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That site does not indicate express permission to republish, so it is a copyright violation. --HResearcher 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
And if it had, how would you know that it's true? The text "published with permission" or no such text proves nothing. --Tilman 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't but I would assume good faith unless there was a good reason to doubt it. Additionally, it would be verifiable with a letter to SL Trib. --Trödel 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you keep all images submitted to Wikipedia images just because there's no evidence that the images doesn't have permission? --HResearcher 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. The text wasn't submitted to Wikipedia. --Tilman 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission. It's a copyvio unless note of permission is made. --HResearcher 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone could include a note. A note proves nothing. --Tilman 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, lack of such a note does not prove that the individual has permission to republish the article. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Personal websites with copied news articles. --HResearcher 04:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So we disagree. You're not budging, and I'm not budging. :) You might want to read this discussion and take your argument there. Until it's settled it should be considered a copyvio. --HResearcher 09:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


There is no reason to remove this - it would be included as a reference even if it is not linked - linking to it provides those that desire a way to view the source without going to their local library or requiring that they have access to aggregator that includes the tribune. The link clearly indicates that payment is required (or at least it did when it was first added). I think linking is preferable to no link and preferable to linking to a site that has no permission to republish and this is a copyright violation. --Trödel 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS has had discussion about linking to pay sites. The concensus became, "Link, but warn", that is, incude something that the reader can understand so he doesn't spend 30 seconds with a dial up connection, getting up a webpage that doesn't give him the information he wants but invited him to spend money to get the information he hopes for. Terryeo 11:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara's importance?

As a trivial point of opinion, one is tempted to simply say "So WHAT?" about Barbra's infatuation with information. Terryeo 11:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good question. My reasons for protesting against this article are: 1. She is not very important; there is very little interest in her outside of people who happen to post on the same newsgroups that she does. 2. Because there is very little interest in her the only people who have an interest in the article are people who have something against her; there is no balancing view. 3. Because the article is so one-sided it looks like an attack article. 4. Barbara herself has said that she is hurt by the article. 5. After looking over some of Wikipedia's policies, especially on biographies of living people, it seems to me that this is not the kind of article that is intended to be a part of Wikipedia.Steve Dufour 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The question whether there should be an article about this person has already been answered with yes by the fact that the article survived three failed article for deletions. Andries 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If there is another call for deletion I will excuse myself from voting if everyone else who also knows her from a.r.s. does too.Steve Dufour 03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The importance of Barbara Schwarz seems to warrant significant attention by members of the scientology cult who wish to disconnect their association from the former president of their German branch, when her US litigation history, her claims of paternity to L Ron Hubbard, and claims of living in a submarine village in Salt Lake are cited. The removal of the article category tags, particularly in relation to the Scientology controversy, seems to indicate bias favorable to the scientology cult. Orsini 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please cite a source to your claim: "seems to warrant significant attention by members of the scientology cult who wish to disconnect their association from the former president of their German branch..." I notice you are a new user, so let me inform you now of Wikipedia's policy WP:NOR. You can talk all you want about what seems to be real to you, but you cannot use your arguments to compose the article. Here is what WP:NOR says about this: Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position. --HResearcher 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder of the policy, and if what you alleged was so, I would agree with you - but it isn't, and so I don't. Evidence of the scientology cult's wishing to disconnect from their former German president is evident in the statement from Linda Simmons Hight, former director of media relations for the cult, who has stated: "We're clueless about this person and obviously she is delusional about Mr. Rathbun and she needs help. We're sorry for her." (source: Smith, Christopher, "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System", The Salt Lake Tribune (Payment required), 2003 May 11). The cult claimed not to know her, which is clearly a lie since she'd sued the cult and had been a past German national president. This doesn't makes my observation original research, and I am not suggesting my opinion of that statement is incorporated into the article. I believe the Hight statement supports what I have also stated insofar as the scientology cult wishing to diconnect from Barbara Schwarz. Removal of article category tags, particularly in relation to the Scientology controversy, indicates a bias in favor of the scientology cult; the removal of these tags has opened this article up to be edited by Wikipedia editors who are prohibited from editing articles associated with the Scientology controversy. In my opinion based on observation of events here, there seems to be a fanatical desire to remove this article after three failed AfD discussions initiated by those supporting the aims of the scientology cult, edit wars, and the removal of verifiable source material only because its inclusion does not make the subject appear to be the peer of Mother Teresa. Orsini 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I would think that if the purpose of the article is to discredit some other party rather than to inform the reader about the article's subject that would also be a good reason not to include it in an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the article is to provide a reliable reference about a noteworthy figure in the history of FOIA, the US court system, and the scientology cult. Schwarz's past presidency of the German branch of the scientology cult and her official excommunication from it warrants the Scientology controversy tag being applied, particularly in relation to disconnection practices by the cult. Orsini 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case should her Scientology connection be the first sentence? Maybe "Barbara Schwarz was the president of the Church of Scientology of Germany for 11 months in 1983 to 1984."? If that is the reason she has an article that is. Steve Dufour 15:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Scientology is the reason this article is here, not because of Dwight Eisenhower and not because she's trying to set a world's record for FOIA requests. wikipediatrix 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There are many people in Scientology and many people who "have been" presidents of it's churches. This does not make her notable. What makes Barbara notable is that she was a president of the Scientology church who who illegally detained and incarcerated and then subjected to involuntary psychiatric "treatment". That is amazing and the most notable thing about Barbara Schwarz. Also, the deprogramming attempts, is interesting. Everything else, in my opinion is trivial. --HResearcher 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
For whatever reasons, her notability is established. Orsini 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The most notable is what was in the SLC Tribune article and other newspaper articles: Barbara searching for her imagined husband Marty Rathbun with FOIA carpet-bombing. This has been discussed before. --Tilman 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Nobody in the US cares about Barbara because she was head in Germany for a year. Her fame is for her unsuccessful FOIA. That was also what the article in the SLC Tribune was about. You two should not really alter this article at all - after all, you both have the opinion that it should be deleted. That makes it hard to assume good faith. --Tilman 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Orsini just got through saying that it is her Scientology connection that makes her important.Steve Dufour 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I said no such thing. The purpose of the article is to provide a reliable reference about a noteworthy figure in the history of FOIA, the US court system, and the scientology cult. Steve Dufour, please do not twist my words. Orsini 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? If the FOIA requests are her claim to fame, then she has no more claim to fame than any other overzealous armchair conspiracy theorist. There are lots of people who have articles about them in the SLC Tribune who don't get articles on Wikipedia. Besides, Scientology is an integral part of her FOIA abuse anyway, so does it really matter? I haven't removed any text anyhow - I've just reversed the order of the paragraphs. wikipediatrix 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course I am serious. What makes her most notable is what should be at the top. For example, Joel Furr doesn't have at the top that he's a software trainer in Vermont. --Tilman 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have the feeling that Joel's article should be deleted too. But I'm not going to bother; it's not hurting anyone. Steve Dufour 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, go ahead. Maybe the Wikipedia article is used to attack him. (If not, I could do it) --Tilman 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just spent a pleasant half hour reading it and his FAQ. Fred Bauder 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - a pleasant trip down memory lane --Trödel 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A highly notable thing about Barbara Schwarz is her involuntary deprogramming and psychiatric "incarceration" after being the President of the church. It is just as controversion, or more controversial, than her FOIA requests. --HResearcher 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't (TM). --Tilman 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Her involuntary commitment wasn't notable enough for newspapers to report on it. However her FOIA requests and her lawsuits were notable enough for numerous papers and the Associated Press to write a story about them. I certainly don't object to having this article contain more quotes from Barbara talking about her numerous psychiatric incarcerations and evaluations, but the majority of the article should be reserved for the claims for which we have numerous independent verifiable outside sources, namely her numerous lawsuits and FOIA requests. Vivaldi (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure there hasn't ever been any news articles about it her deprogramming and psychiatric incarceration? What about in Germany? This was back in the late 80's. But news articles are not the only sources to be used in Wikipedia. There are other sources and we discussed this a couple days ago. She is mentioned on the Cyril Vosper articles which gives references, that's where I found one of the references I mentioned. --HResearcher 07:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident of it. Ms. Schwarz seems fairly adept at locating information that exists. But it is silly to argue about something that doesn't exist. No, I can't prove that there weren't any stories written by some source 20 years ago about Ms. Schwarz, or about you, or about invisible nazi psychiatrists that use earplants and killer bees to further their agenda to destroy the universe. If you find verifiable sources, then quote them. It's pretty simple. Vivaldi (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? --HResearcher 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You asked if I were sure there weren't articles written about Schwarz 20 years ago in Germany. I said that I was pretty confident that there were not, but that I am not about to go about trying to prove that non-existent things don't exist -- it is waste of time. If you find information that is notable and verifiable, then put it in the article. It is pretty simple. Vivaldi (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tilman confirmed above that there are sources, but they are German. If Tilman won't come up with them, I'll ask someone else. --HResearcher 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tilman's sources said nothing about the unlawful incarceration, they mentioned the Deprogramming, but the subject of the sources Tilman provided were mainly anti-scientology. --HResearcher 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So what? Barbara is pro-scientology. --Tilman 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to change "it"

