Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

I spent a good deal writing this, based on research I've done in the past on FOIA. I would love for someone to aid in documenting how FOIA requests actually work and what someone needs to do to actually, as a citizen, call into action these rights. Perhaps illustration with the recent debacle and the boxes stolen from a journalist's house would be great. I don't know how many people are even going to make it to this discussion page, let alone want to contribute to this, but it would be nice to bring up some healthy discussion, as I know my views are a little bit 'annoyed' in regards to the FOIA's true efficacy. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:16, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I made a FOIA request which was remarkably simple. It was based on a simple letter found at a the Dreamland Resort (Area 51) website. The letter was succesful and I recieved a map in the mail a few days later. The map included a letter from the person in the military who processed my request stating that obtaining such a map usually requires a fee but it was waived (inexplicably) in this case. The map requested was a pilot's map of Nevada Test Range. As it is supposed to safely guide pilots, it is should be very detailed, however, this map completely ignored the runway, hangers and smokestacks known to be on the Groom Lake site. Only a set of power lines leading into the middle of the dry lake bed were shown. The location of the base is a known fact, proven by public satelite photos including this and it's funny how even a FOIA request can still be useless.Nrbelex 06:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
It can’t be a great surprise that details concerning a sensitive military base are redacted from area maps. I’m sure that you received exactly what area civilian pilots receive, as they are most likely restricted from flying over the area. FOIA doesn’t require that an agency create documents in response to a request for information and I’m sure that a request for a more detailed map would fall within one of nine exemptions enumerated in 5 U.S.C § 552(b) (probably either 552(b)(1), exempting material “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and [] are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order” or 552(b)(3), exempting material “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . .”). Also, with the very minor work I’ve done with FOIA litigation, I’ve found that large government departments/agencies typically waive fees for small requests. I know that the DOD states that it affords FOIA requests two hours of search time and one hundred pages of records at no charge. Thereafter, you’re looking at $44.00 per hour of search and $0.15 per page reproduced, unless you can get a waiver. Kirkpatrick 13:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill Moyers is adamant: "LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of FOIA, hated the thought of journalists rummaging in government closets, hated them challenging the official review of reality. He dug in his heels and even threatened to pocket-veto the bill after it reached the White House. Only the tenacity of a congressman named John Moss got the bill passed at all, and that was after a 12-year battle against his elders in Congress, who blinked every time the sun shined in the dark corridors of power. They managed to cripple the bill Moss had drafted, and even then, only some last-minute calls to LBJ from a handful of newspaper editors overcame the president's reluctance."[1][2] And he is not happy about Dubya's unravellings of FOIA. 142.177.23.90 17:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Americocentrism

Why is the American FOI privileged with its own page? Should this page not redirect to disambiguation? --Khendon 16:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is really the English language version. :-) Steve Dufour 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the other laws that address the same subject have different names. Of the ones with this specific name, the one in the U.S. is by far the oldest and, simply because of the head start, the one that's played the most significant cumulative role. A glance at "What links here" suggests to me that most of the links intend the U.S. law. Not every term with more than one meaning needs to be a dab page. The British Kingsbridge is privileged with its own page, but I don't see that as UK-centrism. JamesMLane 00:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That point is complete nonsense - Kingsbridge is a place, this is a piece of legislation that exists in some form in many countries - including the US. The fact it is older is irrelevant.

Removal of NPOV tag

It appears that the NPOV tag was added by an anonymous IP user back in September. The user gave no reason why this article should be regarded as POV. I'm therefore removing the tag. --Sheldon Rampton 06:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HI, I have just read this article and am not suprised to see the NPOV flag raised before. It seems much more essay-like to me, with the objective of proving. I was unable to find info on how the FOIA works.

" Many citizens, over the course of the years, have felt cheated by these exemptions, due to persistent government action on many levels geared towards exploiting these exception-clauses of the acts to withhold information which, in reality, did not uphold a national or constitutional right, but personal/political biases. The forms of cases against the government were many, and still continue."

.. ". How much information is the government obligated to reveal? Is there a point at which boundaries of public availability should not be crossed? And most importantly, who determines and enforces those boundaries to the benefit or detriment of those seeking and withholding information? The FOIA is perennially thwarted by government misuse of its exemption laws."

etc. It seems to take the stance of asking questions.

NO offense to the author of course.


The article seems to be awkwardly worded at some point. I'll change what I can but if the author could clarify it would be an improvement. Thanks. 149.68.172.195 16:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I felt the article was still blatantly POV, so I've edited it. Feel free to raise any objections here. —Simetrical (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

General coverage

Hi all.

