Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal/Archive 3

Superior Court rulings on Dr. Terry Polevoy

This new section, added by the new editor Wikigal128, has no independent sources to show that this is worth mention per WP:UNDUE. Further, adding it this way without such references may be considered a WP:BLP violation. I've tagged the section accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that this should be immediately removed per WP:BLP. I just don't think this should be in the article or Wikipedia until it verified with at least on outside source other than this court document which actually does not say anything to explain the situation. This new editor only has 4 (my last look) contributions all to this paragraph. Maybe a note to the editor explaining the need for a second source would be useful and not WP:Bite. I would also like to point out that there is a hidden section of external links that also have this info in it plus three other EL's. Why should the EL section be hidden in the first place? I never understood hiding things in the belly of an article like this. If it is hidden like this how is an editor supposed to know it's there with out hitting the edit page to see what is hidden? Maybe someone would take the time to explain this on my talk page for me so I understand this better. I bet there is an easier way to see the hidden stuff but if there is I am clueless! ;)

Should it be deleted immediately, per BLP? I think so, but what do others say? --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It should be pointed out that, even if the scanned order is legitimate, it doesn't support the assertion that costs were awarded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Arthur you are right about the numbers. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful study of the official court page suggests that costs were awarded to Rosenthal (only) against Polevoy (only), but only against US assets, such as PayPal. However, this is my interpretation. We can't report that without a WP:RS making the interpreatation, under BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented out External links

I don't understand why these were commented out. If we can agree there are useful external links here, or better yet, reliable sources currently not used, then they should be added back in:

• Justices hand victory to free speech online - Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News
• Calif. Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers - Jessie Seyfer, Law.com
• How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet - Eric J. Sinrod, CNET News.com
• High court justices sound cool toward Internet libel case - Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle

--Ronz (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that was a unilateral action without adequate discussion. Some would call it vandalism, but at least the content is still there. It should be restored immediately. -- Fyslee / talk 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• [http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Hulda_Clark/Rosenthal/Court/c-833021order080709.pdf Judge denies Ilena Rosenthal's lawyers the right to take Terry Polevoy's wages from Ontario Health Plan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigal128 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Added by a third party while commented out; it's not a usable link, in my opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• [1] - Alameda Superior Court Action pages for Barrett v. Clark. Judge Dombrink's decision to deny Rosenthal's attorney's attempt to take money from Terry Polevoy's payroll in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.231.213 (talk • contribs)
  • We can't use a specific document without a secondary source as to its meaning and notability. We can link to the entire set of court case documents as an external source, I suppose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a secondary source is needed to be able to decide WP:Notability, WP:Weight, WP:BLP concerns and other policies but I don't want to overwhelm the new editor. To the new editor, please sign your post using the four tildes or just click the box so your signature is inserted for you. (this can be found to the right of the W with the red circle and line through it.) Thanks, I tried briefly to see if I could find a secondary source to no avail, but I have to be honest, I didn't give myself enough time checking into it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the External links, these are all excellent third-party sources which can and should be incorporated into the article, rather than remain just external links. Agreed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to External links, when an External link is added to the body of the article it should be removed from the External links section. We don't need duplication of the same link in two places. QuackGuru (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Relying heavily on primary sources is inappropriate

See WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

See WP:BLP: Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.

See WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

The article currently relies mostly on primary sources. This is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Half of the references given are third-party (secondary sources) and most of the article can be directly referenced to these sources. If there are any interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about the primary sources used in this article that are not referenced to a secondary source, please distinguish those specifically and let's deal with them one by one. Certainly this court case has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (only some of that coverage is either cited in the article already or provided in the the External links. There are many other articles and books discussing or referencing this case; all one has to do is search: [2] [3] [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] - it goes on and on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are still references in the article that are primary sources. Primary sources are inappropriate in a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a BLP. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is a BLP and BLP applies even if the article is not a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a biography of a living person, but yet BLP applies on some levels. Even BLPs allows for the use of primary sources, especially in conjunction with secondary sources - which is what we are doing here. If you feel the article needs more secondary source, then please feel free to choose from the near 20 source links I give just above and add them to the article where you feel it is necessary. Tis better to contribute then to complain. That said, feel free to discuss any of your contributions here with the community. Thanks and good luck! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources, and then some

