Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal/Archive 2

Moving info from Stephen Barrett to here
I think most of this edit should be incorportated here instead: --Ronz 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Or at least the verifiable facts outside of Barrett should be included here rather than on the Barrett article. The Polevoy issue is irrelevant on the Barrett article, but here it makes complete sense. Levine2112 22:43, 11 ]December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the recent edits are enough. Great work, Jance. --Ronz 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
I removed it. As it stands, this article is a totally factual, unslanted discussion of this case., Please see my last edit - I removed an unnecessary quote about Barret's claims, and made it a single sentence.Jance 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Ronz 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On to secondary sources
Because this article documents a recent event, there are really no secondary sources available of high-quality to use as references. Hopefully in the coming months some will appear, probably in legal reviews, which we can use to strengthen the article. As it stands now, the article's reliance on primary sources for a current event is not a problem, but that needs to change as time passes. The secondary sources will also allow the article to be expanded with notable evaluations of the case. --Ronz 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Although secondary sources would not be required here, they certainly would add to the discussion.  I can't imagine there will not be more written about this case as time goes on, since it is the only case to date that interprets the meaning of "user" in the federal statute..  Jance 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about an Los Angeles Times article? Would that qualify? Ilena 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unless it includes some analysis from lawyers, it's not going to give us much to work with. Do you have the ref handy? --Ronz 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarifying - what I'm looking forward to is some in-depth analysis from legal experts. Such reference will give us interpretations to include in the article.  Newspaper's will never give such in-depth coverage, and they're more likely to publish a slightly modified press release or a superficial report instead. --Ronz 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect there will soon be quite a bit about this case, because it is the first to interpret Section 230 wrt a 'user'. Jance 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) A s*load of  blogs have picked it up, predictably.  The Mercury News ,

Findlaw article on it This sounds interesting, on Berkeley website: Brief of Amicus Curiae on behalf of law professors with expertise in Internet law before the California Supreme court in Barrett v. Rosenthal, No. S122953, November 22, 2004 (2004) Howard Kurz @ WAPO Jance 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and POV
At issue was NOT an email sent by Bolen. At issue was a single legal point: Was Rosenthal exempt under Section 230 for liability for republication of potentially defamatory statements. To add any of the section I just deleted is POV and a terrible summary of the notability of this case. Jance 06:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The statements weren't "potentially defamatory", they were described by the court simply as "defamatory". The central question of the case was whether the defendants were liable for republication of those statements so the statments themselves are clearly the central issue.  --Curtis Bledsoe 18:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Curtis, the court ruled they were not defamatory - have you actually read the ruling? ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The way Curtis had written it read like all the statements were described by the court as defamatory. This is simply untrue, as a plain reading of the case will show.  In fact, that is why I changed it.  The one statement against Poloevy was different.  This was stated in the article properly (by me).  Curtis, I don't think you understand the meaning of defamation.  It is not "nice" to call someone a Nazi, thug, etc etc In fact,  it is downright vicious.  It is not ordinarily defamation - it is hyperbole.  It is an opinion.  The courts went to some length to explaint this.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read the ruling. That's how I know that the court described the statements as defamatory but that the people who republished them weren't liable because they were not the original authors of the defamatory material.  If you'll look at the bottom of "page 3" of the ruling, you'll see where the court describes Bolen's statements as "defamatory".  I'm not how you can argue that calling someone a "Nazi" when they're not actually a Nazi isn't defamatory unless you want to try to argue that Bolen's work was some sort of humor or satire.  Where's the humor in calling someone "professionally incompetent" or "emotionally disturbed", "thug" or "bully" when there's no evidence to support such a claim?  Even in concurring with the court's decision, Justice Moreno criticized Rosenthal for falling "considerably short of the type of investigation a reasonable person would undertake before republishing potentially defamatory material".  --Curtis Bledsoe 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Point being? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal beliefs, not is it a soapbox for your political beliefs or personal interpretations of the case.  Please see the neutral point of view policy for how you should approach this article, and read the policy on conflict of interest, since your edits and opinions seem to imply one exists.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter, he still is incorrect. The court was repeating what the complaint said.  This court said, and I quote, "Plaintiffs argue that Barrett, as well as Polevoy, was defamed in the Bolen article.  We need not address this claim, given our conclusion that Rosenthal is immune from liability under section 230. "   The state supreme court did not call any statement defamatory.  The only statement that seemed to be questionable as to whether it was defamatory, based on lower court rulings, was the one about stalking. The court there "determined that the only actionable statement appeared in an article Rosenthal received via e-mail from her codefendant Tim Bolen.  This article, subtitled “Opinion by Tim Bolen,” accused Dr. Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio producer."  And depending on whether Polevoy was deemed a (limiited)public or private figure,  the standard would be either 'malice' (reckless disregard for the truth or knowledge of falisty) or negligence.  This article does not state that sentence was not defamatory.  The court would not call any statement defamatory (or not defamatory) if that question was not before the court.  If it were dicta, it would be couched in an explanation.  Here, the court was merely repeating from a complaint.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that the court described the statements as defamatory and the concurring justice criticized Rosenthal for not taking reasonable precautions to validate the claims made by Bolen. My personal opinions don't enter into this.  I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm trying to get up on a soapbox but I'm also not sure it matters.  --Curtis Bledsoe 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NO, that is not the fact, Curtis. ANd where did  you get this from Moreno's concurrence?  That is not what he is saying.  His concurrence addresses "conspiracy" and why there is not a case for it.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been continually reverting anyone who edits the article to your preferred version. This is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and I would ask you to avoid it.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Curtis' POV is misleading. Here is the exact quote. "It also may well be true that Rosenthal’s investigation of Dr. Polevoy’s incident with McPhee fell considerably short of the type of investigation a reasonable person would undertake before republishing potentially defamatory material, inasmuch as she did not contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities to corroborate McPhee’s story. But these facts are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to defame Dr. Polevoy, i.e., a preconceived plan and unity of design and purpose on the part of Rosenthal and Bolen to defame."
 * From the Opinion, (and I have been unable to get this to stay on this page), "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." (page 39, final words of the Opinion) Further, for the purposes of this case, it was regarding one statement only about Terry Polevoy and the 'stalking' comment was reposted.


