Talk:Sol Wachtler

message: Does anybody know if SW has made any comments or an updated analysis of the Goetz case ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.56.199 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goetz case 

message: The way the article is written a reader might conclude Sol Wachtler was arrested for a traffic violation, or sending a few harassing letters, or mailing a condom. People do not get disbarred or go to jail for these offenses. Sol Wachtler actually was looting a fund that belonged to Joy Silverman. When confronted by Joy Silverman he told her, "No-one will believe you." Unfortunately for him Joy Silverman was recording some of the conversations, which she took to the federal authorities in the probably correct belief that a chief judge would not be prosecuted by an apparently corrupt New York legal establishment. (She might have even wound up 6 feet under.) Sol Wachtler pleaded guilty to lesser offenses as part of a plea bargain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.19.68 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please observe the "Living Persons tag", as long as the person is living you can not add anything you just think is true, or heard somewhere, but only sourced material, or facts and statements from public records, and even so in a polite manner. Kraxler (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is missing some basic facts that should be added 

message: Some editing summaries suggest that the subject of the article himself was editing it. That is unencyclopedic (people should not write articles on themselves) and, when without mentioning sources, is considered WP:Original Research which is not allowed. Kraxler (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: I came here from the People vs. Goetz article. What different standards Wachtler applies when the subject matter is himself. He deletes the interesting information on $805,000 in fees because “the charge of excess fees was never made.”  If Wiki articles could only include information from prosecutor’s charges, 99.99% of the information in Wiki articles would be deleted. This statement is relevant because it puts the later fees in better context.  But later  Wachtler deletes information because “quoting prosecutors letter is not being neutral.”  Looks like he wants it both ways. The deleted information is well sourced, that’s what’s required for a Wiki article. Of course the sourced information can and should be questioned.
A revealing result of Wachtler’s editing are the sentences “Wachtler was arrested on an expressway while driving home in November. Wachtler claimed mental incapacitation due to a bipolar disorder.”  This makes it appear that Wachler was arrested for a traffic violation while innocently driving home, and the traffic violation was due to a bipolar disorder. 
The sourced statement “Wachtler was arrested on an expressway while driving home in November after authorities said he arranged to pick up a $20,000 extortion payment from Mrs. Silverman.” is much more revealing and truthful.
It seems Wachtler is in denial and won’t accept responsibility. At the time he told Mrs. Silverman "No-one will believe you."  Nowadays he blames her for not negotiating more with him.
I think most people would not object to Wachtler editing or adding to this article, if he would keep it honest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.84.102 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Wachtler ‎has not edited this article in a long time.  I think most (all?) of his edits are these, which subsided five years ago.  There have been over 100 edits since then, plenty of time to deal with any bias introduced by these edits, and I think the COI issue has now abated.  I'm removing the tag from the article. TJRC (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wachtler is doing misleading POV editing  

message: Would it be OK to basically take down or revert this article?  Its a little intense. Does anybody mind?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.59.205 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I mind, please learn how Wikipedia works before asking such questions.  And please title your new talk page sections, and sign your talk page edits with four tildes, ~~~~ . --CliffC (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be a dick to newcomers. John Reaves 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to see more administrator interest in this article, something I had requested several times here.  Since this was probably your first visit to the article I can understand your not understanding the situation and the history of the article, but I don't appreciate being called a dick for my reply to someone who is obviously a troll using a one-time AOL IP address, far from a "newcomer".  The IP made his request to take down the article during a spate of COI edits by Wachtler himself, who has edited the article under several ids.  --CliffC (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: It looks like the article was butchered again. It should be reverted to the previous version, with the minor change of who broke off the relationship first (who cares). This issue adds little to the article and this bone of contention is essentially irrelevant. It might be noted the NY Times reference " Wachtler and Silverman Clash on Control of Trust" states she broke off the relationship. The other more important  information is not contested and should not have been deleted. With regards to the bipolar disorder it appears  the previous version also has a more revealing description:  Wachtler originally claimed in legal papers not to be competent to stand trial due to a bipolar disorder. After losing on this he had to accept a plea bargain, or go to trial.  If this is incorrect, it should be corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.175.19 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing of the sort should be added without discussion here and reliable sources. John Reaves 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and deletions 

message: The Criminal charges and resignation section now has almost no information..... about the criminal charges.    Its  now almost all about Wachtler being a fund trustee. Some editing job.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.3.125 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add any info, if you like. Do not lament, edit! But, as long as the subject of the article is alive, we must refrain from libel. That's a point of law, see the living-person tag above. In a general way, I think an encyclopedia should concentrate much more on history (dead people, the Past), and give basic, undisputed info on the living and the Present. Kraxler (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal charges and resignation section now has almost no information