Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States)/Archive 2

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

Schwarz's nationality

It's relevant to her FOIA requests for a few reasons. Beyond the fact that the sources state it, her nationality and status also show how long she has been doing this. It (the Tribune) says she came here in the late 80's. If we just say that, it implies that she is a legal resident, but this is not only untrue but is discussed in the source. Anynobody 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Her nationality was removed citing concerns about WP:BLP. Reviewing the policy again I see nothing incompatible with it; in fact it says Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Our source, The Salt Lake Tribune, is a high quality reference and she discussed her legal status during her interview with them (which is how it ended up in the article). Anynobody 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the mention of her nationality and possible immigration status reads like a personal attack, and has nothing to do with her notabililty. That would be against WP policy. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it a personal attack to say someone is German? You may not think of it as notable personally, but here's what the Tribune had to say:

One of the other aspects of the FOIA law -- which has gained increased scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- is that it may be used by citizens and foreign nationals alike. In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses, since only the courts may declare that a person who has flouted the laws of the land may not benefit from them.
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. She says she has a German birth certificate but claims it was doctored to conceal that she was actually born in Utah.
Fighting INS: "I have tried to get it worked out with the INS," says Schwarz. "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the country for filing FOIA requests, but I'm not easily scared."

Issues like her nationality and the legality of her presence in the country are specifically addressed. Anynobody 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Since her legal status was again removed despite the fact that as I pointed out above it's specifically discussed in a source, I've started a thread on the biographies of living people noticeboard. Anynobody 07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue is totally unrelated to her notability in this article. Stop it. Cool Hand Luke 08:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it is totally related, I'll break it down:

  • One of the other aspects of the FOIA law -- which has gained increased scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- is that it may be used by citizens and foreign nationals alike. Schwarz is German
  • In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses Schwarz is in the US illegally as it says later in the article 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.
  • Neither issue, nationality or legal status, has affected her getting responses from the agencies she contacted under FOIA.

Only in America, or maybe Canada, could a person who's both a foreigner and breaking federal law make use of a benefit from the very same federal government who's laws she's breaking. Like it or not this is simply about how FOIA is available to everyone even foreign, federal law breakers who happen to have issues with reality. Anynobody 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Only in America, or maybe Canada, could a person who's both a foreigner and breaking federal law make use of a benefit from the very same federal government who's laws she's breaking. Wrong ! I can see the notability of her nationality and didn't delete it. But including her "crimes" although she is not convicted for it is absolutly unrelated to the this article! What is your point? Should everyone who ever broke a law(most peole probably did) loose their rights of benefitting from federal governments in any way or did this woman just piss you off? Again , she was not convicted for her "illegal presence" in the US. Like it or not but it is completly unrelated to her FOIA requests. BTW, she admitted that she stayed in the US illegally in 2003 and her visa could be renewed already. (a short trip to Mexico would renew her visa automaticly) -- Stan talk 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Should everyone who ever broke a law(most peole probably did) loose their rights of benefitting from federal governments in any way... I'm not the one who made that connection, it's what the source says and I'll quote it again:...fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses..."I have tried to get it worked out with the INS," says Schwarz. "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the country for filing FOIA requests, but I'm not easily scared." I'm trying to ensure all the relevant points are covered, no more or less.

...but it is completly unrelated to her FOIA requests. According to the article cited it is related to her FOIA requests, lets look at the SLT article on a summary basis (my comments in parenthesis, italicized text is straight from the article and not my words.)

    1. Title: S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System (This indicates it's about her and her requests, correct me if I'm wrong.)
    2. Section:"Imaginary conspiracy" (This section describes in detail the requests themselves)
    3. Section:Guarding secrets (This section discusses, how her story affects any FOIA requester, ie how does one really know the government is being honest when they say they have no records as well as pointing out that FOIA administrators are not to render judgment on the merits of the information being sought in a request. this section also addresses her legal status and its relationship with FOIA This is why I'm saying it should be in our article, not because I've got any personal interest in her.)
    4. Section:Fighting INS (Gives her perspective on troubles regarding the legality of her stay here, and also covers the fact that she asks for and is denied having applicable fees waived.)

So please, explain why despite the source article discussing her legal status in two sections(3 and 4), it's unrelated. Anynobody 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System

Anynobody 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She didn't receive responses because she didn't pay outstanding fees. You are mixing two issues here. ...fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses... Schwarz wasn't a fugitive of federal justice. It didn't and couldn't affect the responses from the US government and courts at all. Only her nationality was known and may or may not have beeen an issue. It is not a FOIA issue that immigration laws are not enforced and that she is not convicted for it. And she admitted in 2003 that she violated a law but her discussed FOIA requests are all earlier. It is not related unless you find a source which discusses the use of time machines for Government agencies in order to investigate later confessions of individuals who make requests under the FOIA. -- Stan talk 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If this were an article titled "laws of the united states as discussed by the Salt Lake Tribune, this could be on-topic. As Stan points out, however, your deeply confused about how much these laws have to do with each other (very little). Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stan En the point is that the source says she's in the country illegally and it doesn't affect her "right" to make FOIA requests. (I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring you points about her requests not being relevant to her status, since the sources are our guide even if you are correct it wouldn't matter since without a source it's just original research:) She didn't receive responses because she didn't pay outstanding fees. That's incorrect, she did receive responses, it's the follow-up research she wanted that would've cost money since FOIA mandates a certain amount of free research. Schwarz wasn't a fugitive of federal justice. She came in the late 1980's on a vistor's visa, the Tribune ran the story in 2003...no vistor's visa is that long, therefore when the NCUA responded in July 2000 to a letter she wrote in April that year, she was indeed an "undocumented immigrant".