In addition to the "federal" FOIA and its additional legislation, all fifty states, plus DC, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and possibly the Northern Mariana Islands have individual FOI legislation of some form or another. Does anyone with better knowledge than me feel like writing an overview of the situation in the US generally (as opposed to "on the national level"), at, say, Freedom of information in the United States? I'll be trying to extend our FOI coverage quite a bit in the future, but all I can usefully provide for the US is a list of state laws and some links... Shimgray | talk | 15:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1986

The Wategate article correctly points out the amendments from 1986, but they are nowhere to be found here ...

organisation

surely this page could be better organised i was trying to research the Freedom of information act, and found this slightly confusing . The page really needs to be split up in to what the freedom of information act is, when and why it was implemented and how it works in practice as well as all of the other highly interesting stuff that is already here

I agree. It reads like a "classroom discussion plan." We need to know the WHAT, HOW, WHY. The article also has nothing on how to USE the FOIA.--User:Zaorish

I will tag article and try to re-org it in next few days.Hackajar 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Surely, you could have used spellcheck

NPOV - Major Cases

It would seem that, while cases have proved themselfs in court, that this section leans too much towards a NPOV view point. U.S. Government courts, executive branch and legislators are all there to make everything balanced. The courts obviously judged cited cases in favor of FOIA abuse, but this shows that the system works and thus corrects actions taken inappropriately. The cases should probably be stated as a matter of fact, not in tone to belittle or punch holes in FOIA. This law itself has not failed tests of constitutionality but rather the government departments actions in relation to the laws execuation (E.g. return requested data in timely manner without sharpie abuse). Hackajar 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

J Edgar Hoover

This may actually be a problem with the NPOV of the article, but the section about Hoover opens with the line "This trend of unwillingness to release records was especially evident." It is speaking of a problem with compliance with provisions of the act, not the act itself. I cannot really find a previous sentence discussing any unwillingness to release information. NemoX 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that Barbara Schwarz be merged into this article. It is generally agreed that her notability stems exclusively from her extreme filings of FOIA requests. There are three good secondary sources in her bio (2 Salt Lake Trib, 1 Oregonian) that can support a short summary here as an example of abuses of FOIA. - Crockspot 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Above comments moved from Talk:Freedom of information in the United States. - Crockspot 04:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the amount of information currently in the Barbara Schwarz article, and as such don't think it should be simply summarized. People who come across an article which provides too little information will end up with more questions than answers:
Barbara Schwarz
Filer of the most FOIA requests since its inception.
  • What does she want to know?
Barbara Schwarz
Filer of the most FOIA requests since its inception, in pursuit of information about her past.
  • What does she want to know about her past?
Barbara Schwarz
Filer of the most FOIA requests since its inception, in pursuit of information about her past. She wants to confirm her birth in a submarine located in the Great Salt Lake, her relationship to both L. Ron Hubbard and Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as the location of a man she says she is married to who is accused of her rape and murder, having now vanished to a prison somewhere in the US while another man assumed his identity in the CoS.
  • Which agencies did she ask? How many requests did she file? Where was she really born? How are L Ron Hubbard and Dwight Eisenhower related to her? with the number of questions increasing as more is revealed until the the complete picture (the article now) emerges.
I would support the inclusion of a brief summary about her here and the retention of her article. (I've always maintained that her notability is expressly related to FOIA). However deleting her article and moving a meaningful portion of it here would make it look like she is a larger part of it than she is.) Anynobody 07:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
It seems to me that she could be mentioned in this article, with a link to the SLT story for anyone who is interested in finding out more about her. She is not important enough to deserve her own encyclopedia article. Every newspaper in the world prints stories about individuals every day. Not every one should have a WP article. Steve Dufour 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I partially agree with your assertion, she could be mentioned here as well. Your oversimplification of the situation overlooks the historic implications on American FOIA law of her quest. Besides, how many individuals are reported by papers across the country who have been censured by the Supreme Court or personally affected the lives of hundreds to thousands of gov't employees with lawsuits based on a different perception of reality? It kind of sets her apart. Anynobody 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.


  • My idea was to summarize what is in the three secondary sources I mentioned above, and dump the rest. She is notable because she holds a record for FOIA requests, not because she claims she was born in a submarine village or that Eisenhower is her father. Lose all the primary sources, usenet junk, and the like, and redirect Barbara Schwarz here. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it. Wikipedia has tormented this woman long enough. - Crockspot 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Since she believes those things to be true, mentioning them is surely not a torment to her. Johntex\talk 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot we are honestly not tormenting her, and if that actually was our goal then we're doing a bad job of it since there is much more embarrassing information we could be discussing in the article. (I don't want to repeat it again, so please check the Talk:Barbara Schwarz for it.) However beyond FOIA is her experience of an attempted deprogramming, and her abusive nature on usenet which has attracted attention from minor but valid sources. Anynobody 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