 * This statement is misleading: The question before the court was not whether Bolen's statements were accurate; there was no evidence that they were. The question was whether Rosenthal was legally liable for rebroadcasting them. It was regarding one statement only ... the stalking statement. Ilena 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Convenient Section Break
Unfortunately, Ilena Rosenthal continues to defame me personally on her own web sites, and she doesn't just repeat the defamatory statements of others. She claims that she earned a victory before the Supreme Court, but there is no victory when somebody continues to hide out in Costa Rica far away from any previous court judgments against her. Claims made in the original lawsuit that involved Hulda Clark and Tim Bolen may also add Ms. Rosenthal for initiating her own defamatory statements on her own web sites, and by continuing to post these remarks on Usenet over the last 6 years. We can prove that she actually did conspire to defame me personally and professionally. The original lawsuit against Tim Bolen and Hulda Clark and up to 100 other people is still before the courts and will be heard. --Drpolevoy 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NOT the place to be putting forward your own personal beliefs and intepretations of a legal hearing, NOR is it the place to attack individuals. Please refrain from attacking other editors.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Drpolevoy, that is not true here, in this discussion. I hope you are able to prove your statements about her attempting to escape previous judgments, because they are factual statements that, if false, may be deemed defamatory and actionable.  Drpolevoy, the only defendant that brought the appeal that is this case is Ilena Rosenthal.  Your discussion about all the rest is irrelevant to this case.  I am not defending Ilena here, but I am trying to state what this case is about.  All other commentary is irrelevant to this discussion.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, I suppose it is okay for Ilena Rosenthal to post any bloody thing that she wants on this Wikipedia site. Nobody is attacking individuals here because of their beliefs or views of world politics. I am attempting to provide your readers with factual information about the present lawsuit before the courts in California that will be heard shortly. Again, if Rosenthal continues to post defamatory statements on her own blogs, web sites and Usenet, then she can be included in any future legal actions. That is a legal opinion about the facts in the case. Tim Bolen and Hulda Clark will face the music very soon, and this web page will be the perfect place to keep up to date. Drpolevoy 03:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * She can't put her legal opinions on the site, and neither can you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is the legal opinion of one court - the CA Supreme Court.  There is only one question before this court - was Rosenthal immune from liability for the statement about stalking?  That really is it.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)  After re-reading this, I want to point out that otehr current or future legal actions are not the subject of this article.Jance 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Terry Polevoy. Indeed, in a unanimous court decision,in a case before the Supreme Court of California decided November 20, 2006 now called Barrett Vs Rosenthal, I won and you lost. I know it is not pleasant for you right now. The Remittitur was issued on 12/21/2006. . This quote might be making you uncomfortable. Costs, if any, shall be awarded by the Court of Appeal. I noticed on Usenet you claimed I was in "exile" ... this may be a fantasy of yours. I travel freely in this world. Your continual obsession (several years now) about my marriage and my physical whereabouts concerns me, my family, my friends, and my legal team enormously. Thank you for giving me a good opportunity to post the reference to this update to this case. Ilena 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't bait others, Ilena. Speaking down to people isn't very nice, is divisive, and really does the community no good in the long run.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)::
 * I think that all of this extraneous personal dispute is not relevant here.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My humble apologies. Would it be possible to have the information on the Remittitur posted on this page?[?Sending jungle New Years Greetings of health and healing to all. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's hardly extraneous - the talk page has become X v. Rosenthal all over again. Ilena is being tried again in the halls of this talk page, and it's not what Wikipedia is for.  We are not a court of law, we are not a soapbox, we are an an encyclopedia.  We do not deal in truth, we deal in verifiable facts.  I find it improper and unnecessarily divisive that Ilena is being harassed as she is by these users, but I also feel that she has made her own mistakes too, and she is not exempt for her own misconduct because of the misconduct of others.  We are here to write an encyclopedia, and this is really just poisoning the well, this dispute.  The beauty of Wikipedia is all of us, working together.  So lets do that - all of us. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I meant only that it was not pertinent to the writing of this article.  I agree that this is harassment.  Jance 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I got that, and you're correct. What's happening here on the talk page needed addressed too, however.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on Statement