Cool Hand Luke if it's the Tribune as a source you're taking issue with, should we set up a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard to see what others think? Anynobody 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No the Tribune is a reliable source, and I would dare say I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. I'm simply suggesting that the bare fact that two facts have been mentioned once in an article neither shows that the connection is on-topic nor that it is weighty.
To suggest that immigration law is relevant to FOIA because the Tribune once mentioned both is...absurd. You're trying to put unflattering BLP information into an article where they are totally irrelevant. Cool Hand Luke 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
your source states: .In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses, since only the courts may declare that a person who has flouted the laws of the land may not benefit from them.
You use this quote to demonstrate that the source discusses the issue. But your source doesn't state that she was a fugitive of federal justice. She did break a law only by her own admission per your source. No court or government agency convicted her nor does any reliable source state that she is or was indeed a fugitive of justice. If you want to point out the possible misuse of FOIA due to fugitives of justice you could write a general section about it using the citation above. But there is no reason to use Schwarz as an example because she wasn't a fugitive of justice. -- Stan talk 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Cool Hand Luke and Stan En the impression I'm getting is that you both think I'm stringing together separate parts of the article to fit my point. I'm not this is all discussed together:

In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses, since only the courts may declare that a person who has flouted the laws of the land may not benefit from them. is followed immidiatly by 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. She says she has a German birth certificate but claims it was doctored to conceal that she was actually born in Utah..."I have tried to get it worked out with the INS," says Schwarz. "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the country for filing FOIA requests, but I'm not easily scared."

Cool Hand Luke: ...the bare fact that two facts have been mentioned once in an article neither shows that the connection is on-topic nor that it is weighty. If the article, for some reason, broke up discussing how outlaws* can get FOIA info and her outlaw status into separate parts of the article I could maybesee your point, however would still disagree since we're not supposed to decide what is/isn't relevant from our sources. (...I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. I haven't claimed extensive knowledge of the paper itself beyond knowing it's a major paper in SLC, and have no doubt you know more about the paper than I do. That knowledge is, respectfully, irrelevant because as I said our personal knowledge takes a backseat to what's in the sources.) Stan En: We can't "rationalize" her status at the time she started making requests and then edit based on it, but I really don't want to ignore a point you've obviously spent time to formulate and explain. You're confusing identification as a convicted criminal and a person who is currently breaking immigration law. It's the responsibility of each visitor/student/non-citizen to prove they belong here (which is why visitor's visas, green cards, resident alien cards, etc. exist) and a person without a current, valid document attesting to their legal presence in country is thus in it illegally. (It's not like calling someone a murderer or rapist where a trial is necessary to determine guilt/innocence.) If you want to point out the possible misuse of FOIA due to fugitives of justice you could write a general section about it using the citation above. Please understand all I want to do is include what the article says about her and FOIA, which is what the article is about after all. Treating this article as if it discusses Schwarz and outlaws making/getting responses to FOIA requests separately is doing exactly what I mentioned above, selectively deciding what is/isn't relevant to the subject.

To sum up, the title of the actual article in question is S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System meaning it's all about her, if the title were something like S.L. Woman's Quest, other Federal Fugitives Strain Public Records System an argument about her legal status not relating to FOIA in this article might be valid.
(*Since outlaw is simpler than fugitive of/from justice or illegal/undocumented immigrant can we agree to use it or a simpler term, I'm open for suggestions.) Anynobody 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, knowledge of the paper is irrelevant. I was offended because you continually assign straw man arguments to my position. So for example, I was not arguing that the Trib is not a reliable source. Nor was I arguing the sky is green.
My point is that a single negative fact about someone published in the paper does not make it remotely topical to FOIA. There are lots of once-reported negative details about people, but that doesn't mean we should start littering up articles with them. Let's imagine that Bono was audited by the IRS once. That fact probably shouldn't go in his biography unless it received weighty attention, and it would be beyond absurd to drop the fact into an article about Live 8—even if a newspaper wrote the headline "Charity Concerteer Audited!" It's simply off-topic, even if it didn't raise BLP concerns (which it does). Cool Hand Luke 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my impression is that you are stringing together separate parts of the article. I usually find your comments plausible and really appreciate most of your contributions. But this discussions just goes in circles. I said everything in previous comments and won't repeat myself anymore. I'll revert your edit one last time and afterwards stay out from this dispute. But notice that nobody here nor on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard seems to agree with your version. We may be wrong but please respect consensus and don't editwar against multiple editors unless consensus has changed.
one last comment to your last post: ..It's the responsibility of each visitor/student/non-citizen to prove they belong here. .. It is really off topic(bring it up on related articles to immigration laws) because the fact that she is a non US citizen is already included in the article and undisputed. And I already proved that she is not a fugitive of justice without seeing any sources from you which contradicts it. I'm out of this discussion and editwar. Feel free to respond and give your input but I probably won't respond anymore. However, wish you the best. Please don't take it personally. -- Stan talk 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: I certainly don't mean to offend you nor do I see any of the arguments I've put forth as straw man tactics. I can also tell you're getting quite angry/frustrated because you called this content disagreement an edit war and I suspect Stan En feels roughly the same.

