User talk:Rogerplunk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Shalom Weiss
Hello,
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It is certainly interesting to hear a different perspective about Shalom Weiss. Your contributions were also very well written.
However, your edits to the Shalom Weiss article are questionable, for serveral reasons.
1) Non encyclopedic content. For example, to mention "in hindsight he realizes that it was a terrible mistake" is not appropriate for an encylopedia article.
2) Encyclopedia content, it might be argued, is for the purpose of explaining why the subject of the article is significant. Why is Shalom Weiss's article significant?
a. He was the central figure involved in one of the largest insurance frauds in United
States history.
b. He received the longest federal prison term in US history.
The new content you provided in the article defends Weiss and provides an argument that he was wrongly convicted. Such contributions would be appropriate if Weiss was not convicted. Your defense of Weiss, in all fairness, should be a portion of the article and not its entirety.
The manner in which the article has been revised is not balanced, and it needs to be revised again.
--Tvwatcher 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- :Rogerplunk, Please understand that had you made those kinds of changes to Jeff Skilling, Andrew Luster, Kenneth Lay, Bernie Ebbers, or an article of which more individuals have knowledge, those changes would have been reverted entirely and immediately. It is more than generous, frankly, that the remainder of your contributions have been retained given the source (Weiss's own legal submissions) and the tedious complexity (Wikipedia content is not supposed to be geared for individuals familiar with the subject matter, such as extremely complex financial structures). Furthermore, since the perspective you are supporting is certainly evident, you should consider the good fortune of what was NOT included in the article. 1) The possible argument that Weiss, through his monetary resources and intelligence, for the past few years has been manipulating the legal system (alleged fake heart attack, for example). 2) The possible argument that Weiss's socially questionable behaviour while a fugitive, in addition to being a fugitive, affects his credibility (details spared). 3) The possible argument that Weiss made an apparent attempt to hide his identity by taking the appearance of a person of Hassidic Jewish heritage when it was convenient to do so. 4) the list goes on. Out of courtesy to other perspectives and out of respect for Weiss, such information was not included, nor was this response included on the discussion page of the Weiss article. --Tvwatcher 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