 * 1) There is no source for the "Statements" section.
 * 2) The section is now a lede which misrepresents the case.  It is not correct, legally or factually.  At issue is not an email Bolen sent.  At issue was whether or not  Section 230 provided immunity, for Rosenthal's republication of a statement made by Bolen, as against Polvenoy.  This statement was an accusation that Polvenoy stalked a radio host.  None of the other verbiage now in this section is correct.
 * 3) All other statements were adjudicated by more than one court to be non-defamatory.  I will add that this does not mean the statements were nice or non-inflammatory.  It does mean that they were not legally defamatory.   Hyperbole and opinion are never defamatory, which is evidently something not understood here.
 * 4) The state supreme court did not address any statement as against Barrett.  This case is Barrett v. Rosenthal and is the state supreme court case.
 * 5) Even Barrett's attorney evidently did not evidently understand the meaning of "actual malice" in the context of defamation - although, I will point out that this is very basic to an understanding of defamation. Curtis does not understand the meaning of libel, or what was going on here.  One does not  have to condone inflammatory statements to understand that hyperbole is not libel. The court explained this at length.  The court explained that the tone of the material is irrelevant to libel.  Freedom of speech is a constitutional right for a reason.Jance 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a tiny correction: At issue was a republication by Rosenthal of statements made by Bolen, ...it was regarding just one statement. Thanks very much. Ilena 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct, and I changed it. This article is about a state supreme court case.  Only one statement is at issue in this case, and that is the one you mention.  The introductory paragraph as written is factually incorrect, and misleading.   Jance 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading through this, I added a POV tag back to the article. --Ronz 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ronz. It was badly misstated, and POV.  I am not sure if it still isnt, so leaving the tag is probably a good thing.Jance 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Two very good accounts of this case ... one from Law.com
These are just two (of over 300 Googleable articles)... Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. This is far bigger than me ... it affects millions of users, bloggers, Wikipedia, ISP's etc. Ilena 22:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why the "Statement" section leading into this is utterly inappropriate.Jance 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of changes
I made a couple of changes to the more egregious errors. The court did not declare the statements defamatory. In fact, it was just the contrary. Most of the statements that Rosenthal republished were decleared by the court to be "hyperbole" and "opinion", therefore non-defamatory.

I could not let this stand. It is not right. One cannot rewrite history, and the law. Also, I might point out that "legally liable" is redundant.Jance 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant
Can anyone tell me the purpose of the section "Statements.." ?  The court's findings are stated in subsequent sections. The introductory section is the brief statement of the case. So what is the purpose of the "Statements" section, except to show how inflammatory some of the statements were? Also, whoever added that provided no reference. It is not a true statement to say the courts called these statements defamatory. In fact, just the opposite is the case. And "truth" or "falisty" was never an issue, because the statements were opinion. Will someone please stop with the soapboxes? And I say that about either side. Jance 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The pertinent E-mail
Should we have a link to the e-mail that Ilena Rosenthal reposted? This is the email that started her involvement in this whole sordid affair. Interested readers could click on a link to read it for themselves. http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/sleazy.htm Emilydcksn 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New coverage
More coverage of the subject (obviously not for the article, but for your enlightenment and enjoyment):


 *  Link removed as a site attacking a member of wikipedia. . Sysops, see this permalink: .  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Fyslee 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fyslee, I am surprised you would post this. Jance 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the irony of free speech. If you allow one to speak freely, you must allow all the same freedom, even if you don't want to hear what they have to say.  Barrett and Rosenthal are two opposite ends of the same spectrum. Either we have to hear both, or we hear neither.  The world would certainly be a friendlier place with neither, but then someone else would likely just take their places. The question is, should an encyclopedia be a place where these grievances are aired. ;) --Dematt 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an Encyclopedia. I wish everyone would stop treating it like their soapbox.  This is not  a free speech issue.  Free speech does not exist on Wikipedia.  Also, please do not attack other users.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, you are in direct violation of an Arbitration Committee descision prohibiting the linking of sites containing hate speech against users of Wikipedia. Please withdraw this link immediately, or you may be subject to Arbitration Committee remedy.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For sysops: • Applicable case