In the article it says that Barbara vigorously defends "it" without saying what "it" is. From the context it seems clear enough that "it" is Scientology, but the word "Scientology" does not appear anywhere in the sentence--just "it". Steve Dufour 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading it again, maybe "it" refers to the Church of Scientology. That would make a little more sense. Steve Dufour 12:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Husband"?

This sounds kind of strange. Wouldn't it be better to say, "the man she says is her husband"? the real Steve Dufour 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

BE BOLD STEVE! If the English phrasing sounds odd, then go ahead and fix it. Nobody is going to get mad at you for making changes like that. Vivaldi (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I already did. Steve Dufour 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I'm going to go ahead and unprotect the article; let's clean up some language and see who wants to make what changes. Fred Bauder 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the changes I suggested. Steve Dufour 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deprogramming

I added information about the deprogramming attempt on Barbara Schwarz. I want to write about the unlawful incarceration in a psychiatric hospital, but need more sources. If anyone knows Barbara, or has her email address, please get sources from her and put on my talk page. --HResearcher 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Her e-mail is barbaraschwarz@gmail.com She posts it every single day on USENET. However I doubt you'll convince her to help you with a Wikipedia article. According to her all Wikipedia editors are pigs and criminals. Vivaldi (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this original research by HResearcher? Interesting if so, as I have just been reminded of WP:NOR policy by HResearcher. Orsini 05:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't original research if he sources any claims in the article to verifiable sources. Original research would be if he did an interview of Ms. Schwarz and tried to include it, or if he tried to give his own opinion or analysis of what a court document means. Looking for sources and reading up on them isn't original research. Vivaldi (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Vivaldi for clearing up this point. Orsini 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, yes thank you for pointing this out. And I sincerely must apologize to you about my comments which caused friction between you and I. Since the history is unviewable, I was thinking you were one of the users doing what I accused you of. Now it is impossible to tell, unless an admin goes through all the edits of the deleted version, if that is even possible. But since it is gone, I'll drop it and never mention it again unless it becomes and issue in the future. --HResearcher 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

HResearcher, here is another article you can look for that discusses the Schwarz deprogramming case: Peter Victor, Anti-Cult Groups Riven by Schism and Bitter Feuds The Independent on Sunday 9 October 1994:9 I don't think it provides any more information that what is already given, but you can look it up if you want. Vivaldi (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt:
In the past this has led to a series of embarrassing and worrying
incidents. In 1987, Cyril Vosper, a Fair committee member, was
convicted in Germany of kidnapping and causing bodily harm to
Barbara Schwarz, a 32-year-old German Scientologist whom he tried
to "de-programme".
--Tilman 07:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this may explain her immigration status. She may very well have been granted asylum. However this could not be checked as the State Dept. hold these requests confidential. Fred Bauder 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Asylum from Germany after being the victim of a crime there? That doesn't seem like a possibility at all. In any case, Ms. Schwarz is on record admitting that she is an illegal immigrant subject to deportation. Vivaldi (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to the SL Trib interview - her immigration status is less than clear from the article, and "subject to deprotation" is a conclusion not what she admitted to at all. --Trödel 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets assume for a moment that she did apply and get asylum. Why did she admit to the SLC Trib that she is illegal? And why did she hide her successful asylum to the public? After all, she has said countless times that Germany is evil. Getting asylum would "prove" that theory.
Barbara's position is that she is a US citizen because she was born on US soil, lived a happy childhood in a submarine village, and then was kidnapped by the SEGNPMSS to Germany. --Tilman 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Barbara makes many statements against her own interest that are incredibly puzzling - and many of them have been shown to be not true - why would we believe this one statement??? - which is unverified by the way the trib writer wrote it --Trödel 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Fred, according to the New York Times, the first Scientologist believed to have received asylum in the United States was Antje Victore in 1997, who was claiming religious persecution in Germany. Catherine Bell in fact introduced Victore before Congress in 2000 as "the first German Scientologist to be granted asylum by a U.S. immigration court on the grounds that she faced ruinous religious persecution if she had to return to Germany". Unfortunately, it was shortly after that that Victore's application was exposed as fraudulent -- of the business owners who had written letters explaining that they could not hire her because she was a Scientologist, at least five were actually themselves Scientologists who had been asked to provide Victore, not with a job (which she had not, in fact, applied for) but for a letter similar to the sample letters Victore provided, pretending that they dared not hire Victore because she was a Scientologist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar, please don't make any claims or speculations or arguments which may affect how we or outside readers may view Barbara Schwarz' status in the United States unless you are going to provide citations to reliable sources. See the policy WP:NOR. Thank you. --HResearcher 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, I am afraid you are very greatly misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies. I hope it is accidental. You may, if you wish, ask for sources for things said on a talk page; your idea that nothing may be said "which may affect how we or outside readers may view Barbara Schwarz' status in the United States" (emphasis added) without pre-emptively anticipating the demand for sources is simply without foundation. If all policies affecting article space were to affect the talk pages as well, then Fred would never have been allowed to go into his original research speculation, which according to his own claims could not possibly be supported by citations to reliable sources, Barbara "may very well have been granted asylum" and "this may explain her immigration status." Your own blatant bias is, I'm afraid, demonstrated by the fact that you said not a single word about this speculation, which practically jumps up and down and screams "I may affect how we or outside readers may view Barbara Schwarz' status in the United States!!!!" but when I provide detailed information about why Fred's entirely speculated scenario conflicts with known information (and as previously noted, you could have asked, in a CIVIL manner, for sources, and I would have been happy to oblige) you jump down my throat with an irrational demand that I constrict my postings on the talk page according to those policies which affect article space. Perhaps you should attain a greater grasp of Wikipedia policy yourself before you try to use it so one-sidedly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe unsourced information which is not negative is not so much of a legal problem, although it could be claimed as damaging by the subject of an article. The uncited "generally believed" information which you provided could lead to original research and a negative portrayal of the subject's legal status in the United States and I just ask you to please cite your sources as required by WP:NOR. In regards to Fred, I chose to focus on a point of agreement between us (concensus) and note that I did more than just mention WP:NOR to him, Tilman, and Orsini. --HResearcher 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If I had been putting in the article the information that I introduced here, then I certainly would have provided my sources, as I would have done if politely requested:
  • Frantz, Douglas. "U.S. Immigration Court Grants Asylum to German Scientologist", New York Times, 1997-11-08, pp. A1 (2 pages).  "While few details of the case were available, it is believed to be the first time the United States has given asylum protection to a Scientologist."
  • Kent, Stephen A. (January 2001). "The French and German versus American Debate over 'New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights". Marburg Journal of Religion 6 (1).  "Among the Germans [Catherine Bell] introduced was "Ms. Antje Victore, who in 1997 became the first German Scientologist to be granted asylum by a U.S. immigration court on the grounds that she faced ruinous religious persecution if she had to return to Germany" [...] Bell could not have known that, two weeks later, Germany's Stern magazine would expose her asylum application as fraudulent [...] Scientology agents from the organization's Office of Special Affairs got at least five Scientology business owners to write fake letters to her, all rejecting her for employment because of her Scientology involvement. Apparently on the basis of these fake "job rejection" letters, an American immigration judge granted her asylum."
However, I find it unlikely that this information could have gone in this article, since the only way it is relevant to the article is in debunking an editor's private speculation that Barbara Schwarz might have been granted asylum, which of course cannot go in the article since that is original research. I would appreciate you withdrawing your false accusation of original research now, rather than trying to perpetuate it with phrases such as "The uncited [...] information which you provided could lead to original research" (emphasis added). Again, your bias is quite amply shown by the fact that when you read one editor advancing his own speculation, and a second editor providing factual information which rebutted that speculation (admittedly, without source citations, since those are not expected on talk pages unless requested), you misidentified the rebutting factual information as "speculation" and made an unreasonable demand that that poster abide by wide-ranging restrictions not to "make any claims or speculations or arguments which may affect how we or outside readers may view Barbara Schwarz' status in the United States" unless abiding by a policy which specifically states it is not to be applied to article talk pages. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, thanks for the reference. We now have multiple sources about the violent deprogramming of Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 10:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Asylum?

