Talk:Gunnar S. Paulsson

Libel Suit

Extra information on the trial may be found here - [1][2] - however this independent court journalist may not pass for RS. The case itself seems to have been rather novel in terms of jurisdiction (going up to an appeal's court to determine whether Ontario had jurisdiction) - while Slavic Review is not based in Ontario, it seems the Ontario court took jurisdiction based on 81 copies (out of over 3,000) reaching Ontario - which has led to coverage of this case in a number of law reviews.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE?

IDONTLIKE, is not an editing rationale. The Slavic Review is a major peer reviewed journal, and omitting criticism of Paulsson's work - leads to a highly unbalanced article. The subject of this article himself has been claiming in various forums (including in a court of law) that this article has had a profound impact on himself. Oddly, @Volunteer Marek: has left in material sourced to znak.pl (the publisher of the book - so - rather self-serving), while omitting independent coverage. If anything is UNDUE, it is material sourced to such non-independent sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be conservative and leave it out, given it's a BLP. Also, it may make sense to create a new article for the book and discuss its impact / reception there, including any resulting controversies. There are plenty of sources: Guardian; H-Net; Journal a; Journal b; Journal c; Journal d, etc.

I had a very cursory read; basically, he covered an under-studied subject; the book is impactful; some of his methodologies may be controversial. Fairly typical stuff for a scholarly work. I don't believe it's an outright fringe work, a la Mark Paul. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

He's definitely not comparable to Paul. Paulsson is a mid-life History PhD (having done other stuff prior) - and he has published a bit during his degree, and the years afterwards. AFAICT he did not get tenure at a university (and the Slavic Review article - led a decade long transnational law suit that I believe he lost) - but he has published this book in a good publisher, and he has a number of journal article (see - [3]) - around 13 in all - basically the output level of a good post-doc). However, Secret City (which is his main work - his expanded doctoral thesis) did get quite a bit of flak - the conclusions it reaches are quite a bit away from most research - there are some positive reviews, some reviews that praise the novel approach while criticizing the numbers and results (e.g. Michlic), and negative reviews. Because the results are an outlier - and have been quoted by others trying to "make a point" (who themselves - at times misrepresented Paulsson who is more cagey) - the work has been subject to ongoing criticism - e.g. [4] in 2014.Icewhiz (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that the lawsuit did get some coverage (definitely alot for Paulsson) - it raised both Freedom of speech issues (see David Schniderman - [5]) and issues of transnational libel - so there is coverage of this in law literature.Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the lawsuite is too minor to put in here. For reviews, I believe that the full range should be represented. Most appear to be positive/neutral, so an entirely negative review should be balanced out. Again, I think it may be better done in a stand-alone article. I tend to be conservative for BLPs of scholars who are otherwise not active politically, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s interesting, thank you. What was the outcome of that lawsuit? Maybe it could be included? It struck my curiosity, but I can’t find anybody else reporting on it other than the above HuffPost blog [6]. I also have read a quite detailed review of Paulsson's book here [7] offered by John Radzilowski from Piast Institute. (I think K.e.coffman has looked at it also) Interesting reading.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that he lost against Slavic review. This source - [8], [9] - has quite a bit of what went on in the trial (Paulsson apparently represented himself) in 2015. The case was filed in 2006, and it went up to the high court due to the jurisdiction issue (the lower court initially decided that it was not the appropriate venue). This journal article - Kuipers, Jan-Jaap. "Towards a European Approach in the Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights." German LJ 12 (2011): 1681. touches on this case, as does [10], as do [11][12] and a few others. What is really of interest to law scholars in ONCA 150 (the 2011 decision allowing the transnational suit) - see case here. I've also seen this case bounces around in some law exams - e.g. [13]. If you really want to dig into the case - then the lower court did deliver a final verdict, and it should be open.Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that Paulsson's notability as a Wikipedia subject is an interesting question. Secret City does however clearly pass WP:NBOOK (so the article could always be re-purposed to the book which it is more or less about anyway), Paulsson definitely doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF and he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG - and without the court case definitely not.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note - this work by Havi Dreifuss in 2014 is not a review - it is a 30 page journal article examining the methodology - it seems Secret City was taken up by some politicians as a talking point (e.g. in this 2018 letter from the PM Morawiecki), and this possibly led to later examinations of the methodology. Also, possibly of interest in the article is - A failed probation, 1999 in Times Higher Education.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The book =/= the person

I am pretty sure his book is notable on its own. Before we go to deep with discussing it, let me suggest we let this BLP article in peace, and move on the the article about the book, which I will create shortly :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)