 * I'm not surprised at all. It was posted on the Healthfraud List this morning David Gorski (Orac, another Rag-tag Posse member) and being circulated by the losing plaintiffs team.It is filled with inaccuracies and downright lies and libel. I have added links to various araticles and comments here. Ilena 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well well! Maybe I should read it myself. I'm not surprised by Ilena's reaction though. She can dish it out, but..... Well the link is deleted, and I have no problem with that. -- Fyslee 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's Links allowed ... Mine Removed
I feel this is censorship. There are hundreds of references to Barrett being circulated throughout Wikipedia ... and I am censored from having any. I have a legal non profit corporation Humantics Foundation. (NCAHF is very probably not legal) yet they are used as 'reliable sources' and I am not allowed any links. I do not believe this is the Wiki way. I have been a reliable source for breast implant information for 11 years, recently quoted in Wired, MyDNA, WebMD, Glamour Magazine, etc. Yet here, I am outnumbered by Barrett and Polevoy's publicists. Ilena 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I left the link Fyslee posted was so that he could face censure without the administration having to dig through the page's edit history. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the link and posted a permalink which can be removed once a sysop has dealt with the matter. I will draw up a report for administrator intervention.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No need for intervention. The link is gone and I have no further interest in it. If I am to face any censure, then Ilena should face even more, as she has constantly spammed Wikipedia with links to her own site, which are filled with hate speech, personal attacks, and untruths. We have deleted them and hope she will learn not to post more links to her own sites. They were vanity links -- a practice forbidden here -- and they are filled with hate speech, an unethical practice which has gotten her into trouble. All her troubles in the courts and on the internet could have been avoided if she didn't constantly attack others. If her sites were purely information about breast implant issues, then they might conceivably be useful as resources here, as long as she does't post them herself, but that is not the case. -- Fyslee 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fight fire with water, not more fire. Your link posting only threw more fuel on the fire, and only further contributed to an already negative environment surrounding the article.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand, and certainly won't post it again, even though it doesn't contain any hate speech. No problemo. -- Fyslee 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that my links are anymore "vanity links" than quackwatch.com or the probably illegal operation of ncahf.org and any of millions of webpages linked to Wikipedia. I have been under attack by these losing plaintiffs for 6 years, and since the final Supreme Court of California ruling against them, their actions are een more egregious. The entire webring that Fyslee operates is filled with Barrett's attacks on scientists and physicians that they hate and try to destroy. Fyslee is profoundly inaccurate as to who I am and why I have devoted 11 years of my life to raising awareness to the dangers of breast implants and the dangers of the PR teams paid by the breast implant, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Fyslee may call it a 'smear' to be linked to Stephen Barrett, but it is a fact. For several years, he was the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud List and his webring links all of Barrett's questionable sites together which promote each other. He was also a member of the now removed "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes" which provided Smear Campaigns via blogs and usenet of people Barrett and the other losing plaintiffs were suing. Fyslee and Barrett were on that list together for 6 years (up until last week.) Fyslee removed every link I have made on Wikipedia, filled my talk pages with the same nonsense he wrote above, and it feels exactly like stalking. He even interfered in my personal talk page. To Jance, I do definitely believe it was Terry Polevoy who posted under drpolevoy yesterday. He has repeated the same things on usenet and the healthfraud list and follows me wherever I post. Ilena 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad-hominem anybody?  I do like how fire to be fought with water and the above is gently ignored.  O well such is the world of wikipedia.  Shot info 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask Ilena to remove individual user's real names. I am no "Wikipedia expert" but I believe Wikipedia has a policy of protecting user's privacy, if they choose to go by a pseudonym  (user name).Jance 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee's false claims of libel and false victimhood removed. Ilena 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena, you are allowing yourself to be "triggered" by other editors with whom you have long grievances. Please leave linking your website/webpages to us, the other WP editors, to include here. You might occasionally nominate a page (or more) in Talk that you feel has merit, after giving it your best editorial cleanup. You do have a point about overuse of QW etc as a source at WP, they certainly are not neutral. Fyslee, the Talk page edit id corrections that you just now made were cool, fine; however the edit summary line seems overheated and not accurate.  As you are an experienced editor, may I suggest that you keep trying to dampen the obvious antagonisms that exist between parties even when you hotly feel someone is backsliding. We are making progress, it is not easy.--I&#39;clast 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right ... I was hit by other members of Fyslee's team with the same attacks this morning on other medium. I know who Fyslee is and have been his target for 6 years. Here is something I am very perplexed about. I am now told that links to my legal non profit corporation are "vanity links" and not allowed, yet there are thousands of links posted by fyslee that are one click away from his whole webring and vanity sites. He is the Anti-Quackery Ring - Ringmaster and founder, all of Barrett's sites are posted there and lead back to his links and solicitations. Why is this allowed? Now I read Fyslee is deleting my posts claiming they are 'libelous.' There was no libel ... just a description of his relationship with Barrett and all over promoted sites. Anyone can look at this Wiki link and see he advertises each and every Barrett website, including the probably non legal entity NCAHF.org (since May 2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)