(I believe Fred's comment here is in response to Antaeus Feldspar's comment of 23:39, 22 August 2006. Fred, if I am wrong, please correct me and if my action in adding this header and note is wrong, also please correct me. In my best faith possible... Thank you. --HResearcher 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

Nevertheless, there is obviously no interest in deporting her. We do have some problems with enforcement of immigration laws, but such a notorious troublemaker would have been deported if she was illegal. Again, you rely an a weak branch; why take her word even at second-hand? Once you go down that road you will be in Chatanooga. Fred Bauder 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As editors, it isn't really our job to wonder why she isn't deported (even if this document [25] shows that some people aren't very awake), only whether she is an illegal or not. Barbara has admitted to the SLC Tribune that she is. --Tilman 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Her US citizenship status is uncertain, at best. An earlier version of the article said she was a "German citizen living in Salt Lake City". If The Chatanooga Factors in her statements are ignored, Paragraph 83 of her Salt Lake Tribune lawsuit [26] states she denies telling anyone she is in the country illegally. In paragraph 120, she admits she has a German birth cerificate. This makes her a German citizen. It appears one version of edits to the article described her as an illegal alien, however that was a inappropriate POV description based on what is known, and a conclusion based on speculation on what remains uncertain. Conclusions based on speculations, even if they are logical conclusions, don't belong in the article. Orsini 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fred Bauder, Tilman, and Orsini on this point. Conclusions based on speculation do not belong in the article, and that such discussion has no place talk pages. Unless there are sources stating "such & such" we cannot add "such & such" to the article no matter how much consensus supports speculative original research of "such & such". Discussion of these speculations is allowed (although considered poor taste according to WP:NOR), however according to WP:BLP, such discussion could even be deleted and exempt from 3RR. Am I wrong about this? Here's the citations from WPolicies. WP:NOR: "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages."[27] WP:BLP: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia." [28] Also, note that according WP:BLP the information doesn't necessarily have to be negative. My understanding of this citations is that any biographical material with no source or poor sourcing should be deleted. I'm not going to do it, though, I'll leave it up to Fred, he's the admin who can apply WP:OFFICE. Last time I tried to apply this policy I was blocked for reverting other users who kept restoring material that I felt was poorly sourced. We were and probably still are in disagreement of the reliability of the sources being used. If we can all work this out, I believe we can set an example on biographical articles (unless it's already been done) and prevent a lot of trouble from people who have made legal threats to WIkipedia. (This is not a legal threat, I'm trying to help Wikipedia). CHeers! --HResearcher 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I not WP:OFFICE. I am acting just as an administrator. On Barbara Schwarz's legal status, I know that asylum requests are confidential, even if granted. Combined with the fact that being here illegally is a crime and that our only source is a rather confusing newspaper article what we have is negative information which is poorly sourced which any user may remove from the article, repeated removal being an exception to 3RR. Another problem is that those who advance the information want it prominently featured. Fred Bauder 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I just assumed you have WP:OFFICE powers. (And I meant: the last time I applied WP:BLP I was blocked.) Anyway, I totally agree with you on this. I think this article can turn into something quite notable and intersting if it were being composed properly based on unquestionably reliable sources. BTW, I've read Barbara's story up to that point of being released from the psychiatric incarceration. --HResearcher 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, being illegally "here" is a crime. It wouldn't be the only crime committed by Barbara; she mentioned other crimes in her 92 part story. It isn't the fault of wikipedia editors that this makes her (or Kenneth Lay) somehow look bad. --Tilman 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're only insterested in a negative POV portrayal of Schwarz I suggest you recuse yourself from this article and it's discussion. We don't need editors who only focus on negative information. --HResearcher 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Who says I'm "only insterested in a negative POV portrayal of Schwarz"? If I found evidence that Schwarz got an award for whatever, I'd add it as well. --Tilman 06:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article was always based on reliable sources: The SLC Tribune, court decisions / records. The exception are the statements attributed to Barbara, which were clearly referred as such. --Tilman 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The SLC Tribune article isn't a reliable source by default. I agree with Barbara that it is yellow journalism. About usenet: even though you can claim the postings are by her, they are still unreliable and her postings are flanked by forgeries almost everywhere I look. They are utterly unreliable. USENET should not be used as a source at all. --HResearcher 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, do you consider the SLC Tribune article an unreliable source only because it fails to turn the sow's ear into a silk purse? I remind you again of WP:BLP policy: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. The Tribune article was the subject of Schwarz's libel lawsuit against the newspaper, and it was thrown out of both the trial court, and on appeal. From the appeal court decision: Because we conclude that all of Plaintiff's claims are without merit, none of her claims could possibly proceed to trial. (emphasis added) Schwarz v. Salt Lake Tribune, Media Newsgroup, ET AL Case No. 20030981-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH , May 5, 2005. The Tribune article underwent the scrutiny of courts of law on two occasions; given this level of attention to that article, why do you consider it to be unreliable source? Also User:Vivaldi raised the paradox of your selective sourcing of the Usenet material before in the section on Involuntary psychiatric treatment when you dismissed the Usenet as a source, and you have not replied to the points Vivaldi raised there. Orsini 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not the only one who thinks the SLCT article is unreliable. Fred Bauder has also stated that it is biased. Are there any other reliable third-party published sources to support claims of her status here in the U.S? That's what this discussion thread is about. If you'd like to discuss the Involuntary psychiatric treatment then please do so in the appropriate thread to avoid arguing things over & over. Note that in that thread I stated that I am working on getting sources, until then mention of the Involuntary psychiatric treatment is not supported for entry into the the article. --HResearcher 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Claiming that the SLC Tribune article is biased is original research that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Are there any verifiable sources that have said the article is biased? If so, then please add that information to the article and cite your sources. Otherwise, you are falling into the same trap as Bauder. You want to remove verifiable information using unsourced claims of bias. It isn't up to editors to discern "the Truth". The standard for inculusion in Wikipedia is not "Truth" at all, it is verifiability. So information