support She is notable for only one event. WP:BLP4.3 also suggests a merge or redirect in such case. Her FOIA requests are also already covered in Pro Se adequately without exposing her cringe-making private matters unnecessarily. A merge to Freedom of Information Act (United States) would be fine with me but I doubt that Barbera Schwarz is important enough to give her a full section there.-- Stan talk 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully though, she isn't notable for one event but thousands of events in one area. Someone once argued that just because thousands of something have been issued doesn't make it a notable thing and compared it to one public utility company's accumulation of several thousand traffic tickets a year. This person's argument actually hurt their side since comparing thousands of requests by one woman and thousands of tickets issued to hundreds of employees makes her efforts that much more notable. Also, she is known for other less notable things, but still enough for mention in her article. It'd be like merging the articles on Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb into Baseball. Anynobody 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely opposed - The Barbara Swartz article contains information about the rest of her life, as a true biography should. That information does not belong here and there is no reason to dispose of it. Johntex\talk 01:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, "the rest of her life" is not notable in WP. I would suggest to read WP:BLP4.3 because the woman has only a small notability for filing frivolous FOIA requests galore. The rest of the article is plain voyeurism and WP is not a tabloid. --01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC) -- Stan talk 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually that is incorrect. That misconception has been voiced before, but the article complies with WP:BLP. WP:BLP4.3 says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The article does provide reliable sources for other aspects of her life. Therefore, no reduction is warranted. Johntex\talk 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am absolutely AGAINST merging the two articles. Barbara Schwarz's connection to the FOIA requires both an explanation of her court proceedings and some background information about her, inasmuch as her story is certainly not a run-of-the-mill story. As such, her bio includes material that is well beyonds the bounds and scope of an article about the FOIA. Furthermore, As the WP articles Pro_se and In_forma_pauperis also refer to Barbara Schwarz, it would seem to be better to have those article refer to an article about her directly, than to an article about the FOIA. Note also that [here:http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/schwarz.html] we see that most of the "cringe-making private matters" of her life are by definition a matter of public record as they are mentioned in the court document to which I just referred and in other documents too. In NO way can she be considered as being tormented by having a story that she maintains is true, cited in WP. Note also that the court also considers her suits to be malicious, frivolous, and abusive as shown in the following two excerpts from the foregoing link: Its admirable purpose is abused when misguided individuals are allowed (in this case, repeatedly) to submit requests to every agency and subdivision of the government, seeking information about an imaginary conspiracy and "...Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan noted that plaintiff had named "what appears to be every federal department, independent federal agency and office or component thereof and each agency's FOIA officers." ...The complaint was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and malicious... Plaintiff thereafter was enjoined from further filings except under limited circumstances. Both the dismissal and the injunction order have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hi There 03:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi There, I'm sorry to edit your post but to make it easier to see where everyone stands it helps to have your overall idea bolded. I don't mean any offense. Anynobody 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The above comment has no bearing in reality. The Barbara Swartz article has been upheld four times in AfD. Obviously, that article is not an attack and it is not eligible for speedy deletion. The proposal to merge the two articles is just a back-channel attempt to circumvent the deletion process which has repeatedly determined that we should have an article on her. Johntex\talk 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Steve, please vote or support/oppose (if we don't like the "v word") the merge. --Justanother 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Steve Dufour 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed in you for not giving your usual explanation of motives here, Steve Dufour. Anyone who's been chatting with you for a reasonable length of time knows your motives are not necessarily in line with what's best for Wikipedia. I actually assumed everyone knew, was it the same for you? Anynobody 07:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)