 * Ilena, please stop the personal attacks. While certain words above are true, the whole conspiracy framework, and much of the connections, are libelous and totally false. You are taking a few real bricks, and building a weird structure of your own devising that has little relation to reality. Now start behaving properly, don't ever discuss my identity or activities outside of Wikipedia, and try to deal with editing articles, instead of bringing your battles to Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the notion that you know what is and what is not libel is just plain silly. Three of your Rag-tag / Healthfraud teammates just lost their libel suits to me for making the same false claim. Your links with Barrett may rightfully shame you, but they are factual. You advertise Barrett's links throughout Wikipedia, the blog world, your webring (that attacks and labels fine doctors and scientists as quacks)They are one link away from your Vanity Links and solicitations here on Wikipedia. Everytime you post a QW site ... one click and it's a direct link to YOU. I have seen pages and pages filled with your QW links ... all linking to YOU and your attack sites. Yours and Barrett's careers are attacking others and labeling others what you are. Ilena 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of you, pls go take a cold shower.--I&#39;clast 03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, only one person is doing the frothing at the mouth, the other is calming articulating their position. Lucky we have WP:AGF now lest one be accussed of a tad bit of bias :-)  Shot info 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They take turns, Shot. Both are highly opiniated and articulate.  It would be a great combination, if they can breathe deeply, try to let go of the external tension and focus on writing a good article.  They both have much to offer, from different perspectives.  Ilena, you need to let this go, if you are going to be able to use that talent for something constructive - writing some great articles..  I am like you as I can take things personally.  And with this, especially, you all have 'baggage'.
 * One thing that might be helpful is to consider the wide variety of readers who will want to quickly grasp the important issue of this case, and why it merits an article. Therefore, the article does not and should not be rambling or long, or beset with extraneous facts.  My 'take' on this is to first organize it is a basic (legal)  'breif' section which I did:  Statement of the case, the facts (from the original complaint in the Barrett v. Clark section) and the decision below (trial and appeals court).  Then the issue before the  CA Supreme Court, a short summary of the opinion & ruling.  Then we could have a section on Controversy - probably not of the ruling itself, since it followed precedent and the plain language of the statute.  Instead, the "Controversy" section should address policy & Congressional intent (the case has fertile material for this).    I could see two  main paragraphs - each short and concise.  This could  be the most interesting section to a reader.  IN writing this, we need to curb the inclination to soapbox and grandstand.  Treat it as if you were trying to teach someone the policy issues that prompted this legislation.  There really is very little, if any, here about that.  And this is so debated - by explaining the ramifications of this policy and why or why not it is 'good' policy  (Just no OR)- there is ample mateterial.  I don't mean making things up, but using The court court case would be good reference, as well as secondary sources.  We could do it without editorializing, but rather stating the statute's intent, and the policy criticism of it.   In fact, this could be an ideal forum for the two people with widely divergent views to work on the content - Section 230 has important policy arguments.  Briefly.  Maybe Ilena could add what S230 means to individual computer users and freedom of speech - that is where your two sources could be helpful, Conversely, maybe Fyslee can raise the other viewpoint, with equally reliable sources.  The Judge's discussion of 'disturbing implications' would be a good focal point..  There is a bit of this in the S 230 article, but it would be good to have something here if it is very short. That doesn't mean it will be easier to write.  Condensing a policy argument (with sources and no WP:OR) will be a challenge.  BUt this is where the secondary sources will come in handyJance 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to discussions of this article? --Ronz 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I propose these two articles be included ... one from law.com. These are just two (of over 300 Googleable articles)... Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. This is far bigger than me ... it affects millions of users, bloggers, Wikipedia, ISP's etc.Ilena 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both aritcles & sources look ok to me - external inks, perhaps. This is a landmark case  in interpreting Section 230 as to "users" ...  While I don't think many legal scholars would disagree that the ruling is correct (based on the plain language of the statute), the policy enunciated by the statute is hotly debated.  Jance 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fyslee
Thanks to Fyslee for making needed cleaning up edits. I also learned something, about Wiki referencing by reviewing these edits. (I am accustomed to Id and was not sure how to handle this on Wikipedia.)Jance 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bolen and Jurimed
The section describing Mr. Bolen that just got reverted to is just more POV from Barrett's camp and Barrett's vanity webpages. Although Wikipedia is filled with Barrett's publicists, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not another Barrett webpage. Mr. Bolen's organization indeed should be listed, not just another smear against him by a plaintiffs using wikipedia to attempt to influence their case. Ilena 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"self styled" is clearly derogatory and more Barrett POV. Please stop reverting this edit intended to be without POV. Ilena 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be kept as it was until more editors weigh in. --Ronz 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be changed per Ilena's request. The company is listed with that title in the Ca online business portal. I would request that Ilena stop with the inflammatory accusations and personal attacks against other Wiki editors.--Emilydcksn 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was just going to ask about that, & am glad you looked it up, Emily.  I also agree re sniping & inflammatory remarks.  On everyone's part.Jance 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Since a lot of the nastiest back-and-forth has been over external links (or so it seems from a glance at WP:AN/I), why not just cut all the external links except that to the actual court decision? External links in general add very little value to an article compared to the amount of controversy they stir up. The court decision itself (from the state of CA website) is an ideal external link. The others are spin, pro or con. Why not remove all of the other external links, in the interest of both tightening up the article and averting endless disagreement? If one of the linked sources is reliable and relevant, describe what it says in the article (e.g. under a "Reactions to the ruling" section or something) and cite the website as a source. Just a thought, given that things seem to be going in circles. I'll go away now. MastCell 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would sound to me to be a very reasonable suggestion, and I think I'll do so now. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on Bolen
OK, there seems to be some frequent reverting on the description of Bolen. The two contenders are "President of Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group, Inc." and "a self-described "publicist" for alternative medicine practitioners". Since both of these are accurate descriptions, what about combining them into the following: "Patrick Timothy Bolen, President of Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group and a self-described "publicist" for alternative medicine practitioners..."? Compromise, anyone? I do think the external link to Bolen's site is inappropriate and should not be included (in keeping with trimming superfluous and controversial external links in general). MastCell 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect Emily is right above. I agree that Bolen's site should not remain. Jance 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping the site off. Why not find some good, secondary sources to support a description of Bolen?  Why's his company notable? --Ronz 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If their claims have merit, a reliable source can be cited, otherwise, they should not be in the article. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really hate edit conflicts. I would support either "President of Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group, Inc." and "a  "publicist" for alternative medicine practitioners", or just  "publicist" for alternative medicine practitioners,  if the company is legitimate.  I suppose "self-styled" is derogatory.  The website should not stay.  I do not know what Peter is talking about here (what claim?)Jance 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the website makes claims that have merit, they should be easily found on a reliable source. The site in question itself fails RS.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Can you tell I am tired?  Thanks for explaining, and absolutely.Jance 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "'publicist' for alternative medicine practitioners" sounds good to me, at least until we can come up with a better source to rely upon. It's informative with respect to the rest of the article, while giving his company name and title are not. --Ronz 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * good by me.Jance 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll edit it in, then.... &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Should the "POV" tag be removed now? I agreed with Ronz that it was warrented, before our recent edits.  At that time, it not only was POV, but it was factually incorrect.  It is not, now. Jance 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

publicist
Quoting Shot, " (have an article, lets point do it) "-- publicist. That is the best way to handle this, imho. Quotes, as I had, are not really appropriate (i thought about that after I looked at it again). Fyslee's "hired" is even more inappropriate. That is editorializing - I suspect most publicists are hired, and have receipts. No offense, Fyslee, but try to stand back and look at this objectively. Jance 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is hard to find a publicist willing to do pro bono work these days... but seriously, is it necessary to quote at length from Bolen's email in the article? I realize the statements were held to be "non-defamatory opinion" for the most part, but why repeat them in all their detail, even if they're legally non-defamatory? Is it really encyclopedic, or just a chance to bash Barrett and Polevoy? Why not just say that Bolen sent an email containing a number of attacks on Barret/Polevoy, maybe specifying only the "stalking" thing since that was legally relevant? MastCell 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% (although I don't know whom these statements hurt). What you suggest is exactly what I did in the introduction.  There is no reason to include these quotes, which are not even at issue before the supreme court, and therefore not relevant to this article, except as a case history.  And I don't think that level of detail is necessary.  I do not recall who added them, or why.  However, Curtis argued for some time that these statements were described by the court as defamatory (which was factually incorrect.)  The statements were also added at the beginning of this article on a CA Supreme Court case, which was inappropriate for obvious reasons.   The only reason I did not delete them, is because I did not want Curtis again accusing me of 3RR or worse.  Instead, I corrected the factually wrong edit, and moved the quotes where they better fit.  I agree they should not be here.  It is bad form - regardless of who looks bad as a result. Jance 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A bit of history might be appropriate here, IIRC (I'm tired right now, so please correct and forgive any errors!). The original Bolen statements were serious enough (and some of the false statements stated as absolute fact -- which he later admitted under deposition were just "euphemism"...) to unleash a small series of libel suits (five, with Rosenthal's case growing out of one of them) against just a few of the myiad people who republished his "opinion pieces", as he calls them. Rosenthal was just one of them, but likely because she added her own flavor (in the same conspiracy theory style as Bolen) to the matter (just as Mercola did), she was included in the Clark suit.