Indeed the discussion is going in circles, but before we abandon the discussion lets see where the circle repeats. I'd be perfectly happy to admit a mistake if a strong point was made based on what's in the Tribune source (or another) rather than personal assertions that her legal status is unrelated to our article. (It's not that I don't respect your opinions, I do, but it doesn't mean I respect them more than our content policies and guidelines. If I wasn't trying to follow them, I'd be using personal arguments here as part of our content discussion rather than explaining my personal view of the notability on Stan's talk page. I do have personal reasons why I think her legal status is notable, just as you have personal reasons why it isn't, but I've left them in User talk space.

Please take a moment to reflect on what we've discussed here:

  • I say that because a reliable source specifically discusses how her illegal status in this country isn't a barrier to her quest, but money is that we say so as well. (This isn't a straw man argument unless you believe that Christopher Smith, the article's author, was talking about another person AND wasn't referring to Schwarz in any way shape or form. Which honestly, makes little sense and is why I can't accept your points.)
  • You've both stated several times that her status isn't related without citing how the source in question agrees with your point. You both however have cited several personal reasons why you don't think it's related, which is not how we're supposed to determine content here. It's also why I stay away from articles/subjects I have strong feelings about. Anynobody 05:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured I'd give some time for anyone to formulate an explanation as to how parts of the Tribune article discussing her illegal status are irrelevant to her FOIA quest.

My point is simple; the source article is called S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System, literally meaning it's about a woman in SLC who's quest is/has placed strain on our public records system. Therefore everything in it is about her and FOIA as it relates to her "quest". Being an article from a professional newspaper it went through an editing process before being published and the info made it through. Therefore in order to convince me that the info in this (the Tribune's) article isn't related, a source saying so or a Tribune self published follow up explaining their error is all that's needed. So please don't revert unless you can offer more than personal opinion why despite being included in our source, her legal status as it relates to FOIA isn't relevant.

In summary, WP:BLP does not say negative info can't/shouldn't be in articles who's subject is still alive, what it does say is that any negative information needs to come from reliable, verifiable sources without exception. Anynobody 01:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says much more than that.
Look, in the first place you must carry the burden to include BLP information. Since two people sharply disagree with you, it seems you've failed in this case. I don't want to see you revert the article again unless you can get one person to agree with you. What you're doing now is the definition of an edit war. Stop. I'm saying this as a warning. You may be blocked for disruption if you continue. I suggest you use the talk pages until consensus is reached on this issue.
The parts of the Trib article discussing her illegal status are relevant to her, but this is an article about FOIA. As per the AFD, she's discussed here because she is notable for having a record number of FOIA requests. She is not notable for living in the country illegally, tax evasion (like my example), or any other random fact about her. Her immigration status is not relevant to FOIA.
WP:BLP says that these topics should be covered "conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Moreover, we should include "only material relevant to their notability." She's only notable for the requests. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke I honestly mean no offense, but here is why you are wrong about her status relating to FOIA. I've been avoiding pointing this out because it's so obvious I was hoping you'd notice without me having to possibly embarrass you. Her illegal status is part of her FOIA requests: She says she has a German birth certificate but claims it was doctored to conceal that she was actually born in Utah. you said that you read the article so I assume you forgot this and hadn't re-read it while discussing this: She's asking for information proving she was born in the Great Salt Lake making her thus a US citizen (and therefore not an outlaw).

I've been trying to get you to understand the more complicated reason why it's relevant, clearly I should have just said in the first place "She's trying to prove she's not an illegal alien as part of her quest, read the source." This (Wikipedia) article is indeed about FOIA, and one of the aspects of FOIA is that you can be a foreigner AND in the country illegally yet STILL get responses to FOIA inquires. That's what the Tribune article is pointing out; To make use of this US law a person can be:

  • Not from the US (like Schwarz)
  • Not even in the US legally (like Schwarz)
  • Searching for information which doesn't exist (like Schwarz)

But they can't be:

  • Poor and asking for info which doesn't meet exception requirements for fees (like Schwarz).

Since I'm not warring about this I can wait 24 hours for you to reply, Anynobody 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's been a little longer than 24 hours, and despite finding even more evidence to support my point that outright mention of her legal status is relevant I've attempted a compromise in this version.

Cool Hand Luke I didn't mean to imply any inferiority on your part for not noticing that her country of birth (and therefore legal status) is/was part and parcel to her quest. Hell I just noticed something that would definitely have made all of our lives easier had I seen and pointed it out sooner, a very to the point quote from the Tribune article:

A blueprint for open democracy and government accountability in other countries, the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally.

It's tough to say her legal status in unrelated in the face of a statement like that. Anynobody 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

this looks fine. Much less defamatory, and it actually connects to the requests. You have a WP:PRACTICAL consensus from me. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Anynobody 06:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

DOJ records also show Schwarz entered the United States during ... is not mentioned in SLCT. However, its probably mentioned in DOI records(and it is undisputed) and it sounds more neutreal than "by her own admission"(per SLCT). I can live with your last change too. ;) -- Stan talk 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right the article doesn't say the DOJ records her as entering in the late 80's, however primary sources from them exist to prove their records do reflect that :) Instead I replaced it with the year given in the SLT article and the fact that her requests began soon after. Anynobody 03:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Schwarz again