that is verifiable and relevant should be in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, admins had to come and remove the article because of violations of WP:BLP. PERIOD. --HResearcher 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, the matter of Involuntary psychiatric treatment isn't being discussed by me in this thread; the matter I am discussing here is the reliability of source data meeting WP:V standards. Specifically, the Salt Lake Tribune article which you do not consider reliable source data, and the paradox in your dismissal of the Usenet as a source, to which User:Vivaldi pointed to in that thread. Your willingness to accept her 90+ part autobiography posted on the Usenet, yet dismiss other articles on the Usenet, and also dismiss a published media article that has undergone court scrutiny appears to be a paradox. With regards to her immigration status, any discussion is pure speculation for the reasons Fred Bauder has stated before. You are wrong in stating the article is not a reliable source, and you are wrong to dismiss the article's factual data as unreliable because you don't consider the article was complimentary to Schwarz, despite most of the data within it being independently verifiable by other sources. Orsini 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not recall EVER using her story to introduce information into the article. In my opinion, USENET should not be used at all. I searched for any secondary references I could find that would support Barbara Schwarz' story and then I used those to write the part about the deprogramming. --HResearcher 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder writes, "Nevertheless, there is obviously no interest in deporting her. We do have some problems with enforcement of immigration laws, but such a notorious troublemaker would have been deported if she was illegal." My response: There are 10-15 million illegal aliens in this country. ICE concentrates on evicting the ones that are convicted of felonies, gang-related crimes, and drug-related crimes. Petty thiefs like Ms. Schwarz are not a top priority for the ICE. Ms. Schwarz is admittedly an illegal alien. She admits that she is subject to deportation. She admittedly has a German birth-certificate. Numerous judges and justices have referred to her status as a German citizen as recently as 2 years ago. Your idle speculation that she may have been granted asylum does not deserve a place in this article. You could perhaps say that "Ms. Schwarz claims that she was granted asylum" IF that were true, but that isn't true. Ms. Schwarz has never claimed that she was granted asylum or citizenship. She has claimed that she was born in the U.S., but those claims are only substantiated by her memory. The reason her immigration status is important to this article is the same reason it was important when the newspaper discussed it. People in the U.S. especially are concerned that illegal immigrants, like Ms. Schwarz, are wasting taxpayer funds with their abusive FOIA requests and frivilous pro-se lawsuits. I don't care if this information is "prominently featured" as you claim all editors here insist on. I do however want notable information that is properly sourced to be included in the article and so the discussion of her immigration status is appropriate. Vivaldi (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, I thought you didn't like people making personal attacks. Now you're making a personal attack on one of the biggest admins in Wikipedia: You called his speculation: "Your idle speculation". Calling it idle is a personal attack. Why are you bringing up this subject of asylum, that discussion ended days ago and most of us agreed that it was original research and we shouldn't even be discussing it. And, your statements seem to be original research, you haven't provided any source that claims any reason of the importance of her status in the United States. It looks like you are basing your speculations about this importance on just your own original research. --HResearcher 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Calling it idle is a personal attack." No it isn't. I'm not attacking Bauder personally. I'm saying that it is idle speculation that she has been granted asylum. It holds no more water than claiming that Ms. Schwarz was spawned by invisible pink unicorns. I respect Fred Bauder as an editor, but I'm under no obligation to agree with all of his decisions. There are many other editors and admins that also disagree with Mr. Bauder on this and many other issues. Having a disagreement is not a personal attack. Vivaldi (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Watch those adjectives. You may think it's no big deal, but others do. You used the same type of personal attack on Bauder as you did on me. "Idle" speculation, "faulty" interpretation. Do you have any more adjectives that you can use to degrade what/how someone thinks? :) --HResearcher 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Why are you bringing up this subject of asylum, that discussion ended days ago and most of us agreed that it was original research and we shouldn't even be discussing it." Sorry, HResearcher. You don't own this talk page, nor do you get to decide when a discussion ends. Her status as a German citizen is well documented by numerous judges, her own words, and by a Salt Lake City newspaper. It is an important part of the story because the SLC Tribune says that people are concerned that illegals, like Ms. Schwarz, are wasting U.S. taxpayer money. Vivaldi (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The discussion about asylum has ended, even though you want to perpetuate some discussion under this "Asylum" section and talk about Barbara Schwarz' citizenship and immigration issues. --HResearcher 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher writes, "USENET should not be used as a source at all." However, these are stories that are admittedly written by the subject of the article and they are confirmed by the SLC Tribune. Mr. Bauder seemed concerned that we didn't have enough of Ms. Schwarz's own story in the article, but now that you have apparently had a chance to read her story, you don't even want to include it, even though she admits that she wrote it. Words that are verifiably written by the subject of an article can be included when they are talking about themselves. Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, USENET should not be used as a source at all, ever, in Wikipedia. That is my opinion. How do you determine that I "apparently apparently had a chance to read her story"? The only thing I want to include in any article is notably relevant information which is supported by various sources. USENET is hardly verifiable, even though a person admits it. Hey, "I admit I was the one who actually wrote the 90-part series." So now what, can you make an article about HResearcher and include the 90-part series and say Ms. Schwarz is actually someone who goes by the name HResearcher? --HResearcher 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can get the Salt Lake City Tribune to write an article that says they interviewed Ms. Schwarz and she admitted to writing under the name HResearcher at a specific place on the Internet, then the answer is "yes". Works that are verifiably by the subject of the article are allowed in articles, even if they are available on Usenet. Obviously, Usenet by itself isn't a great source of information, but when we have a statement by Ms. Schwarz admitting that she wrote the series...and that statement is published in a reliable and reputable newspaper, then it meets the qualifications for inclusion. In any case, you need to take it up with Fred Bauder, since he is the admin and arbcom member that thought is was appropriate to include the authors own verifiable statements in the article as a partial effort to maintain neutrality, rather than previous versions that neglected using her own written words. Vivaldi (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Litigation list

Should the list of litigation Barbara has started be included some place, maybe as supporting a sub-page?