 * She got off the hook because Section 230 protects republishers of even the most vile and libelous material. They can violate every principle of ethics and morality by republishing material that they even know to be a lie and get away with it. No wonder the justices in the case expressed concern for the consequences of their own judgment!


 * Well, the story didn't end there. The Bolen/Clark team (the originators, not republishers) retaliated with a cross-complaint that contained a very long "laundry list" (precise language from the judgment) of very serious charges worthy of a Mafia boss, every one of them leveled against some 30 persons, websites(!), and even non-existent entities(!!!). It was a SLAPP suit beyond what anyone could ever have imagined!


 * Initially Barrett & company lost the case (and still lost it to Rosenthal), but it was appealed as regards the Bolen/Clark team. In 2005, an appeals court reversed the district court's decision, and the case was remanded for further procedings. "The scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges" provided sufficient reason for the case to proceed. That case is now pending against the Bolen/Clark/Negrete team.


 * What I don't know is if the coming trial only deals with the "laundry list" from the countersuit, or if it includes the original statements by Bolen that started the whole mess. Maybe attorney Jance can enlighten us.
 * I wish I could, Fyslee. I can't tell from this decision what the motion to strike included - whether it was all the statements, or part of the statements.  Unlike B v. R CA Supreme Court opinion, this does not specify.  So without the lower court case or motion, I don't know the answer to your question.  Do you have either of those ?Jance 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * -- Fyslee 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * -- Fyslee 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this "fact" attack-ish, unnecessary, and not encyclopedic. Just leave it out. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to play out personal battles. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * then they are gone. I'll delete them.Jance 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did put back mention that Bolen's email was at issue in the case; I just removed the laundry list of accusations he made, which really don't deserve repetition in an encylopedia. I did mention the "criminal activity/stalking" allegation he made against Polevoy, because this subsequently became an issue in the court proceedings. MastCell 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I changed it just a little. At issue in Barrett v. Clark were the statements about both doctors, not just Polevoy.  That probably should be stated, as simply as possible (I think I did that).  It was the appeals court that upheld the trial court dismissal for all but the statement against Polevoy.  I also described who Bolen was, and the context, also as simply as possible.  This provides a brief description of the case at trial level, and is appropriate here.  Jance 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Does it seem reasonable to now remove this tag?Jance 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the editor who added it, I'm fine with it being removed. Ilena may consider some of the issues she's brought up as being unresolved though.  I suppose she can add it back in if need be.  I'll remove it. --Ronz 02:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ronz. Not sure it is removed - I"ll get it.  If anyone objects, (s)he can add it back.Jance 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Blah! I removed off the wrong article somehow. At least one of us is paying attention. Thanks! --Ronz 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of things
Since there is a whole article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, I removed the section that reprinted the text here and just linked to that article. IMO, this is a better way to display this information. I've also noticed that part could be written more clearly: "It is an appeal of Barrett v. Clark, a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others..." So who are the others? I ask because later it says: "The trial court dismissed the case (against Rosenthal only) under the California anti-SLAPP statute" Which makes you wonder, who were still defendants in Clark (besides presumably someone named Clark)? I think it would be helpful to list out some of the "et. al." in the first sentence and clarify the second a bit: The trial court dismissed the case against Rosenthal only under the California anti-SLAPP statute, which is intended to stop lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances, though it allowed the case to continue against her co-defendants" ...or something to that effect. It would just make this a bit clearer to a reader unfamiliar with the case.--Isotope23 15:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Isotope23 for your interest in this case. I believe it is a very important one, especially for a website like Wikipedia which hosts the words of others. Previously, the threat or reality of being sued for what an editor posted, could seriously limit open discussions. Much of what is posted on the internet is the work of others. This threat being erased will invigorate discussions on controversial topics ... including breast implants and health freedom.   I've been reading other articles on Wikipedia on cases covered here and both the defendants and the plaintiffs are usually given descriptions by their work. I believe Mr. Bolen should receive a first name and the name of his registered California company included. As "Rosenthal" ... I also believe my work should be identified. All traces of my websites and the fact that when I was SLAPP sued in this case, it was in relationship to my work have been expunged from the articles that mention this case. I am the head of the Humantics Foundation and a vocal breast implant awareness advocate. This was mentioned in many of the hundreds of articles on this case, but erased here. Thank you and have a lovely evening all. Ilena 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief description of Ilena Rosenthal as a 'woman's health advocate'. The issue of breast implants here is irrelevant to this case, and rather distracting, imho. It does seem as if something should be said to describe a party in this case. Input, anyone?Jance 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct on all counts. I have now added a wikilink to her special area of interest in women's health. She certainlhy deserves that. This way it is there without being added in an improper or distracting manner (such as a link in the "See also" section). -- Fyslee 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some special editing
I took out Ilena Rosenthal's description in the lead as a women's advocate as it seemed unnecessary to the description without Barrett et al also described. Anyone can put it back in if they want to work out a definition for them, but I don't see thatit changes anything.