I have to doubt that this woman really does hold the record for FOIA requests sent. I know plenty of people who have sent thousands in the course of their employment, and the National Security Archive sends thousands every year, and they've been doing it for over 20 years. Even if Schwarz sent one to every single agency, she'd still be nowhere close to the National Security Archive. Every year thewp legal director of the Archive sends a request for the FOIA log books to every single agency. --Descendall (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Descendall, I think you're probably right if people making requests in the course of their work are included. However the way it reads in our source is actually The U.S. Department of Justice contends Schwarz has made more requests under the landmark public records statute known as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) than any other person since it became law in 1966. Which means organizations like the NSA definitely aren't counted. (I'd always assumed the Justice Department was referring to individuals requesting research on herself.)
Even if it turns out that both the Justice Department and Salt Lake Tribune are wrong, we'd need an equally reliable source saying so otherwise anything we add would be original research. Anynobody 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I attempted a compromise by saying that the SLT had reported this. I don't see how it can be proved or disproved for sure. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve Dufour if you were going to be accurate it would have been better to say "The Salt Lake Tribune said DOJ records show that..." which is just bad writing since we have citations for the purpose of notifying the reader where our sources come from without mentioning it in the actual text. Anynobody 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I made a couple of minor changes since her visa status is not notable and we can not know for sure if she is still the record holder. I am trying to be reasonable. I promised Barbara that I would try to keep personal attacks against her off of WP. The visa issue I consider a potential personal attack. I don't want to get in the way of neutral information being given about Barbara, nor do I want to return to Project Scientology. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to assume good faith that you missed the above thread Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Why her legal status is relevant in three steps but I'll do it anyway and explain for you why her her visa status is notable.
  1. She wants to use the FOIA in order to, among other things, prove that she was born in Utah. Since FOIA records are gov't records there isn't any way to do that since according to the gov't she came in 89 on a visitor's visa.
  2. In doing this our source directly linked her status and FOIA quest:A blueprint for open democracy and government accountability in other countries, the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally.
It's also difficult to believe that you're trying to minimize "attacks" against her by taking out her illegal status and leaving her obviously insane claims about Utah, Hubbard, and Eisenhower. (I don't know about you but I'd rather be called an illegal alien than to be associated with ideas like hers.) Moreover you're also trying to imply that she is no longer, as the sources say, the most prolific filer of FOIA requests or somehow became the record holder around 2003 with phrasing like:by 2003 Barbara Schwarz had made more requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)... Anynobody 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(Is it getting boring over at Project Scientology? :-) ) The way I see it the issue of her visa has been used as a threat against her, to notify the INS about her alleged illegal immigrant status. Based on a gross misunderstanding of the way the US government really works, BTW. She has a right to her opinions and I don't object to WP mentioning those as long as it is not a personal attack against her. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As you know a thread was opened on the biographies of living persons noticeboard addressing the very issue you're citing as reason for removing information about her legal status. (I say as you know because you've been there)
The fact is that your personal concerns and promises regarding Schwarz, I'm sorry to have to say this so bluntly, are irrelevant and not reason to remove info from the article. Our source specifically discusses her illegal status in relation her FOIA quest and deciding it's either not relevant or an attack is simply your opinion which as I've said before doesn't belong in our articles. (Any more than mine does)
In order to say or imply something about her legal or FOIA record holder status changed, new sources will be needed. We don't write articles as if the sourced information "may have changed", as your edits and explanations for focusing on the year 2003 in this one. Anynobody 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We also can not say that what was true in 2003 is still true today. BTW who says that any of Barbara's requests are "major"? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We also can not say that what was true in 2003 is still true today. That's exactly what we are supposed to do, unless another source of the same caliber can be found to say things are different.
BTW who says that any of Barbara's requests are "major"? The Salt Lake Tribune says in total they are major in this quote which also illustrates how her being here illegally is relevant:...the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally. Anynobody 05:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you could do something better with your life that spend it attacking this person. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to keep the discussion here about the article, your continual placement of a {{blpdispute}} tag which says:This biography of a living person may contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims. Despite the section being well sourced by two articles from separate news agencies that don't contradict each other and are therefore uncontroversial. Which is obviously not what it's intended for. Anynobody 05:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Two newspaper articles, 4 and 5 years old, is poor sourcing for a claim about a living person. We have no way of knowing it what she said in 2003 was true in the first place nor do we know if it is still true. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

From a legal perspective, the question of whether or not a party has the right to make a request or a demand is called "standing". It seems to me that Ms. Schwarz is being used as an example of the very loose "standing" requirements involved in a FOIA request - e.g., a person doesn't need to be a citizen, or not incarcerated, or even legally within the United States to make a FOIA request. Wouldn't it be more helpful to simply discuss the "standing" question without including this person who seems to be connected to at least two politically sensitive topics (immigration and Scientology), where those two topics aren't themselves inherently related to FOIA? It is difficult for me to believ e that information about Ms. Schwarz is going to be helpful to a person who wants a better understanding of FOIA. I agree that she could be used as an example of an exceptional FOIA user (she appears to be a very frequent user of FOIA, whether or not she's the most frequent user) but I'm not clear on why that's of particular interest in an encyclopedia article. The closest I can come is to view it as one of a list of "policy questions" to be addressed, e.g., "should non-citizens be allowed to file FOIA requests?" or "should FOIA fees be increased to deter unproductive requests" or whatever - but even that doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. gbroiles (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