"The following is a non-exhaustive list of litigation Ms. Schwarz has initiated." Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be included; it was in the deleted version. It might still be on the web; if not, I downloaded a google cache version a after the delete. The best would be to take it from the deleted version. --Tilman 06:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The list goes something like -
  • Supreme Court of the United States appeal of the following two cases (98-7771 and 98-7782), both dismissed as frivolous. [[29]]
Schwarz v. United States National Security Agency ET AL. 98-7771
Schwarz v. Executive Office of the President of the United States ET AL. 98-7782
  • Schwarz v. Federal Bureau of Investigation No. 00-2758 (Case summary and appeal dismissal), 70 defendants. [[30]]
  • Schwarz v. Federal Bureau of Investigation No. 98-4036, 3087 defendants. [[31]]
  • Schwarz v. Central Intelligence Agency No. 99-4016 [[32]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of Agriculture This was later re-filed as over 90 separate cases. (In Barbara's own words.) [[33]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of Energy No. 99-3234, 807 defendants. [[34]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of Energy Request filed 09/19/2002 [[35]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of Energy No. VFA-0700 (Decision and Order) [[36]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of Energy No. VFA-0701 (Decision and Order) [[37]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of Justice No. 95-2162; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, May 31, 1996 [[38]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of State No. 97-1342 [[39]]
  • Schwarz v. Department of the Treasury No. 98-2406; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, November 30, 2000 [[40]]
  • Schwarz v. Government Accounting Office No. 00-369 (In Barbara's own words.) [[41]]
  • Schwarz v. INTERPOL, ET AL; No. 94-4111, 94-4142, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 1995 [[42]]
  • Schwarz v. National Archives & Records Administration 98-6820, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 14, 1998 [[43]]
  • Schwarz v. National Credit Union Administration Appeal of request on October 15, 1999. [[44]]
  • Schwarz v. National Credit Union Administration Appeal of request on February 14, 2000. [[45]]
  • Schwarz v. National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) [[46]]
  • Schwarz v. Patent & Trademark Office No. 95-5349 [[47]]
  • Schwarz v. Postal Rate Commission [[48]]
  • Schwarz v. Postal Rate Commission [[49]]
  • Schwarz v. Salt Lake Tribune, Media Newsgroup, ET AL Case No. 20030981-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH , May 5, 2005 [[50]]
  • Schwarz v. United States Navy [[51]]
  • Schwarz v. Duncan Case No. 990945-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH, June 15, 2000 [[52]]
  • Schwarz v. Church of Scientology International and Utah State Department of Corrections; Nos. 93-4082, 93-4092. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 2, 1993 [[53]]
  • Barbara Schwarz v. FBI, Civil Action No. 00-2758(JDB) MEMORANDUM OPINION Filed SEP 24 2002
  • Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc., No. 97-4004, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 15, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Church of Scientology Int'l, No. 94-4072, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 1995
  • Schwarz v. Salt Lake Tribune, Case No. 20041124-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH , 2005 UT App 189
  • Schwarz v. IRS, 5:98-CV-286 (FJS)(GLS), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 998 F. Supp. 201; 1998
  • Schwarz v. California Dep't of Corrections, No. C-92-4119 EFL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, June 10, 1993
  • Schwarz v. NSA, 98-7771, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 26, 1999
  • Schwarz v. Executive Office of the President, 98-7782, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 26, 1999
  • Schwarz v. FBI, 98-8150, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 526 U.S. 1037; 1999, March 29, 1999
  • Schwarz v. FBI, 98-6817, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1053; 119 S. Ct. 616; 142 L. Ed. 2d 556; December 14, 1998
  • Schwarz v. National Inst. of Corrections, 98-6818, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1053; December 14, 1998
  • Schwarz v. United States Parole Comm'n, 98-6819, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1053; December 14, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Department of State, 98-6316, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1025; November 30, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 98-6317, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1025; November 30, 1998, Decided
  • Schwarz v. Executive Office of the President, 98-6318, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1025; November 30, 1998
  • Schwarz v. IRS, 98-6623, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 525 U.S. 1031; November 30, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc., 97-7652, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 1029; March 23, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc., 96-9371, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 845; October 6, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Clinton, 96-9254, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 837; October 6, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Spalding, 96-8905, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 826; October 6, 1997, Decided
  • Schwarz v. Clinton, 97-5456, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 895; October 6, 1997
  • Schwarz v. MSPB, 96-9094, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 1126; June 27, 1997
  • SCHWARZ v. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, 96-8150, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 1216; May 12, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Brown, 96-7944, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 1189; April 21, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Commission on Civil Rights, 96-7943, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 1175; April 14, 1997
  • SCHWARZ v. WOODRUFF, INC., 96-7945, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 1175; April 14, 1997
  • SCHWARZ v. WOODRUFF, INC., 96-7946, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 1175; April 14, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Office of Gov't Ethics, 96-7932, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 1175; April 14, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Clinton, 96-7343, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 1135; February 18, 1997
  • Schwarz v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 95-8532, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 1226;May 28, 1996
  • Schwarz v. United States HHS, No. 02-5327 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT , 2003 U.S. App., May 7, 2003
  • Schwarz v. FBI, No. 02-5321 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT , 2003; April 10, 2003
  • Schwarz v. United States HHS, No. 02-5327 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 25, 2003
  • Schwarz v. FBI, No. 02-5321 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, January 28, 2003
  • Schwarz v. United States GAO, No. 01-5445, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 29, 2002
  • Schwarz v. DOE, No. 01-5413, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 2002; March 25, 2002
  • Schwarz v. Dep't of Agric., No. 01-5276 Consolidated with 01-5328, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 22 Fed. Appx.9; 2001
  • Schwarz v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, No. 00-5453, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 2001 May 10, 2001
  • Schwarz v. CIA, No. 99-4016, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 182 F.3d 933; 1999, May 25, 1999
  • Schwarz v. FBI, No. 98-2347, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, November 5, 1998
  • Schwarz v. NSA, No. 98-5364, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, November 12, 1998
  • Schwarz v. National Archives & Records Admin. ., No. 98-4070, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 5231, October 7, 1998
  • Schwarz v. National Inst. of Corrections, No. 98-1230, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 1998 Colo. J.C.A.R. 5236, October 6, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Nat'l Inst. of Corr., No. 98-1230 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT , 161 F.3d 18; October 6, 1998
  • Schwarz v. FBI, No. 98-4036 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT , 161 F.3d 18; September 17, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Department of State, No. 98-5101, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 1998 U.S. App., July 29, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Department of State, Office of Freedom of Info., Privacy & Classification Review, No. 98-5101, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 335 U.S. App. D.C. 320; July 29, 1998
  • Schwarz v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 98-1685, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, July 2, 1998
  • Schwarz v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 98-1685, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, 153 F.3d 722; July 2, 1998
  • Schwarz v. Clinton, No. 96-5328, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 1997, May 22, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Clinton, No. 96-5328, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 325 U.S. App. D.C. 321; Certiorari Denied October 6, 1997
  • Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc., No. 97-4004, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 111 F.3d 140; Certiorari Denied October 6, 1997,
  • Schwarz v. MSPB, 96-3383, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 18, 1997. Certiorari Denied June 27, 1997,
  • Schwarz v. Clinton, No. 96-5209, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, November 29, 1996; Certiorari Denied February 18, 1997
  • Schwarz v. United States Comm'n on Civil Rights, No. 96-5184, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, November 6, 1996
  • Schwarz v. DOJ, No. 95-5421, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 1996, October 23, 1996
  • Schwarz v. DOJ, Office of Info. & Privacy, No. 96-5183, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, October 23, 1996
  • Schwarz v. United States Office of Gov't Ethics, No. 96-5094, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, October 23, 1996
  • Schwarz v. Church of Scientology Int'l, No. 94-4072, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 48 F.3d 1232; February 28, 1995
  • Schwarz v. United States Postal Serv., No. 94-4136, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, September 19, 1994
  • Schwarz v. Department of Commerce, No. 93-5203, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, December 16, 1993
  • Schwarz v. California Dep't of Corrections, No. 93-16321, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, October 13, 1993
  • Schwarz v. Department of Commerce, No. 93-5203, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, October 14, 1993
  • Schwarz v. United States Postal Serv., No. 93-4036, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, June 3, 1993
  • Schwarz v. Interpol, Office of Information & Privacy, No. 92-4108, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, October 19, 1992
  • Schwarz v. FBI, Civil Action No. 1:98-CV-47, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; August 7, 1998
  • Schwarz v. California Dep't of Corrections, S038979, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 1994 Cal., May 11, 1994
  • Schwarz v. State of Utah Mental Health, Case No. 20030875-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH, September 30, 2004
  • Dep't of Human Servs. v. Schwarz, Case No. 20030324-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH , November 28, 2003
  • Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Mental Health v. State Record Comm., Case No. 20010942-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH , 2002 UT App 33; February 7, 2002
  • Schwarz v. Duncan, Case No. 990945-CA , COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH , 2000 UT App 172; June 15, 2000
- to name just a few. Orsini 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is some duplication in the list, and it does need a clean-up, but it seems that the list is rather long and distracts from the article itself. That is why I was thinking in terms of a sub-page rather than in the main line.