I have thoroughly bolstered this articles references with a variety of secondary sources. The only statement which I was unable to find any sources for (primary or secondary) is: "...though it has later allowed the case to continue against her co-defendants." If anyone knows of a source for this statement, please provide it. Thanks. Anyhow, I think my work here has thoroughly addressed QuackGuru's BLP concerned - whether it was merited or not. Overall, I think this article is in decent shape. Anyone interested in shooting for Good Article status? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks fairly good now. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC) I'd rate it C-class. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment, Bearian. Can you please let us know how you arrived at that so we have some guidance on how to improve the article? Below I included a small table describing a "C" class article to help focus this discussion. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias ororiginal research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.

Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.

Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.

Hello, I've got a lot of background knowledge about this case. Will be working on it. QG is partially right. Although this article is not a BLP, BLP claims must be sourced wherever they might reside. There are many claims about living people in this article that should be up to BLP standards.

At any rate, I think one of the problems with the article is that it focuses on the details of Barrett and Rosenthal. Most legal commentary considers it significant as law. I've tired to rewrite the introduction to capture that. Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good improvements. This article has lacked background information for some time. You have done a good and neutral job. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If I ever find time, I would like to work this up to GA. It was a well-reported case because of what the court of appeals decided. For some time the article has been more focused on their specific claims than the law, but the law is what makes it more notable. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a notable decision. It isn't everyday that one finds personal rights diminished to such a degree that even the justices involved expressed concerns for the unfortunate consequences of the decision they felt they were forced to make. They then passed the buck back to Congress. It's also notable that SLAPP wording and principles were used as a defense, even though no evidence was ever introduced that the right to expression of criticism was in any way attacked or limited by the suit. It was not intended to have such an effect, and it never did have such an effect. The case was directed at libel, and such has always been forbidden. It was only the libelous part that was being attacked, not the criticisms, which have continued unabated, and which were never an object of the suit. It's very interesting that such a case could go through the courts unopposed. It seems that a combination of a feeble defense and justices bowing to the massive forces of large internet giants allowed it happen. I would have demanded evidence that SLAPP was ever proven to be an issue. -- Fyslee (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor claimed Having that tag in place is definitely detrimental to this process. How is it detrimental? The reviewer can review the tag. The tag indicates it is unnecessary to have primary sources in the article. It is better to stick to higher quality sources such as what was done at the chiropractic page. Lower quality primary sources were removed from chiropractic in accordance with policy. We can do the same here. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm here as a result of that posting. First, I know from experience that tags are detrimental to the GA process, as they may be cited as grounds for failing without a thorough review. Moreover, the template in question does not accurately describe the concerns you have expressed. You don't seem to be disputing that the article contains references to "reliable third-party publications", your stated concern is that you feel the article makes too much use of primary sources. The primarysources tag, as is, is not about over-reliance on primary sources per se, but rather a lack of quality secondary sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

QG, I'm wondering what WP:MEDRS has to do with this? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

Strange edit. QG, do you feel that these external links mislead the reader by using factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research? If so, please be specific. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The references are unreliable. Please remove your possible WP:BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a BLP. Please state specific objections. For instance, why aren't the references reliable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is a BLP and BLP applies even if the article is not a BLP. The references are not reliable. You can read Wikipedia policy to understand why they aren't reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please just tell me why you feel they aren't reliable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tell us why you feel they are reliable. I reviewed the references. I believe they are not reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You made the claim that they are not reliable, so therefore you need to provide your rationale. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As these "sources" are not being used as sources, but rather as external links, perhaps it would be best if your told us which number in WP:ELNO applies in your opinion and then we can have a conversation that goes beyond "Yes they are" - "No they aren't" - "Why aren't they?" - "Why are they?". Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing this article. It may take me a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I will get back with a full review not later than the weekend. Just reading the article makes me wonder what the effects of Barrett have been. What was the media reaction, has it served as precedent in other cases, is there law review or other scholarly discussion? As it is, the curtain is rung down as soon as the court renders its decision. By the by, was there an attempt to get a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Review Certainly a promising article. My comments:

• 1. Beware of overlinking. I think "defendant" is a common term and doesn't need to be linked, for example. Elsewhere in lede, "women's health advocate" is perhaps a politically correct term? I mean, everyone supports women's health. Can you say it more forthrightly?
• 2. Factual background. Can you fill this out a bit? Certainly excerpts from the letters would be an aid to the reader.
• 3. Lower court proceedings. Even as a lawyer, I find this confusing. I would suggest emphasising in the trial court's decision that the claims filed by each of the plaintiffs were dismissed. The current language concerning the appellate court's decision, "The appellate court upheld the dismissal against Grell and Barrett, but vacated the decision as against Polevoy." make it sound like the three are defendants, not plaintiffs. Perhaps "upheld the dismissal of the claims brought by"? Grated, with three plaintiffs and a number of defendants, it is a complicated history, but I think it can be made clearer. Also, SLAPP should be linked where the first occurrence is.
• 4. You've obviously borrowed heavily in the procedural history from the Cal SC decision, but please be careful to make terms like "Plaintiffs" lower case.
• 5. Did the other plaintiffs cross-petition to try to revive their claims? The Cal SC discussion seems to imply that they did.
• 6. Putting a discussion of a concurring opinion in the middle of the section makes it unclear if everything after that is discussion of the concurrence, or of the majority opinion. Please rephrase.
• 7. What happened on remand, the libel suit?
• 8. With the exception of the comment that the case was a landmark decision, this article is in a vacuum, and this is the greatest weakness. Was there public reaction? Have other cases followed it? Has there been scholarly comment, in law reviews? It's all unstated. You can't pull a GA out of the text of an appellate decision, you need to put things in context.
• 9. Any chance of images, even fair use?

I'll put this on hold and await developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ilena Rosenthal won in court why is hers wiev not aloud in the articel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.196.137 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate links?

This article is for law students not for an encyclopedia--Klackjesper (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to add links to both sides home pages, but "the side that won" was classified as Spam and was censored! That can not be correct!!--Klackjesper (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Her attempts to add the same false defamatory information to Wikipedia was reverted. Her site was banned for the following reason, as seen at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2010#humanticsfoundation.com:

This is the website of a banned user, User:Ilena. She has previously spammed it and Bolen (and his socks) have also done so. Both users have been banned by the Arbitration Committee. It is classified as a hatesite which attacks Wikipedia and its users and is often used by those who hate Stephen Barrett. It contains libelous material and shouldn't be allowed here.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You say "same false defamatory", but your reference say: "t would be defamatory, if not protected under .....". So you say it is defamatory. But then you take it back. Because it is not defamatory "because it is protected......". So it is not defamatory. As it is told on Ilenas blogg:"From the Supreme Court decision, I quote:"As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory."From her blogg. So fact is fact, and it is important to present it as clear as possible. An Encyclopedia article shall be easy to understand. I think this article needs improvement in that sense.--Klackjesper (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be defamatory if not posted on the Internet. In any case, it violates WP:BLP, which is much stronger than merely being defamatory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is a different question. It has nothing to do with this case Barrett vs Rosentahl.Your argument is not relevant in this question.--Klackjesper (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) cannot include material violating WP:BLP, which includes defamatory material, and material which would be defamatory if printed, and most of the material on Ilena's blog, unless it were taken from a reliable source. Whatever you can say about Ilena, she is not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are drifting away.--Klackjesper (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really. If you want to write an article about Ilena Rosenthal, you may do so, provided it doesn't violate WP:BLP. (If the redirect is protected, write it in your userspace, as User:Klackjesper/Ilena Rosenthal, and propose it be moved live, at some point.) On the other hand, if you are Rosenthal or Bolen, you are violating a Wikipedia ban, and your edits (and my commentary) should be summarily removed. But linking to her web site is not allowed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"I wanted to add links to both sides home pages" Neither are appropriate to add per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW A SLAPP-SUIT IS.So I add an external link on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl den tolfte (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)