gbroiles, your analysis of why her story matters is dead on and on the surface that would be ideal. However we can't honestly cite sources like this article or any source which discusses her specifically and eliminate mention of her without it being a synthesis of sources. (Which is unacceptable, according to our rules.) Also it's worth thinking about this from the perspective of someone who's never heard of any of this, they'd read our article which doesn't mention her, then click on the links and find out all about her. Meaning they may either try to add it themselves, or wonder why we left it out. Anynobody 06:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard that WP is compelled to print every fact given about a subject in a RS. For instance, the Ford Mustang is much more famous than Barbara, yet WP's article about it does not contain every fact ever printed about it in newspaper and magazine articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an odd point, since WP encourages all relevant (as defined by sources), reliable (as defined by our rules) information to be included you're essentially saying that because outstanding facts remain unaddressed on an article about a car this somehow relates to the facts here. If there are relevant, reliable things to say about the Mustang then by all means add them.
However I get the feeling your argument is more like "it doesn't say anywhere we have to include everything from our sources". Actually we are obliged to cover all the relevant info in our sources. As I've pointed out before the source says it's relevant which overrides any of our opinions, yours included. Remember: A blueprint for open democracy and government accountability in other countries, the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally. This statement sums up her whole basic claim to notability as far as FOIA goes, and it specifically includes the fact she's not here legally when describing her:...a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally. Anynobody 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't read WP:SYNTH to say that every fact or claim made in a source must or should be repeated in a Wikipedia article. However, even if that were true, that doesn't mean that the SLT article is necessarily a permanent or necessary part of the FOIA article. Assuming that Wikipedia policy says that including the SLT article means that we must also include information about one person's idiosyncratic use of FOIA, that seems like a good reason to replace the SLT article with one which provides similar information relevant to the mainstream of FOIA practice without including distracting/inflammatory material which does not serve to illuminate or educate readers. As I said earlier, the main point of the discussion of Schwarz seems to be a policy discussion about FOIA and standing and allegations of frivolous/nonproductive FOIA requests, and a policy discussion/argument seems to be the opposite of what Wikipedia's trying to do. If you're really convinced that Schwarz is notable enough to warrant discussion on Wikipedia, how about setting up a biographical page about her, with a short reference from the FOIA page, instead?

I have a hard time seeing why Schwarz and her FOIA requests are comparably relevant as the discussions of J. Edgar Hoover and the White House PROFS E-mails which were central to the Iran/Contra scandal, both of which have historical relevance.

I think it might be helpful/interesting to add a discussion of typical or canonical uses of FOIA, but Schwarz' use of it seems to me to be much less demonstrative or educational than more obvious candidates such as National Security Archive or Federation of American Scientists or Electronic Frontier Foundation or Electronic Privacy Information Center; or the various commercial requesters, or journalistic uses of FOIA. gbroiles (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed she did once have her own page, and believe me if you think this section focuses on her idiosyncratic beliefs needlessly, you didn't see it. Here only what is necessary to discuss relevant to her FOIA notability is used.
I don't read WP:SYNTH to say that every fact or claim made in a source must or should be repeated in a Wikipedia article. That's not what I'm referring to, you're saying we should describe how FOIA has very loose "standing" requirements without mentioning her or Scientology right? Without mentioning either the description would be something like, "The FOIA does not require firm standing on the part of those who file requests, and in fact one need not even be a citizen, in the country legally, or asking for real information." It doesn't actually say any of those things without referring to Schwarz, that one need not be legal or a citizen, etc. WP:SYNTH is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is what removing Schwarz and Scientology from mention in the article while discussing how far it (FOIA) can be "stretched" (to use the source's term), in that one can ask for info about non-existent documents and still get an answer.
...typical or canonical uses of FOIA... and the fact that her requests aren't, is exactly why it was notable enough for news coverage (that's what they all describe in depth, the lack of "normalcy" innvolved). ...but Schwarz' use of it seems to me to be much less demonstrative or educational than more obvious candidates such as National Security Archive or Federation of American Scientists or Electronic Frontier Foundation or Electronic Privacy Information Center; or the various commercial requesters, or journalistic uses of FOIA. There are a couple of problems with this statement, as far as Wikipedia goes, you're acting as if there isn't room to discuss all of these aspects and that our perceptions of notability are factors in deciding content. (I'm not saying her odd requests are notable because I think so, but because that's what the source wrote about and therefore what's notable. (I don't mean to sound like I personally think your notions of notability are right/wrong, it's just that if notability were something left up to editors there would be a lot more unnecessary content everywhere on this project. Anynobody 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think my point can be boiled down to this: the argument that discussion of Schwarz is required because she's mentioned in the SLT, and that the SLT source article must be mentioned because it discusses Schwarz, is essentially a closed loop. Yes, if one begins with the assumption that we must discuss Schwarz if we discuss FOIA, then the SLT article would be a helpful/relevant source; and if one's going to use that article as a source, then not discussing Schwarz would be peculiar.
However, there's no overriding principle that says that Schwarz should be discussed with respect to a general explanation/discussion of FOIA. Both Schwarz and the SLT article can be abandoned as distracting/irrelevant without any damage to the overall treatment of the topic - in fact, I believe it would be a signficant improvement. Similarly, a discussion of standing which doesn't appeal to some sort of moral outrage (e.g., "Even a CRIMINAL can file a FOIA request?") would seem to be more in keeping with a NPOV approach.
Among people who file FOIA requests (or answer them), the fact that there's no significant standing requirement isn't especially noteworthy or important. It's one of the basic ground rules, and once it's understood, there's no point in belaboring the point. I do agree that it's a helpful aspect of FOIA to explain to laypersons because it's not necessarily intuitive or obvious, but I don't think it's very NPOV to adopt a sensationalistic approach to it, nor to use a person who appears to be a divisive/inflammatory topic of conversation to illustrate an essentially noncontroversial point.
and the fact that her requests aren't [typical or canonical], is exactly why it was notable enough for news coverage (that's what they all describe in depth, the lack of "normalcy" innvolved). This seems to be an argument that news = encyclopedic content, which is explicitly denied at [[1]]. I think your "personal perceptions of notability would lead to too much content" argument works against you - I am suggesting that the content on the FOIA page be reduced because it refers to a person and/or events which are not notable; but apparently because someone at the SLT believed it was notable, you believe that we are somehow required to treat that SLT reporter/editor's decision about notability as more important than our own. Indeed, if the SLT reporter or editor were now to show up here on Wikipedia and suggest that the Schwarz material be removed, I gather you don't believe that would be permissible, since the material has now appeared in print.
Would you feel less compelled to discuss Schwarz if there were a more detailed, scholarly discussion of the (lack of) standing requirements to file a FOIA request?