Also, many of the entries were added just before the great war started, and do not have links to the source documents, something that should be fixed if there are on-line versions available. (Not all courts have their documents available via the internet.)

I'm not sure if the list should be alphabetic, or ordered by date of initial action (if known.) Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorting the list by dates may be confusing, as could sorting the cases in alphabetical order as some of the cases inter-relate. For example, a case may go from the trial court, to the appeals court, to the circuit court, then finally to the SCOTUS, which is also why some entries appear to be duplicated. A combination of alphabetical and cases might be appropriate, but listing the cases strictly in chronological order overlooks how a particular case may have run through several courts over a period of years. Please also note the Utah courts don't have an internet lookup system for dockets as yet. Orsini 22:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction / qualifaction: The Utah courts do not have a free internet lookup system for dockets over three months old; access to records requires submitting an application for access and fees. See http://www.utcourts.gov/c_srch/index.asp for application for an XChange account. Orsini 08:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


WP:NOT. Why clutter up the place with a big list of cases that only support editors who have already shown they intend to spread the rumor that Barbara only loses case? I'd also like to see the case(s) she won against the german government in the late 80's. --HResearcher 12:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was you who had complained that there weren't enough sources, especially for the "more than 80" allegation.
Feel free to ask Barbara to mail you copies of the cases she "won". --Tilman 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for providing those. Who counted 80? Still, you cannot use those to make a claim that she has never won a lawsuit. That would be a violation of WP:BLP and original. --HResearcher 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Why clutter up the place with a big list of cases that only support editors who have already shown they intend to spread the rumor that Barbara only loses case?" My goodness. You call the mountain of evidence showing nothing but losses "a rumor"? Even Ms. Schwarz does not claim to have won a case in the U.S., so why would you make it seem like there is some possibility that she has? In any case, we can say that in the over 80+ cases that we do know about, she has lost them all. Let the reader decide what that means. If there are any wins, even Ms. Schwarz is unaware of them. Vivaldi (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Tilman, and exactly what statement are you using these cases as a source? Nothing! These cases are only being used as a source for original research to make a negative claim about Barbara Schwarz' litigation history. --HResearcher 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In the deleted discussion, you were claiming that there wasn't evidence that she filed 80+ cases. So the 80+ cases were added. --Tilman 06:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to state that Schwarz has lost every case she has filed in the United States; go through that list, look at the case summaries. She claims she's won cases in Germany. She claims also to have lived in a submarine base under Great Salt Lake as a child. Sorry HResearcher, but until photographic or substantial evidence of either claim are forthcoming, I consider them to be Chatanooga. Orsini 22:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Orsini, stop using original research. You have no source that says she has lost every case filed in the United States. You are basing your speculation entirely on the some cases that are known of, while forgetting that there could be cases you are not aware of. That is original research. Note, I will be applying WP:BLP and removing every statement you make make about Schwarz which you do not support with citation. --HResearcher 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The rule against original research does not apply to talk pages. You have a faulty view of Wikipedia policy. Ms. Schwarz has never won a case in the U.S. I know it for a fact and she admits it. And I can say this on a talk page, despite your faulty view of Wikipedia policy. In any case, we can say in the article that Ms. Schwarz has not won any of the 80+ cases that she was involved in that editors have cited here previously. Vivaldi (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember WP:NPA Vivaldi? My view is a little more conservative than yours, I think, that's all. Anyway, you do not know that Ms. Schwarz has never won a case in the U.S. I am under no obligation to provide evidence to disprove your statement, any burden of proof is upon you, Vivaldi. How do you "know it for a fact"? direct us to the exact place where she "admits it". --HResearcher 14:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Involuntary psychiatric "treatment", etc.