Also removed a link to Quackwatch concerning the Barrett v. Clark suit that was not necessary and ony inflammatory in nature. I don't think a link to Rosenthal's site would be appropriate either. --Dematt 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my edit a little, here is my thinkning:
 * It's not the link to the court case that is the problem, it's the paragraph introducing the brief that is inflammatory;) It probably is not a good idea to have Ilena write her version at the top either.  The sentence speaks for itself and doesn't really need a reference anyway, right.


 * I have no problem with having Ilena's description with her name; I think it makes her sound more vulnerable actually. However, if we do that, we need to give the Barrett group a description and I didn't feel like "quackbusters" was a good one.  The article is really about the precedent set forth by the case.  It's really not important that it was Barrett or Rosenthal, it could have been Roe v. Wade (how many people care about what Roe did for a living?), the important part is the protection from prosecution for re-printing another person's slander.  Nobody should care that it was quackwatch vs. breast implant.  I am open if you think I'm missing something important.
 * --Dematt 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I very respectfully disagree that this was a personal spat between Barrett and me personally. I believe the courts agreed with me too. The topic of my breast implant advocacy was fully discussed in earlier court papers. This was deemed the classic SLAPP suit which is industry vs activist. Here is my declaration under oath relevant to this question. Judge Richmond wrote a 27 page opinion granting the anti-SLAPP motion after reading this. I hope you read it too. . Shalom Ilena 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I very respectfully disagree that this was a personal spat between Barrett and me personally. I'm sorry, Ilena, are saying that it was a personal spat or that it was not a personal spat? --Dematt 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies. This is the quote I was responding to, Nobody should care that it was quackwatch vs. breast implant. I am open if you think I'm missing something important. The fact is it was quackwatch vs breast implant awareness advocate By attempting to SLAPP my mouth shut with meritless lawsuits and a related smear campaign, industry would be silencing one of their very vocal critics. I was quoted in Chemical and Engineering News, Midland Times, Us Magazine, The Scientist, several TV interviews and many radio shows,(to name but a few) exposing industry influence in science and the unfairness of the Dow settlement. Shutting me up would have been an industry coup. Please read this article in Philantrophy about industry suing small foundation heads such as I am. This case is classic. The part that went to the Supreme Court was about one word ... the rest personified what SLAPP suits are all about ... chilling activists such as myself. Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say Threat of costly court battles gives many charities goose bumps. Thank you and Shalom. Ilena 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, and that is what I thought, too. In other words, this case is so important that it is about more than just quackwatch vs. breast implants.  I think the implications are more in line with industry v. acivist (as you put it).  It is bigger than both of you.  The actual details of who you and Barrett are are certainly important, but not as important as the details that "industry can not intimidate vocal opponents by threatening them with lawsuits that would likely bankrupt and destroy them - whether they were right or wrong."
 * Having said that, I can see that the article could be more interesting with details about who you are, but if so, it needs to accurately state who Barrett is as well. Otherwise, it is not a balanced article.  Keeping in mind that descriptions may not always be positive.  Which way would you prefer it to go.  --Dematt 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Dematt. It would be interesting to have a brief description of the plaintiffs and the defendant.Jance 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue may be a little too hot right now and the we should probably keep it to verifiable and reliable facts from secondary and tertiary sources. --Dematt 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Comments
As Barrett Vs Rosenthal is a part of Fyslee and my arbitration, perhaps the appropriate arbitration comment link should be noted. Thank you. Ilena 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there similar links about Arbitration Disputes? Thank you. Ilena 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. The conduct of people involved is what is the matter, not the article per se, so except in some extraordinary cases such notices are not used.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  •  Neutrality Project  ) 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. You were so right on when you made the Mediation Request that fyslee refused to participate in. It is about BvR ... and ro my experienced opinion, 9especially after reading unfactual comments made today again on the case) is that the plaintiff's are attempting to retry the case here. My comments on the Arbritration will reveal how this all fits together. Thank you and I hope your life gets better every day. Ilena 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Documents...
For those who might be interested: &.
 * ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This one was just released after the one's above  Crohnie Gal  Talk / Contribs  12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This new document has nothing to do with counteracting the previous order to cover Rosenthal's attorney fees. This only has to do with the remainder of the proceedings. Any problem with reverting? -- Levine2112 discuss 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets stay up to date and we can add to it is as more information suddenly appears. -- Dēmatt (chat)  01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you know (see Talk:Stephen Barrett) this interpretation of the court records (I assume these .tiff pictures from .ca are legitimate) is disputed as WP:OR. Another interpretation might be that Polevoy and Barrett have to put up some kind of collateral due to a request by Rosenthal and the court's opinion that there's a reasonable possibility that she will obtain judgment for specific attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with her special motion to strike. How do we know that an editor (or even a consensus) has come up with the correct interpretation? For the rest I refer you to the Essjay debacle. AvB &divide; talk  08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Adding this material here when you know it's being disputed elsewhere seems somewhat disruptive to me. All it accomplishes is wasting other people's time (mine in this case) and irritating them (me in this case). AvB &divide; talk  09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Avb, I am not sure I am understanding your reasoning. I am not familiar with a dispute about this material.  Can you point me in the right direction?  Dēmatt  (chat)  11:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See link at the top of my post (Barrett talk page) or Ronz's link (below). What I'm saying is just what one reasonable, educated person (me) understands when reading the court ruling. Then again, I'm not an average man so perhaps it's easier for me to understand than for those who keep reinserting it without bothering to address my concerns. Please understand I'm not trying to keep the info out; I'm just trying to keep the nonsense out. AvB &divide; talk  00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there's a relevant discussion at Talk:Stephen_Barrett.