gbroiles (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article text re Schwarz contained a number of claims which were not supported in either of the cited sources, and I have removed them and refocused the Schwarz discussion to be more NPOV and relevant to FOIA. In particular, the "most frequent user" did not appear in USDOJ records as the article stated - that was "claim" made by USDOJ to reporters, but there is no cite to the claimed records, or even to a journalistic discussion of review of those records, if in fact they exist. Speculation about her immigration status and religious beliefs had no support in the RS's and is not relevant/notable re FOIA.

gbroiles (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In a way we are actually supposed to begin with the assumption that we must discuss Schwarz if we discuss FOIA,... and I'll explain why toward the end, however to do so I must address ...the argument that discussion of Schwarz is required because she's mentioned in the SLT, and that the SLT source article must be mentioned because it discusses Schwarz, is essentially a closed loop. I can completely understand why it would appear that way, however the actual truth of the matter is that the SLT source article must be used because it's both reliable and verifiable. The idea of discussing FOIA within a framework of "typical or canonical" goes against the concept of a general encyclopedia by trying to frame discussion of FOIA strictly in a more or less specialized manner.
Separately I think you may have misread what WP:NOT say, which is Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Schwarz's mentions in the news aren't routine announcements, sports, etc. and they are specifically about her and her use of FOIA meaning that without Schwarz there would be no source, therefore she's notable to boot.
Would I still include Schwarz if more detailed, scholarly discussion of the standing requirements to file a FOIA request were available? Absolutely, and I'd welcome the addition of more scholarly sources of FOIA standing, because again we're supposed to include all relevant information about the subjects of our articles. To a lawyer the SLT is certainly not nearly as relevant to FOIA as the sources you have in mind, however to the general public it and other news articles about this poor/sad woman's plight as it relates to our government the article is relevant. Anynobody 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you seem to have misunderstood the point of WP:NPOV which is not hard to do based on the name used. (People see the word neutral and assume we must sanitize our articles of anything objectionable, when in actuality it says after it says articles ...must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV),... it says representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Which means literally if all the sources discuss her one way, that's the way we have to also. (I really don't mean to come off as trying to pick on her, this is how I understand the rules to work.) Anynobody 05:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recitation of facts re Schwarz may be NPOV re Schwarz but it is not necessarily NPOV relative to FOIA and FOIA policy; Schwarz' beliefs re Nazis, Scientology, Hubbard, whatever, have nothing to do with her standing to file FOIA requests, which is the reason you are including discussion of her. Also, upon careful reading of the SLT article it does not cite a reliable source (and itself is not a reliable source) re Schwarz' immigration status - Schwarz does not herself appear to understand her immigration status (per the SLT article) and no other sources were disclosed or apparently interviewed re Schwarz' visa status. I would be interested to read an explanation of why it should continue to appear; after further reflection, I am concerned that it is inappropriate. Also, you should note that Oregon state government is not subject to FOIA, and public record requests made to the State of Oregon, while broadly relevant to a "freedom of information" discussion, are not relevant re FOIA, which is a federal law which applies to the executive branch of the US' federal government.
Also, regarding the second reference which has been described as "the AP reference", upon further review it appears to be a link to a blog which then vites to "Associated Press, USA" and "www.kgw.com". The latter does not return a reference to the article described when searching for "Schwarz". Perhaps you have an alternate citation for that information? A blog is not typically considered a reliable source. [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbroiles (talk • contribs) 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you again, ...it is not necessarily NPOV relative to FOIA and FOIA policy;..... that's incorrect, the articles (including the hosted AP article which I'll explain a bit later) represent a significant view (journalistic or simply general public interest) that have been published by reliable sources. Also, upon careful reading of the SLT article it does not cite a reliable source (and itself is not a reliable source) Once again I must disagree;

  • First because our sources aren't required to cite their source for every claim they make so identifying that as a reason to disqualify it as reliable is incorrect.
  • Second, we can't second guess a source (even one our personal knowledge tells us is blatantly wrong) without another source, therefore unless another source can be cited to say otherwise, she's not here legally.
  • Third and I'm not staking my argument on this but if she came on a visitor visa in 1989 and hasn't gone to school or been employed then without adjusting her status somehow she's "overstayed" so to speak.