I'm changing my mind to "Don't Merge". There is really very little relationship between the two articles. This one gives some important information on a serious and important, as well as timely, subject. Barbara's, on the other hand, is mainly a byproduct of the anti-Scientology movement, fad, whatever. I just made some changes to it to try to make its tone more neutral without taking out any information. We'll see what happens to it. Wishing everyone the best. Steve Dufour 13:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge - as per nom. Also consider the case of Archimedes Plutonium, a character "notable" for his USENET postings (much more remarkable than Schwarz' 92-part bio) and who received treatment analogous to Barbara Schwarz in a number of reliable source publications. It was deleted under the principle of "Do no harm". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination). According to Schwarz, and logical to any reasonable person, her bio here harms her. It serves no actual encyclopedic purpose other than its relevance to FOIA and is worth a few lines there. IMO, the only reasons that she has a full article here are 1) the fact that she is hated by the cadre of anti-Scientologists and 2) see 1. The reason the article remains here, again IMO, is because 1) once an article is created the inclusionist tendency is for it to remain, 2) the sophomoric desire to mock another person similar to the Archimedes Plutonium situation and Brian Peppers (salted) and any number of others (Star Wars kid), and 3) distain for Scientology among the internet community in general. Let me tell you about that last one. Scientology is plenty criticized in these pages and we do not need poor Ms. Schwarz for that purpose. Nor should we be "punishing" Schwarz for having once been a member of the Church of Scientology. So if anyone is voting to keep her article because of any feeling about Scientology then please give her a break and not make her a scapegoat. --Justanother 15:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't say that I've ever really understood, or even paid attention to the Scientology-anti Scientology agendas, but I have always had a sense that they played a large role in this article's survival. Beyond the FOIA aspects, any other minor notability that she has is only important to a very narrow segment of society, which seems to be at each other's throats. Most people just don't care. A merge would be a win-win for Wikipedia and the subject herself. Whether or not either of the opposing Scientology factions gets a win out of it is really irrelevant, since Wikipedia is not a battleground (or civil debating ground, as it were.). - Crockspot 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a deletion discussion. The Swartz article has four times been kept through discussion in the proper forum. Also, there is no harm caused to Swartz through her article being here. All the claims are sourced, and many of them came from her to begin with. Surely it serves her interests to propagate her own views. Johntex\talk 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a merge discussion and your objections to our having it are "out of order". Merge is a totally legitimate process here on Wikipedia. So let's just discuss the merits of the merge please. --Justanother 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I cannot see an article being able to cover both subjects, in any sort of depth, in a coherent manner. Although a relationship between the two subjects exists, the overlap is, at best, only partial. Hrafn42 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In further elaboration of my previous statement, and in rebuttal of others, I would like to point out that Schwarz is not notable simply for the number of her FOIA requests. If she had made the same number of requests about historical documents pertaining to the United States Postal Service, as part of background research into a book on the subject (for example), it would not be nearly as notable. What increases her notability considerably is the bizzareness of these requests, which is mirrored in the content of her lawsuits and public statements. Bizzareness is a legitimate source of notability, and of mention in wikipedia, ranging from the second set of jaws of the Moray eel to Emperor Joshua A. Norton, as examples that immediately come to mind. I sincerely doubt if an article on the FOIA could adequately cover this important aspect of Schwarz's notability. Hrafn42 03:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that bizarreness can lead to notability but disagree if you are stating that "bizarreness equals notability". In other words, on occasion, something bizarre receives sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to be notable enough for this encyclopedia. Emperor Norton has most definitely been covered in sufficient sources. Schwarz has not. What you seem to be saying is "She is bizarre and she received a little press so she is notable because the bizarreness acts as a notablity multiplier." Sorry to put words in your mouth but if you have any of that going on, it just ain't so. There is no "notability multiplier" for bizarreness. It does not matter how bizarre Wikipedians or netizens think Brian Peppers is, he ain't getting an article. And in actual fact, the very concept that we would give extra special coverage to the bizarre in someone that is not really otherwise notable is the very aspect I find most unpleasant here and one that violates the spirit and letter of WP:BLP. --Justanother 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is fallacious. Can you cite WP:RSs that refer to Schwarz as simply a prolific FOIA-requester without mentioning the bizarre nature of her requests? If not, it is reasonable to consider her to be notable as a "prolific and bizarre FOIA requester" rather than as a "prolific FOIA requester", and resist having her article merged with one that would necessarily censor that aspect of her notability. Hrafn42 03:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My argument that there is no "notability multiplier for bizarreness" is fallacious?!? I don't think so. All due love but you seem to be the one clinging to a fallacious concept. -- Justanother 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The "notability multiplier for bizarreness" is a straw-man of your own creation. I don't give a rat's arse if bizarreness is multiplicative, additive, or acting in some more obscure mathematical relationship with other 'sources' (for want of a better word) of notability. The simple fact of the matter is that these sources of notability, including bizarreness, tend to mutually reinforce. Hrafn42 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I quote "What increases her notability considerably is the bizzareness of these requests" and "Bizzareness is a