Talk:Hermesmann v. Seyer

Notability and revisions

I've changed the article to explain its notability--this was very clearly a precedent-setting civil case and I've explained why in the article. However, regarding the policy on biographies of living persons, we need to be very careful on the wording in this article. Although the civil court established a precedent-setting ruling on the relevance (or lack thereof) of criminal conduct to a civil proceeding, it is important to note that Hermesmann was, to the best of my knowledge, never charged with a crime. The civil court ruled that, had she committed a crime, it would nevertheless be irrelevant to the civil proceeding--but it did not specifically say she committed a crime. Based on Wikipedia's guidelines, I think we need to be very careful to not refer to Hermesmann as a criminal--I've changed certain aspects of the classification of this article and its wording to reflect this. I also have reservations about this being classified as a crime-related article.--Dash77 10:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that she shouldn't have a WP bio at all. She is one of those people only known for one thing. The information about her case should be covered somewhere else on WP. Besides which the civil case was really about the relationship of the child to its father, not about Hermesmann. Steve Dufour 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree slightly--the exclusion of criminal consideration makes Hermesmann rather central to the case. However, I do agree that Hermesmann should not have a bio. I'd like to propose redirecting this page to Hermesmann v. Seyer, which I have edited with relevant information. Objections? --Moonriddengirl 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Steve Dufour 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)