On the hosted AP article, it's a digital copy of an AP article on a blog. We're not citing the blog itself, but the AP article. It's verifiable through AP but they charge for access to their archives and as most people reading Wikipedia can't/won't pay to get access this is an alternative to allow some verification by the common user/reader. Anynobody 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OPEN Government Act

This article should be updated with information about the OPEN Government Act of 2008. --Descendall (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

{{blpdispute}} "please see talk page"

This user has made edits referring to the talk page but not participating himself: 01:18, 26 February 2008 her visa status is not notable. please see talk page last talk page post was by me at (23:05, 25 February 2008) and after extensive discussion about why it is indeed notable.

02:12, 26 February 2008 please see discussion on talk page where he added a discussion tag, while the last comment was still by me at (23:05, 25 February 2008) So before I remove it I want to give the editor who placed it another chance to explain here how This biography of a living person may contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims.

Source Reliability Agree with previous source?
The Salt Lake Tribune Reliable, N/A (First source)
AP Reliable, Yes
Controversy? If sources disagree then controversy exists, if not there isn't a controversial aspect
No

Anynobody 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is controversial is if Barbara is notable. What is not is WP's fundamental policy that it not be used to make personal attacks against individuals. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Anynobody claimed that I and Stan_En found your version both relevant and non-defamatory. That's incorrect. I still think the factoid is irrelevant in an article about FOIA, but I did agree that it was less defamatory than the absurd original proposal—at least enough so that I won't war over it. It seems, however, that User:Morven agrees that it's irrelevant. I suggest we move on. If anyone cares, they can look up the Tribune source we cite. Cool Hand Luke 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke Did I misunderstand when you said it actually connects to the requests.?
I noticed that Morven hasn't commented here and as such may be unaware of the points I made earlier, which I thought you recognized as tying the quest toher status. (Remember, she's using FOIA to prove she was born in Utah and the Tribune quote?) Anynobody 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's less defamatory than flatly calling her a criminal, and it actually flows in smooth sentences, but by saying you had a "practical consensus" from me, I only meant to imply that I wouldn't war over it. That's still true; this is much less defamatory that your earlier attempts.

Anyhow, it's not relevant because BLP1E and a deletion debate say she is only notable for one reason: her record number of requests. Her precise immigration status didn't contribute to her record. Her idiosyncratic ideas did to some extent, and we already cover them. Ideally, I would say that she was born in Germany (as reliable sources say), but that she suspects she was really born in Utah under unusual circumstances, and hope to prove her claims though FOIA requests. Cool Hand Luke 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would she have still embarked on her quest if her belief about Utah wasn't part of her, unusual beliefs? I don't know, and really it wouldn't matter if I did because her status illustrates the question posed in the Tribune article, how can one be sure they've really gotten everything they asked for in their request? If we didn't know her request was not in synch with reality, the denial letters she got would hardly be reassuring.
WP:BLP1E and the deletion review are about article status, not mere mention in one. In other words we're not talking about Barbara Schwarz we're talking about Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Barbara Schwarz. (Besides she's also gotten attention/coverage with her defamation suit against the Tribune for the article so she's known for more than one event. Also if you want to factor in her fame with the AHBL we're up to three.)
Can we agree that the {{blpdispute}} tag is out of place as the section doesn't contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims? Anynobody 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I took off the tag. The controversy that I am concerned about is over the application of WP BLP policies, not the facts about Barbara. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Then could I ask you to please stop removing the fact that she entered the US legally and calling it a trivial issue? Since she is here illegally, and we essentially say so by pointing out she's trying to prove her birth in the Great Salt Lake despite US records show her actually coming from Germany, people could assume she got here illegally too. As someone concerned about defamation I'm really surprised you're removing something so uncontroversial which doesn't portray her in a negative way whatsoever. Anynobody 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't know that it is a fact. It was something she told the SLT in their interview of her. We have no way of knowing if it was true then. Nor do we know if it is true now. Saying it in the article is a violation of WP's living persons policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It was something she told the SLT in their interview of her. Is this a joke? She did indeed tell the Tribune that and they printed it. We don't get to decide what is or isn't true/pertinent, it's what the source reports that we are bound by. (We do know for sure though, when one departs an international flight they go through customs, who checks id/passports. If she hadn't had a visitor visa they'd of detained her and sent her right back to Germany. It's also the same reason illegal immigrants on our southern border choose to cross away from monitored crossing points, they don't have visas. Anynobody 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes we do get to judge pertinence. A biography need not include every fact ever printed about a person. Such a catalog would make a poor encyclopedia article. Therefore, we make judgments about relevance. In an article about FOIA, it's simply not relevant, and it's not even a close call. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is quite surreal, the same reason why you've said in the past we can't outright say as the source does that she is here illegally, rather we must instead give the reader enough info to come to that conclusion themselves dictates we explain that she did come in legally. Anynobody 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No. BLP says we should write conservatively. If the detail isn't relevant (and it's not), we should leave it out—especially because it appears to create a negative or controversial inference about a living person. Cool Hand Luke 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
How is saying that someone arrived in the US as a visitor would create a negative or controversial inference about a living person.?
I'll hold off putting in back in until you can explain that or around 24 hours pass. Anynobody 10:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am more pleased with the section now after your recent changes. It focuses on Barbara's public role as a FOIA request filer. The detail about her visa, for which we have only her own word, is private matter and shouldn't be in the article. (BTW, although you don't care I know, I have stopped editing or nominating for deletion Scientology articles according to my promise not to do so if Barbara is not attacked personally on WP.) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It must be a create a negative inference because you initially used it to infer her illegal status. At any rate, I agree with Steve, this edit is another improvement. Cool Hand Luke 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve Dufour saying you have stopped editing or nominating for deletion Scientology articles according to my promise not to do so if Barbara is not attacked personally on WP. actually causes me concern now. If you think an article should be up for deletion then you should nominate it. I hate to say it but by saying your actions are/were tied to how this article is edited could be interpreted as bad faith editing. Since presumably you've nominated other articles for deletion not based on their merits but as a tool to improve the chances of getting your way here. (That's another reason why your conflict of interest is a problem.)
Cool Hand Luke your lack of good faith is puzzling but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain how this comment is incorrect:It must be a create a negative inference because you initially used it to infer her illegal status.
  • You have acknowledged that her legal status, due to its relationship with her FOIA quest, is indeed relevant: ...it actually connects to the requests. This isn't about positive/negative, for the umpteenth time, per our sources it's about a woman who's use of FOIA to prove unique beliefs about her birth and family led one source to describe the treatment of FOIA thusly:...the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally.
Since her illegal status is relevant, it's also important to mention that she didn't enter illegally because it's 1) true and 2) prevents an unnecessarily negative image from being portrayed. Think of it this way, a person reading this section will note that:
  • She claims to be from Utah but arrived from Germany the country she was born, in 1989, mentions nothing of work or school (reasons a person not from this country could stay so long legally) in other words it says in so many words that she isn't here legally. Now we can not say anything about her arriving legally OR we can let people think whatever they want (possibly that she entered illegally too). So tell me again how I'm trying to imply something negative here by saying she arrived legally? Anynobody 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If I nominated for deletion every article I came across that deserved it that would take up all my time. None of my recent nominations of Project Scientology articles have been in bad faith, although you may have a point that I should nominate more. As you know, Barbara asked me to do something about her WP bio which she felt was an attack on her. I told her I would, thinking it would take about 10 minutes to bring it to the attention of the WP community and it would be gone. (I was fairly new to WP then. :-) ) Instead it dragged out to a couple of years. Along the way I made the promise to Project Scientology members that if she was not attacked on WP I would refrain from editing PS articles, or nominating them for deletion. I feel that I am bound by both promises, to Barbara and to PS. There I am. There are dozens of PS articles that should be deleted but I can't do anything except for the times when a personal attack on Barbara is underway. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ashcroft Memo