legitimate source of notability". Both fallacious arguments by you. Not straw men by me. And your "mutually reinforce" above seems to me that you still hold that "bizarreness" has some mysterious synergistic effect when combined with other factors. Not true. Notability is notability. It is based simply on the level on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. "Bizarreness" adds nothing. --Justanother 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Baloney! Tom Cruise is on a talk-show -- not notable, he does this all the time. Non-notable guest act bizarrely on a talk-show -- also not notable, there are talk-shows that specialise in finding guests who act bizarrely and/or outrageously. Tom Cruise acts bizarrely on the The Oprah Winfrey Show, and its news world-wide. "Level on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" is an effect of this, not a cause. And Schwarz‎ has received such coverage as a prolific and bizarre FOIA requester. I am arguing that she would not have received such coverage if her requests (and associated behaviour) hadn't been bizarre. Hrafn42 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Baloney and rat's arse sandwich, my favorite. Mmmmm. I do not think we disagree so much except that I think that you are looking to treat Wikipedia, a tertiary source, as if it were a press outlet, a secondary source. The press, not Wikipedia, can certainly find something bizarre and make a big deal of it. It is original research (and tabloid journalism) but that is what the press does, by and large. And yes, there is a synergistic effect when someone famous does something bizarre and the press blows it out of proportion to sell papers. The press is a secondary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. What is more, it is an encyclopedia. We are under no compulsion to fill up this project with things that we hope will garner popular attention and sell our project for another day. My point, and you may agree with it (or not), is most simply put that no matter how bizarre Schwarz' behavior may be it is not matter for this project until it has reached a certain level of coverage in the press or other RS. We can argue about whether Schwarz has reached that level but I guess my main point with you is that you seem to want to multiply what little coverage there is because of the "bizarreness" and my point is that that is something a secondary source may do (make more of something because it is bizarre) but not something we can do here. --Justanother 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether Schwarz is notable is an issue for AfD (which apparently has decided in her favour, repeatedly). The issue before us is whether her notability overlaps sufficiently with that of the FOIA for merger to be viable. This is a matter of why she is notable, not whether she is notable. Like it or not the secondary sources that you were just ranting on about consider her bizarre claims to be notable (as they invariably make note of them). Hrafn42 18:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, my straw men died and now I am ranting. Must be the baloney and rat's arse sandwich. Given to hyperbole much, are we? I guess we can leave the "calculus of bizarrity" out of the equation then and just leave it as we disagree as to what depth of coverage her "rationale" has acheived especially in light of the nature of this project in our individual estimations and the guiding principles of WP:BLP. I think she is worth a merge and a few lines in the FOIA article where her reasons for her efforts can certainly be mentioned and if the reader wants more they can refer to the (rather scant) media filler material we call "sources". --Justanother 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Given that nothing you said in your last comment was even remotely responsive to my last comment, but was rather a ham-handed (and cack-handed) attempt at 'humour' (if that term is used very loosely) and belittlement, combined with an off-topic (take it to AfD) rant on Schwarz's notability, there's really nothing left to say other than to note that you ended up mentioning a certain variety of sausage & the anatomy of genus Ratus more frequently than I did originally. An odd obsession. Hrafn42TalkStalk 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kudos to you on a most excellent "nanny nanny boo boo." I can see that I am out-classed in the "cack-handed" department. I am most obviously dealing with a master. Humble apologies. --Justanother 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP has articles on shoplifting and traffic lights yet they don't mention the world record holder shoplifter and red light runner. Why is it so important that Barbara be mentioned at all? Steve Dufour 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because if she's not "mentioned at all" then it is a deletion that you are proposing, not a merger -- and deletion of that article has already been rejected. Hrafn42 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I voted here for a merge which will give her a mention in the FOIA article. Other articles have been deleted after 4 or more nominations. Steve Dufour 02:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Keep both articles separate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Thanks. --Justanother 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This is not really about merging the BS article with FOIA. It is really just another lame attempt by dedicated Scientology apologists to remove an article that they perceive puts the "church" in a bad light. There is plenty of information from reliable sources to make an entire article about just Ms. Schwarz. The record FOIA requests makes Schwarz notable, but Schwarz is not what makes the FOIA notable and her story, while important to an article about herself, is not all that important to an encyclopedia article about the FOIA and in fact I'm not sure it is even worthy of any mention at all in that article. If it is mentioned in the FOIA article it would be a single trivia item and would seem