I'll see what I can do to get scans. --HResearcher 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Ms. Schwarz isn't interested in helping you perform your research. [54] Vivaldi (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, lol. Orsini 09:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher: there is no substantial or verifiable evidence that Barbara Schwarz's psychiatric incarceration was either illegal or initiated by the German government; therefore quotation marks have been made to this heading accordingly. [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff
Barbara Schwarz claims any action she does not like or does not agree with is "illegal"; see [55]
Q: Barbara says that filing abuse reports to her ISP about her behavior is illegal and a felony. Is that true?
A: No, hardly. Filing abuse reports is a standard procedure online whenever abuse of network resources is suspected. This is why contact information is required in ARIN and domain WHOIS records, as well as why the SMTP RFCs call for a postmaster@ and abuse@ address on all domains. (citation added Orsini 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
For example, Schwarz claimed the filing of complaints to the UEN about her spamming of the Usenet was "illegal" which is completely false; this fact is noted on AHBL page about Schwarz. Please also note the scientology cult is hostile to the German government because the German government does not consider the scientology cult to be a religion, nor does it consider cult disciples sufficiently accredited to carry out what amounts to psychotherapy. Orsini 09:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Any psychiatric treatment against a person's will is a human rights violation. Just because Germany, Russia and China thinks it is ok to do it, doesn't mean its "legal". There is substantial and verifiable evidence. Your claim that there isn't will not stop people from looking into the sources. It may be a while until we get those sources. I am not taking into consideration German government's claims regarding any religion, the day it ceases to violate this basic human right, then I may consider anything the German government has to say. Until then, it's statements are impeachable by the people. --HResearcher 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, if there is already substantial and verifiable evidence meeting WP:V standards of illegal human rights violation specifically by the German government of Barbara Schwarz, why don't you cite it? Why will it take a while to get these sources if these substantial and verifiable sources already exist? Orsini 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Because, first of all, they are not on the web. Secondly, they are in German and thirdly they are in Germany in boxes stored under tight security. At this point, I only have verbal confirmation that there are sources but practically unaccessible at the moment. It will take a while to get them because Im going to have to write some letters and attend some meetings about this, and provide some funding, and then the boxes will be taken to visit the xerox machine. I hope you aren't also going to require me get notorization. --HResearcher 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, it appears to me you are clearly testing WP:NOR policy: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. In any case: yes; I would insist on notorization. Orsini 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure you've made a mis-statement there. The Church of Scientology might have been seen by some people in the past (especially in the German Government) as being hostile, in recent years the German Government has quit investigating every Scientologist they can find, every E-meter they can lay their hands on, every piece of Church promo litature that is passed out, etc. etc. etc. The Church quit resisting to the degree the government quit harrassing, heh. Terryeo 16:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So this is what Robert Vaughn Young described as "handling"? Ontopic or not, to answer Terryeo: officially, The German government considers the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and an extreme dislike of any criticism. The government is also concerned that the organization's totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany's democratic society. Several kinds of evidence have influenced this view of Scientology, including the organization's activities in the United States. In addition: Scientology has waged an aggressive campaign against Germany. Using full-page ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post that began in October 1996, the Scientology organization has compared the treatment of Scientologists in present-day Germany with that of the Jews under the Nazi regime. This is not only a distortion of the facts, but also an insult to the victims of the Holocaust. Officials in Germany and the U.S. have repeatedly spoken out against this blatant misuse of the Holocaust. It continues: In its ads and writings, the Scientology organization claims it is internationally recognized as a religion, except in Germany. This is false. Further: In its campaign to discredit Germany, Scientology uses the tactic of supplying only incomplete information to back up its claims, making it extremely difficult for the German government to research and respond to charges. Source: German Embassy, Washington DC: Understanding the German View of Scientology. I'm fairly sure there's been no mis-statement there by me; it is clear there has been an orchestrated campaign of hostility against the German administration by the scientology cult. Claims of governmental persecution of cult members are questionable. For example, the claims "religious refugee" Antje Victore was being "harassed" by the German government have been proven to be fraudulent. In the cult's claims of her "persecution", it omitted the fact of Victore's debts, and the pending trial of Karl-Erich Heilig, a senior member of the scientology cult, where Victore would be called to give testimony had she remained in Germany for his tax evasion prosecution. How convenient that all of her rejection of employment letters due to her scientologist background from Germany were written in English, ready for presentation to US immigration and the court in Clearwater, Florida. Was the fact these rejection letters were written by members of the scientology cult merely a superfluous detail? It's clear the cult wanted Victore out of Germany, beyond the reach of a subpoena. How inconvenient though that Stern exposed this textbook example of fraud in the "religious persecution by the government" claim by the scientology cult of its disciples in Germany, in an article published on June 29, 2000. Terryeo, these persecution claims appear to be Chatanooga, so please do not falsely accuse me of making “mis-statements”. It seems to me that cult sympathizers are trying to pull a version of this scam here with unsubstantiated claims of Schwarz’s “unlawful" psychiatric incarceration "by the German government". Please support Schwarz’s claims to standards meeting WP:V Orsini 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to me or Terryeo or both of us in your personal attack about "cult sympathizers" ? Orsini read WP:NPA before you discuss things any further. --HResearcher 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, did you finally get a chance to read the policy at WP:NPA? You keep removing the numerous warnings and information from your talk page that shows that you have violated Wikipedia policy regarding this many times.[56] You also removed the information showing that two admins agreed that you should be blocked for your violation of policy. Pot, kettle, black. Vivaldi (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I remove stuff from my talk page all the time. It is *my* talk page isn't it? the real Steve Dufour 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not your talk page. You do not own any of the articles on Wikipedia, not even the talk page with your username on it. Certainly you will be expected to edit that talkpage with more interest and passion than other people, since it is meant for editors to talk with you. However, you will note that removing recent warning messages and warning templates from your talkpage is viewed as vandalism by many admins and editors. Many have been blocked for removing warning templates. In this case it was particularly egregious because Hresearcher had stated a verifiable untruth about me on many pages, including on my RfC. He violated Wikipedia policy by engaging in personal attacks and he deserves a warning on his talk page so that other admins and editors can take appropriate action when he continues to violate Wikipedia policies. Vivaldi (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is beginning to look like the Chinese govt. vs. Falun Gong disputes. The Chinese government also makes such statements. It's a propaganda war. The U.S. State Department has pointed out violations of freedom of religion by both Germany and China. Freedom of religion is a basic human right, governments are out of line in determining what people can and cannot choose as their religion. There may always be problems within religions but pointing out those specific instances to just justify the wholesale condemnation of a religion is a violation of human rights. It is wrong and evil for any goverment to use psychiatric detainment and involuntary "treatment" against individuals who choose to fight for their religious freedom. That is what the Chinese government has doing to the Falun Gong and that is what Germany did to Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That is what the Chinese government has doing to the Falun Gong and that is what Germany did to Barbara Schwarz. Well, we can see that you are pushing a POV here. So do you think that abusive and dangerous cults should be given free reign to deceive, defraud, and abuse innocent civilians? Do you think its okay when they serve the kool-aid to the children too? Vivaldi (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, please cite evidence meeting WP:V standards to support your allegations of direct involvement by the German government in Schwarz's psychiatric detainment and involuntary treatment. Orsini 07:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree Terryeo, Orsini doesn't really know whats going on concerning this and continues to make speculations (original research) As long as Orsini doesn't edit the article to include those speculations, Wikipedia should be ok. And per WP:BLP we could even remove some of the statements Orsini makes. --HResearcher 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher, I have stated speculations do not belong in the article; is this one of my statements you plan to remove? I'm very aware of what's going on concerning this; the scientology cult appears to be ashamed by the antics of their ex-German president and wishes to disconnect itself from her. It's worth noting you have removed statements from this article in the past which met WP:V. Orsini 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're making original research. Do you have a reference which says the church wishes to disconnect from her? You say the church appears to and it's your awareness. How about a reference, Orsini, not your original research. --HResearcher 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Linda Simmons Hight, a spokesperson for the Church, claimed just a few years ago that the Church knew nothing of Ms. Schwarz and called her delusional. This was well after the fact of Ms. Schwarz being president of CoS Germany. When you are expulsed from the Church that you love and the Church's spokespeople disown you, that is called "disconnection". Ms. Schwarz has talked about this numerous times and the story was recounted again in the Salt Lake Tribune. Vivaldi (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"We are clueless..." could mean "We do not understand..." rather than "We know nothing..." Steve Dufour 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an unusual reading of the comment given the context, but even if that were the case, saying that they are clueless about the former Pres. of CoS Germany and calling her delusional is a form a disconnection (even if you believe that they meant "We do not understand...."). Vivaldi (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Linda Simmons Hight, made no mention of disconnection. Claiming the church wishes to disconnect from Barbara Schwarz is Orsini's original research and Vivaldi agrees with her. Orsini and Vivaldi have "consensus" but no clear reference. --HResearcher 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So Hight's statement "We're clueless about this person" wasn't a willingness to disassociate a connection between Schwarz and the cult? It's in the Salt Lake Tribune article; the same reference you removed from the article previously when you vandalized it. Had you succeeded in your vandalism, there would have been no clear reference. Orsini 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The Hight reference is clearly mentioned in the Salt Lake Tribune article. It is not original research. Occam's razor, HResearcher. We're still waiting for you to cite evidence meeting WP:V standards to support your allegations of direct involvement by the German government in Schwarz's psychiatric detainment and involuntary treatment to support your extraordinary and inappropriate comments by comparing the treatment of Falun Gong in China with the scientology cult in Germany. Orsini 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I have cited the reference before as a reply to you, in the Barbara's importance? section where you made this same allegation previously; it is not original research. You seem to be making this statement again just to provoke conflict. Please cite evidence meeting WP:V standards to support allegations of Schwarz's unlawful psychiatric incarceration by the German government. Orsini 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't post off-topic. --Tilman 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not off-topic, it is highly relevant. Barbara was the president of the church of scientology of Germany right before the detainment. It looks like a human rights violation to me. --HResearcher 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher ought to also examine why the German authorities wanted Schwarz out of Denmark and back in Germany. For the sake of relevance, of course. Orsini 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, what makes you think anyone has voiced any prevention of such an investigation? --HResearcher 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The file from the Amtsgericht Munchen, Geschaeftsnummer 462 Cs 115 Js 3953/83 will answer the question of "illegal" detention. Orsini 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting copies of the scans are in the works thanks to a few people who have responded to my emails over the weekend. --HResearcher 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is really amusing. So the information may or may not be available, are in German, in Germany, in boxes (in a secret location?), and you have only "verbal" confirmation about all this. Ever heard about WP:V ? --Tilman 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Or WP:NOR for that matter, presuming HResearcher penetrates the location of these mysterious boxes of documents, from a basement with a sign on the door stating "beware of the leopard" and under joint SEGNPMSS and black helicopter guard somewhere in deepest darkest Germany, at HResearcher's expense. Someone please explain to me why it isn't original research, as the batteries ran out on my own [57] ear implants. Seriously now: this type of original research has trademarks similar to the Antje Victore affair. Orsini 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

German citizen

The Supreme Court of the United States calls her a "German Citizen" in Schwarz v. CIA, No. 99-4016, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 1999. Also, in the 2003, SLC Tribune article it says, "Schwarz says she entered the United States on a visitor visa in the late 1980s and tried unsuccessfully for years to adjust her status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service before giving up." Ms. Schwarz admitted that INS could kick her out of the country in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Link [58] --Tilman 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Identifying Marty Rathbun