I don't see anything here about the 2001 memo issued by then-A.G. John Ashcroft telling federal agencies they could refuse FOIA requests based on any "justifiable reason" (which is decidedly broader than the language used in the Act itself). I'm not terribly familiar with the memo, but it effectively hamstrung the FOIA; I'm pretty sure this is not exaggeration. I understand that a memo does not equate to a more official act such as legislation or executive order, but the effect of this memo on FOIA enforcement almost certainly had more impact than the exec. order re. presidential records.Ctnelsen (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

President Obama Administration Executive Order 12425

This section is completely one-sided, describing it as removing a safeguard against abuse. I don't know anything more about the topic than is written in that section, but I'm sure that there must be an opposing point of view about it's reasons and effects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order 12425 dates from the 1980s, and states that Interpol was deemed to be covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act, which gives recognised international organisations (like the WHO) the same sorts of legal immunities as foreign governments.
The original executive order restricted the provisions allowed to Interpol compared to most organisations; it didn't have immunity from search or most tax exemptions, though it did have a broad immunity from being sued (in the same way you can't easily sue France). Executive Order 12971, under Clinton, allowed it exemption from import duties; the Obama order, Executive Order 13524, removed the other restrictions, meaning that its foreign employees don't pay US taxes and - which the comment seems concerned about - its property now has what you might call diplomatic immunity; it can't be searched or seized by order of a US court.
All that said... it has nothing to do with FOIA, given that Interpol never was a US government agency, and the original act doesn't deal with that sort of thing at all! It's tangential, and needs removing. Shimgray | talk | 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

help!!!

any info on freedom of information act, representatives, or how to get in contact with some one to check my personal info...

help!!!

any info on freedom of information act, representatives, or how to get in contact with some one to check my personal info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.231.117 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Secrecy Bias

The introductory section seems to have a heavy pro-secrecy bias, with inappropriate tone starting from the first sentence: "With the . . . the added assertion of government subservience to the individual, some thought it was necessary for government information to be available to the public."

It was universally understood by signatories to the Constitution, as shown in passages of the Federalist Papers, that government was to be of the people, for the people and by the people. How is the position that the United States government was designed to be run by the people a mere "assertion." Similarly, how is it a neutral statement that "some [think]" publicly available government information is necessary? It is well-settled that government by the people is impossible without public information concerning what the government is doing. You can't run something when you have no opportunity for information about what is going on. This is not a controversial concept in the United States. The tension that the article places on the entire concept of freedom of information is actually just at the periphery, with rare issues of dangers inherent in immediate publication (like current troop movements, private medical records and ongoing criminal investigations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a stub

Recently, the WikiProject United States template at the top of the talk page was added with "stub" class. This article is obviously not a stub, so I have un-assessed it. Anyone with the inclination should feel free to reassess the article. Judging by length it's at least a C-class (I haven't put serious thought into this, don't rely on it.). --NYKevin @311, i.e. 06:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)/Archive_2&oldid=1136740807"