out-of-place. Vivaldi (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but I request that you refactor what appears to be an unfounded attempt to personalize this proposal. I am not, nor have I ever been a Scientologist, nor do I care about the Scientology aspects of this dispute. I'm the one who made this proposal, and I am the one who has nominated Barbara Schwarz for deletion in the past. The only interests that I care about are the interests of the project, and the interests of the subject, as a living person. - Crockspot 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Vivaldi, you are one of the main off-Wiki haters of Schwarz so there is a bit of a partisan interest on your part in continuing to flail her here. For my part, I could care less that she was/is a Scientologist. Or that Scientology plays a part in her quixotic quest for answers. She is not notable enough for a separate entry here. The only encyclopedic intersection between Ms. Schwarz' private dealings with public agencies is how the public agencies have changed as a result of those dealings. That can be covered elsewhere. --Justanother 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
lame attempt by dedicated Scientology apologists Neither me or Steve Durfour are Scientologists. You should notice that if you check the edit history and statements from Steve Dufour. -- Stan talk 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
For the most part I agree with you Vivaldi, but there are two issues I think should be elaborated on. First, I definitely concur there are editors who wish to mitigate what they perceive as an image problem for the CoS related to her but there are others who have personal reasons to see this article go (Barbara herself and Steve Dufour.) Second, considering her status as the top filer of FOIA requests AND the nature of those requests, it does provide a point to discuss the possible abuse of FOIA. I'm not saying the merge is a good idea, far from it, but to exclude mention of her here as she relates to certain aspects of the law would be hasty. Anynobody 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't assume Vivaldi meant that Crockspot was a Scientologist otherwise I would have included that in my above post. I took the statement to mean that Scientologists see this as another opportunity to get the article deleted, not that you have any involvement. Of course I could be wrong about what Vivaldi meant, but I do know what I meant and just don't want you or Stan to think I meant that only Scientologists want the article deleted therefore anyone who does must be a Scientologist. Anynobody 07:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)
You are quite fast to constitute an alleged COI with editors who doubt the notability of her. I can't see any COI issue with Steve Durfour ?! He only has a strong opinion about the article and already admitted that he tries to delete it and also told his decision to Barbara Schwarz via usenet. That doesn't constitute a COI! Do you really want to constitute a COI issue with everyone who had contact with this woman ? Your choice of wording is also quite interisting(top filer) and the nature of those requests is redundant for her notability. -- Stan talk 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised he hasn't said anything about it himself, he usually does: I say he has a COI because he's been trying to have the article deleted as a favor to Ms. Schwarz. This was just the quickest diff I could find, there are quite a few more. A WP:COI is when someone puts the interests of an outside party ahead of Wikipedia while editing. I call crusading to get an article deleted as a favor to be a conflict of interest. Rest assured I am not using that term lightly, besides if what you are alleging were actually true I'd be saying you have one too rather than trying to explain my point.
I also say those who want the article deleted and are Scientologists most likely have outside motivations to see the article go themselves. Whether one thinks of them as a religion/cult/whatever having such a visible person who is a walking talking illustration of mental disease the Church claims doesn't exist can't be very helpful for them to say the least.
From what I can tell of you, it would appear you are a good faith editor with a different POV. (Unless you say you're trying to get this removed as a favor to Ms Schwarz or are a Scientologist of course.) Anynobody 07:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
If you really want to know, I would like Barbara's article to be kept. For two reasons: 1. If it is being argued over she will feel that people care about her. 2. I am trying to prevent a possible holocaust against Scientologists. The controversy about Barbara is just the thing to show how stupid and mean-spirited (many but not all) of the anti-Scientology activists are and will hurry the day when the anti-Scientology fad "jumps the shark (or the couch)" p.s. As I said I am working to remove the article because I told Barbara I would, and also because of my loyalty to WP policy as an proud WP editor. Steve Dufour 02:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, you've got a really bad COI. Since you say you want the article kept, personally, it means you feel that in some way it's a boon to Wikipedia. Yet an external motivation, Barbara, has convinced you to delete it. Honestly I feel sorry for you, arguing for over a year despite your better judgement must've been an awful experience. I just got done researching the number of times your arguments have been refuted over the last year. (HeckI even gathered info to show that people thought the article was worth keeping another year prior. Honestly, if you really are fighting yourself to fufill a commitment to her, please look back on what I've found and ask yourself if doing something you don't want to do for her has been worth the frustration it must've caused, esecially considering the arguments you tend to make are a tad, flimsy and emotional as opposed to reasoned or relevant (There's a lot, so I put it in a box):