Fred Bauder has removed references to Marty Rathbun, claiming that it is not that one. However, Barbara has clearly said it's the guy on the RTC website: [59] I think you know that there is a person on Flag with the same name, Marty Rathbun. Rathbun is not a rare name. But it is not the same Marty that is on the RTC photo. That is the real Marty Rathbun, the one that you did not meet at Flag.. So one thing is sure: the guy who was on the RTC website was the person she was searching for. --Tilman 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun, the former Inspector General of RTC and leader of Scientology, is the man she is looking for. That is why she sued CoS. That is why Ms. Hight said she was delusional about Mr. Rathbun. The name should be reinstated in the article. Rathbun is a public figure as well and his "involvement" with Ms. Schwarz is part of the reason she is notable. Vivaldi (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this is that this perfectly innocent man is being dragged into a deal he had nothing to do with, as far as we know from any reputable source. Fred Bauder 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
He had something to do with it. He was specifically mentioned in a lawsuit by Ms. Schwarz who believes him to be her husband. The Church of Scientology itself mentioned Ms. Schwarz and Mr. Rathbun in the same sentence to a newspaper reporter. At the time Mr. Rathbun was the #2 man in all of Scientology, being the Inspector General of RTC under David Miscavige. If CoS didn't have a problem mentioning their leader and Ms. Schwarz for an article in the newspaper, I see no reason why you think Mr. Rathbun should have his name removed from this article. A comparable example would be removing the link to Jodie Foster from the article about John Hinckley. Another example would be removing the link to Pope John Paul II from the article about Mehmet Ali Ağca. Neither Ms. Foster nor His Excellency wanted the attention tossed at them by these former unknowns. Mr. Rathbun is (if he's still alive) a public figure. His position as a leader of Scientology made him an object of obsession for Ms. Schwarz as evidenced by the many thousands of FOIA requests and lawsuits that she filed trying to find him. His name should be reinserted into the article. Vivaldi (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
But Ms Schwarz could have picked almost anyone. What if she had picked you? Hubbard and Eisenhower are dead. Mark Rathbun is not. Fred Bauder 10:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jodie Foster isn't dead either. Look, WP:BLP says that unsourced negative information about living people may be removed. The fact that Marty Rathbun figures in Schwarz's delusions isn't unsourced and while it might be uncomfortable to Rathbun that the situation exists, it isn't negative to him to report on its existence. I'm trying to give every benefit of the doubt but I still have trouble understanding how it could be seriously argued that the name of a public figure should be removed until -- until what? Until Rathbun steps forward and admits that he is Schwarz's husband? Fred said that he was removing the name because we have "no credible evidence of the involvement of this innocent person", but the only way Rathbun could be more involved in the matter of Schwarz's claims regarding him is if he stepped forward to confirm them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that it certainly is not negative in the least, and in any case, could be viewed as positive for Mr. Rathbun. It shows that he was an important enough figure within the organization to be the target of Ms Schwarz's fantasy despite no prior relationship. And, yes they could have met in their lives, but I also met and spoke with L. Ron Hubbard, but that does not mean there was any sort of "relationship". Chance and casual meetings happen all the time. It also adds to the fact that Ms. Schwarz has a history of selecting [in]famous people to weave into her stories. She also claims that Hubbard and Eisenhower were replaced by imposters and that the ones we know are not "the real ones." Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Bauder writes, "But Ms Schwarz could have picked almost anyone. What if she had picked you? Hubbard and Eisenhower are dead. Mark Rathbun is not." Hinckley and Ağca could have picked anybody as well, but they picked public notable figures, just like Ms. Schwarz. Rathbun wouldn't have been chosen as an object of desire if he wasn't one of the leaders of Scientology. In any case, his name is an important part of the story. Ms. Schwarz is now inextricably linked to Mr. Rathbun through presumably no fault of his own. However, just because Mr. Rathbun is "innocent", doesn't mean that Wikipedia should bury its head in the sand. It is verifiable that Rathbun has a woman that is stalking him and it should be reported here just as it was in the Salt Lake Tribune and in numerous lawsuits and even in U.S Appeals court opinions. This is public knowledge about notable public people. There is no excuse to excise Rathbun's name from the article. Vivaldi (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The public "knowledge" being discussed is TRIVIA and utterly unimportant and un-notable to the world. --HResearcher 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It was notable enough knowledge to be talked about by the Associated Press and a number of Supreme Court justices. I doubt less than 1/100th of the biographies on Wikipedia are known to the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Ms. Schwarz's bio and pattern of FOIA abuse and filing of frivilous lawsuits makes her infamous -- to lots of people. Vivaldi (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to butt in, Vivaldi. You have to be extremly careful with that "public people" thing. There are such things as privacy laws. They are very strict. Anyway, I noticed that Linda Simmons Hights didn't mentioned Mr. Rathbun in a clear sentence, e.g. "Mr. Rathbun said he doesn't know Ms. Schwarz..." Why didn't she? And why didn't he speak? Is there any word directly from him not knowing her? And why is Ms. Linda Simmons Hights no longer the speaker of the church? What happened to her? As you, Orisini and Tilman claim to be the experts on Ms. Schwarz, you should be able to provide proof to these questions.SummertimeBlues (talk) 5 September 2006 (UTC) note: this comment was really added by 216.190.11.45 (talk · contribs) and not SummertimeBlues (talk · contribs).
There are no privacy laws in the US like in Europe. And now I agree that User:SummertimeBlues is indeed Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The comment was added by 216.190.11.45 (talk · contribs) and I've tagged this IP as a suspected sockpuppet. Orsini 17:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
SummertimeBlues is Ms. Schwarz. The user has been blocked indefinitely. Vivaldi (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz: 1. Linda Simmons Hight didn't mention Rathbun in a clear sentence that has been cited, however she started in relation to you: "We're clueless about this person.", which is clearly a lie, since you were the German president and you were in the Los Angeles office on several occasions. 2. There is no word from Rathbun about knowing you, in fact there has been no word from Rathbun for some time. 3. We don't know why Linda Simmons Hight isn't the spin doctor speaker for the scientology cult any more; perhaps she ran off with Rathbun? Maybe she was placed on RPF? What happened to her is unimportant in terms of this article; what she has been quoted as saying from her position as the spin doctor speaker for the scientology cult about you is important, however. You are the subject of this article, not Linda Simmons Hight. Orsini 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
So basically, this Linda Simmons Hight person is an unreliable source, yet you think we should still use her statement just because it can be cited? That doesn't seem to be in the best interest of Wikipedia to me. --HResearcher 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
At the time, Linda Simmons Hight was the official spokesperson of the scientology cult. Her statement is verifiable. Readers can make their own conclusions as to why the scientology cult would state officially about their former German president: "We're clueless about this person". Readers are then free to examine allegations of how the scientology cult disconnects from its former members, if they wish. We are reporting the verifiable fact that the cult officially made this statement in relation to Barbara Schwarz, in the same way President Bush officially made this statement in relation to the presence of WMDs in Iraq; does the fact none were ever found mean that statement should never be cited? Orsini 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
HResearcher writes, "So basically, this Linda Simmons Hight person is an unreliable source, yet you think we should still use her statement just because it can be cited?" Absolutely don't think she is an "unreliable source". Ms. Hight was acting as a member of the Church of Scientology and a paid spokesperson for the Church when she made her comments that were intended to published in a newspaper about Ms. Schwarz. In any case, if you want to suggest that Ms. Hight is unreliable then you need to provide a source that says she is not a reliable person or a source that says she was not acting under the authority of the Church of Scientology. We already have a newspaper article where she was quoted talking about Ms. Schwarz. That is verifiable information and it is appropriate for this article. Vivaldi (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2006 (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.