Until we have secondary sources, we have no way to determine how to treat this information per WP:WEIGHT. -- Ronz 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. From WP:OR:
 * Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
 * (Bold added my me.)
 * Now then, (1) we are only making a descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge (e.g. All they have to do is click the source link and read it for themselves.) and (2) we are making no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.
 * -- Levine2112 discuss 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, do all roads lead to Barrett for you guys? Lets keep it simple. Just ask yourself what you would be saying if the court decided the other way. Would you be making the same claims? Then you will have your answer. That is writing in NPOV. -- Dēmatt (chat)  23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just looking in on my way to bed - you're trying to reinsert language that is NOT supported by the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. In fact the disputed text is rubbish. This "descriptive claim" is simply wrong. Nothing (of these amounts) has been awarded to Rosenthal. Yet. AvB &divide; talk  00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying, I think. Here's the text you deleted again:
 * ''On May 2, 2007, the court ordered the Plaintiffs Terry Polevoy MD, and Stephen Barrett MD, to post $433,715.93 in bonds as an Award of Costs and Attorney Fees for Rosenthal.

''
 * Maybe the best thing to do is make a direct quote from the piece? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not automatically against a direct quote. Then again, (another point I've made earlier on the Barrett talk page), apparently reasonable, educated people misunderstand the court ruling. I would prefer to wait for an independent reliable secondary source. I expect Rosenthal to be awarded reimbursement at some point in the future; regardless of how it all ends, it certainly belongs in this article provided we can write something neutral about it. AvB &divide; talk  00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. I can live with that. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense why we would need a secondary source. The court doc is about the best primary source you could hope for. AvB, you stated that we're misinterpreting the court doc? Could you explain why you think the disputed insertion is incorrect.  Thanks.--Hughgr 03:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hugher, I think Avb's problem stems from this part of the sentence:
 * to post $433,715.93 in bonds as an Award of Costs and Attorney Fees for Rosenthal
 * In reality, these bonds are not "an award of costs and attorney's fees", but rather the court is requiring Barrett and Polevoy to post a bond until they can decide if Rosenthal's attorneys can collect it. I think, using QG's logic tree, that means that when they do decide, then immediate payment can be made. Is that your probelm with it, Avb? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  13:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. (Belated reply - missed this post last Sunday) AvB &divide; talk  21:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hughgr: It makes sense to me. It might help if you would read this section (Documents...) from the top, including my explanation. When what seems self-evident to one editor does not follow from the source according to another editor, there's a clear interpretive problem and we have no way to decide from the source who is right and who is wrong. Secondary sources may also be required for different reasons as explained in the BLP board certification discussion on the Barrett talk page, but I'm not so sure they apply here.
 * Dēmatt: OK. FWIW, not too long ago we had a somewhat similar discussion on the Rath talk page. Reading it may set your mind at rest regarding the intentions of one or two editors also editing these Barrett articles. AvB &divide; talk  12:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of court order is OR and probably incorrect
But without secondary coverage, there's no way to tell whether the alleged future fee-shifting might merit inclusion. There are mountains of raw data in the world, and plucking small bits of them out is the essence of original research&mdash;even without synthesis. We've just no way of knowing whether these data are given fair weight in the article. Additionally, without any interpretive coverage it's difficult to know whether we're even understanding the court correctly. It seems to me that you've totally misunderstood the significance of this order. The court is just ordering a bond for a fee shifting award that may or may not be granted. Section 1030 of the California Civil Procedure Code says that all foreign parties and corporations have to post bond like this&mdash;it's not even an order suggesting that Barrett will lose. Here's an except from [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=92441715287+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Cal. Civ. Proc. Code sec. 1030]:
 * (a) When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, "attorney's fees" means reasonable attorney's fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.


 * (b) The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities. The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney's fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding. [...]


 * (d) The plaintiff shall file the undertaking not later than 30 days after service of the court's order requiring it or within a greater time allowed by the court. If the plaintiff fails to file the undertaking within the time allowed, the plaintiff's action or special proceeding shall be dismissed as to the defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.

Notice (d) says that if Barrett fails to pay, his action will simply be dismissed. The statute exists to protect Californians from harassment by outside parties who may not be able to pay attorneys fees. It is nothing like a judgment on the merits. This is my original research, and I tend to think it's a little bit more informed than Levine's. However, no original research belongs in this article. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It totally sounds like you are more informed in these mattters than I. I certainly will bow to your expertise here. I think waiting to see how this plays out before we insert this information into the article is a good idea (or until it is reported upon by a reliable secondary source. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 02:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a law student who should be studying for exams right now... But it does seem like this is just a preliminary formality. Awards for attorneys' fee shifting (if any) will happen later. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice. Well if you have time to take another study break, I'd love your feedback about the resource I am linking to below. I am too much of a layman when it comes to law to know if there is anything useful there for this article, but I imagine there must be. Thanks again! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

misleading edit summary by Dematt
This is a disingenuous edit summary because it makes it appear as if there is no need for consensus on Wikipedia. The edit does not match the fact we have a consensus policy: don't need consensus for V and RS used properly, though you might consider adding to it :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that consensus (or even WP:consensus) does not trump NOR or NPOV. AvB &divide; talk  00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Avb. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First. Consensus cannot overide NOR or NPOV policies. Second. We have no consensus. Third. Dematt is saying: Thank you to AvB. Why? Because Dematt realizes AvB is correct. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the play be play, QG. You need to work on your logic tree a little, but you're getting there. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Dematt: You need to work on your logic tree a little, but you're getting there. This is a vague, illogical statement. Hmmm. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're on different sides of the same logic tree? AvB &divide; talk  12:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that gives me way too much credit, thanks though ;-) -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Useful resource
Alameda.Court.CA - here is a repository of related court information from Barrett v. Clark case. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)