Once again, assuming he didn't know about the debate a year earlier, it should have been clear that interest in her goes beyond a few ars posters. I'm not trying to embarrass him, but I can go through his edits and find numerous examples where multiple editors have explained to him why they are unswayed by his arguments. It's most likely that someone who ignores so many outside opinions and explanations by editors totally unrelated to the issue is either obstinate about their opinions or has some other motive. Anynobody 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I am not at all unhappy to have spent so much time on Barbara's article. I am confident that sooner or later WP policies will prevail and it will be deleted. Steve Dufour 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.


Many editors had contact with this womin in usenet. Some of them decided afterwards that she is notable and deserves an article and Steve Durfour disputed that. Do all alt.religion.scientology contributers have a COI and should not edit her article ? Well, it would probably make her discussion page a lonely place. However, I think neither Steve or the other usenet people have a COI unless they are befriended in Real World. A COI accusation is heavy in my opinion and can discredit an editor. You should prove it or withdraw from it. -- Stan talk 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, though the article was created by an anon originally, it was not re-created by any of her USENET foes but instead by Fred Bauder, so saying it is only in existance because of those that would use it against her is not what's happening. In August 2006 the article was recreated to be in a less negative tone than what it was before that time by an editor with no interest in her. This is what Steve Dufour has been disputing, not the original POV version, but the non-POV version from the start. Which essentially means to him, NO VERSION is NPOV enough and it should be deleted because he promised Barbara he would get it deleted.
A conflict of interest can exist without people having met in real life because any time an edit is made for a reason which gives priority to something else other than the interests of Wikipedia a conflict occurs. I didn't say alt.religion.scientology posters have a COI, I said Scientologists do. (Though alt.religion.scientology users could have a COI as well, it depends on why they edit.) Anynobody 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"... posters have a COI, I said Scientologists do." It looks that you just tried indirectly to connect him with Scientology because before you claimed that Steve has a COI but I refered only to me and Steve and didn't even mention any known Scientologist. I suggest you take a look on his talk page and this page. He might be a tendentious editor but does not seem to have a COI here and is probably not a Scientologist! Right now I partly share his beliefs about the article but did not feel to write to Barbara. But even if I would have posted it to alt.religion.Scientology it wouldn't be a COI. In contrast, his open statement that he wrote her about his decision(trying to delete this article) shows his honesty and that he has nothing to hide. He is also not a SPA.[3] You can disagree with us in this content dispute and we can be wrong but be fair  ! -- Stan talk 06:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
AN, Scientologists no more have an a priori COI then ARS posters do. True COI only exists for those with a true EXTERIOR conflict that would compromise their ability to edit uninfluenced by EXTERIOR concerns. We do not get into a person's INTERIOR or subjective concerns. Almost everyone here has strong feelings about issues they edit and they all edit from their POV. A proper editor would respect other POVs but I guarantee that most editors are VERY interested that their POV is represented correctly. That is one of the biggest beefs that Scientologists have, that critics and uninformed parties try to represent what Scientology is to a Scientologist, ie. what are the "beliefs and practices", what is "doctrine", and fight when Scientologists try to correct that misrepresentation. INTERIOR concerns may be tendentious, may be soap-boxing, may be any number of things that are not allowed here. They are not COI. --Justanother 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Stan I'm not trying to connect Steve Dufour to Scientology. I clearly said his COI has to do with a commitment to an EXTERIOR concern. He recently said that he even wants the article to stay in a different form, but still allows ...a true EXTERIOR conflict that would compromise their ability to edit uninfluenced by EXTERIOR concerns... dictate his behavior. I also didn't say he's a single purpose account either, I've said (and am saying) he has a COI regarding that specific article not all of Wikipedia.
Justanother, I really liked the way you summed up what a WP:COI is which is why I quoted it in my response to Stan. As you should know by now, I've also never said Scientologists shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia either. In the case of this particular article though, it gives the impression that Scientologists are simply trying to remove evidence that their religion/cult/whatever is wrong. Since Ms Schwarz is clearly mentally ill and Scientology says there's no such thing (psychiatry is murder, or did I misunderstand their view on the subject). If I'm right, and judging by the edits Scientologists make to her article I very well could be, Scientologists have ...a true EXTERIOR conflict that would compromise their ability to edit uninfluenced by EXTERIOR concerns... regarding Ms Schwarz's article. Anynobody 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
AN, I am happy that you liked my summation but I am not sure that you understood the distinction that I made between interior and exterior concerns. If Steve is in personal contact with Schwarz and has made a commitment to her to see about getting the article removed then he has an EXTERIOR concern. A person or situation EXTERIOR to himself is asking, urging, paying, prohibiting, whatever that he edit a certain way. In Steve's case likely simply asking and I make it very clear that Steve has always acknowledged that such is the case. If a Scientologist believes that Scientology is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that casting Scientology in a bad light is just plain wrong (as in misrepresentation) and they seek to remove these misrepresentations based simply on their own thoughts and feelings (no matter how they came to have those thoughts and feelings) then that is an INTERIOR concern. And as I already said, their interior concerns may lead them to make tendentious or even disruptive edits here but that is NOT COI. --Justanother 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It's actually very easy to illustrate interior vs exterior concerns, so I'm kind of surprised you haven't. Imagine a strangely devoted fan of Milli Vanilli editing their article. If he/she doesn't believe that they were lip synching, and edits to that effect. This person's exterior concerns are causing them to ignore interior concerns like WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Therefore they have more exterior concerns than interior, or... a conflict of interest. Anynobody 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
(having this conversation in two places) I think that you are defining interior/exterior differently than I. I define them as interior or exterior to the person. A belief is interior, someone telling you to do something is exterior. I think you have been defining it as interior or exterior to Wikipedia. That is certainly a valid differentiation of something just not of what I consider COI. Wikipeida has no interior opinion of anything other than itself (how to edit, etc.) All opinions of Scientology (or Milli Vanilli) are exterior to Wikipedia. IMO, your definition of interior vs. exterior does not lead to a workable definition of conflict of interest; mine does. So, in your example, if the fan edits based on his beliefs and without exterior (to himself) pressures, then no COI is engendered. --Justanother 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not (having this conversation in two places) since I'm writing two different answers to each of your posts to address the issue of COI as it relates here and there. For example here, I'm not sure if you realize it or not but Steve Dufour actually would be violating COI under your own definition (external concern via Barbara asking him to delete the article). However you still encouraged him to vote anyway. (Unless this definition of COI was one you realized after the fact of course, can't blame you for overlooking something you weren't aware of.) Anynobody 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)
Of course I realize that Steve has a COI. And that is why I make it very clear that he has been very upfront about it. Please stop your bothersome tendency to imply that I am doing something wrong. This is NOT about me. WP:COI is guideline, not policy and clearly states:

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace.

It is up to Steve to determine what is proper and improper for him to do and to take responsibility for whatever he decides. I have full trust in him. --Justanother 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION When did it become a WP policy for the interests and/or feelings etc., of the subjects of WP bio's to be accounted a legitimate factor influencing the content, or even existence, of those bio's? I do not understand why Barbara Schwarz's feelings about her bio and the way they might or might not effect her interests are a point of discussion here. Hi There 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is quite a bit there about being sensitive to people's feelings. Steve Dufour 02:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It would also be wrong to use Barbara's article as a coathanger to show the Scientology's views are wrong. BTW I would be very happy to hear that Barbara, or any Scientologist or ex-Scientologist or Scientology critic, had decided to seek psychiatric help. Steve Dufour 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at John Forbes Nash. He did many crazy things wich were mentioned far more often in newspapers than Barbara Schwarz. There was also a movie about him and his schizophrenia. But what he did during the outbreak is not mentioned and detailed in his article. I think WP:BLP clearly states that we have to write BLP's with greatest care because it can affect peoples life. I wouldn't care if details of her delusion would be already widespread and well known but they are not. This Barbara Schwarz is not the most imortant Barbara Schwarz and hardly notable(The article can't even state a real birthplace). Espescially her embarrassing believings are spreaded and detailed inappropriatly(and no one can prove that it is a present condition but looks like). If you are interested ,just check my sandbox, there is more (; -- Stan talk 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it doesn't discuss the specifics of his delusions, but they also had little or nothing to do with what made him notable enough for a movie, math. If his disease had somehow caused him to come up with "Equilibrium Points in N-person Games", then it would be fair to discuss the how and why of his insanity. We are applying the same standard to Barbara Schwarz, by only discussing her delusions that caused an obsessive pursuit of FOIA records.
Her delusions, sadly, have made her a small chapter in the history of American law. Anynobody 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem if "her small chapter in the history of American law" is documented but would wish that it is done in a way like here. BTW, John Forbes Nash was a great mathematician but sadly a lot of news was not about his achievements but his schizophrenia(even if he was much more respected than Barbara) and it is quite notable because he partly recovered from it without medical treatment wich makes him a rare exception(but is still not detailed out what he did during this time). I am not convinced that her article is applying the same standard. -- Stan talk 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Stan, I'm not saying his battle with mental illness shouldn't be mentioned in his article though. I'm saying his math skills made him notable and then (afterward chronologically speaking) he was overtaken by schizophrenia. (If he hadn't attained notability, he'd of been just another crazy person.) As an example he is more akin to Ronald Reagan than Barbara Schwarz since like Reagan he accomplished something notable and the disease emerged later (akin to Reagan's alzheimer's). Barbara fell into the grip of some illness, and then it pushed her to do something notable. In other words, one could discuss Nash's original notability without bringing up disease since it wasn't a major factor when he came up with his equilibrium theory. When discussing the basics, who/what/where/when/why/how, one cannot talk about Barbara's notability without mentioning her obviously crazy ideas. Anynobody 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here is the opening sentence of Barbara's article: "Barbara Schwarz is a German national, living in the United States, who is currently known as the largest filer of Freedom of Information Act requests since it became available in 1966.[1]" There is nothing there about her having had any influence on the FOIA process. Steve Dufour 00:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

??? Michael Jordan was Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time but he didn't change the way Basketball is played, does that mean his notability goes out the window too? Anynobody 05:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on basketball, but I understand that he did. He certainly had an effect on the public image and the economic success of the game. Steve Dufour 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have the same opinion, but that isn't changing the game itself. Besides, Steve Dufour an assertion like that is original research unless there is a source to agree with our opinion of MJ. Anynobody 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Close?

Support Oppose As of
3 7 13 September 2007

If I were a sysop I'd close this proposal now given the majority AND the fact that it hasn't changed for a while. Anynobody 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To me, anyway, it also seems that there is very little in common between the two articles. Steve Dufour 00:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)/Archive_1&oldid=1055599447"