Talk:Sholam Weiss

Neutrality
The current version of the article, which was completely rewritten by Rogerplunk, is not in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. Furthermore, it contains unverifiable information, such as that obtained from original trial transcripts. Although a proper article should provide a well-rounded perspective, the article as is completely omits the "guilty as charged" point of view.

It has clearly been written by somebody on Weiss' legal defense team. We should keep the article as unbiased as possible, and therefore I suggest a previous version be restored until we can work out which parts should and which parts should not be removed. The prior version contained less information, but the information is less disputed and most probably gives a more factual representation.

Rogerplunk adds a lot of factual details, supported by references, which should be looked at.

This is the version in question. I suggest the page be restored to this version. &mdash;Stimpy 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up phrases with obvious bias. I think the article stands a chance of being kept with more additions to the guilty as charged side. --Tvwatcher 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I used the history pages to save information Rogerplunk deleted to make the article more balanced. --Tvwatcher 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE
BY Rogerplunk:

The issue of neutrality verses bias is central to Wikipedia. But it is not easy to distinguish between the two. The Best Review (Anatomy of a Failure), being an insurance industry article, is clearly biased in favor of the government’s position. Even so, it is perhaps the most reliable and comprehensive source of information on the financial collapse of National Heritage life Insurance. It is for this reason, that I thought it should be the first cited reference, and should be used as much as possible in verifying events. Most other sources on the internet, regarding the Weiss story, are sensational-based with inaccurate information.

The Weiss case, concerned the “mortgage-backed bond scheme”, and was basically a money laundering case. Money laundering is not what is generally thought of as “insurance fraud”, which involves fooling an insurance company out of money (theft by fraud). As the Best Review article shows, the purpose of the “mortgage-backed bond scheme” was to raise money to fill a $35 million financial hole in National Heritage (made by earlier schemes, which Weiss was not involved in). The plan was for Weiss to buy and service non-performing mortgages for the purpose of increasing the value of the mortgages, and thus raising money for National Heritage. This is normally legal. However, the money used for this was earmarked for reinsurance, and was wired to South Star (controlled by Weiss) by Smythe, CEO of National Heritage, without the knowledge of the CFO. The mortgages were then fraudulently returned to National Heritage through the bond scheme. These transactions were highly complex and are not easily summarized for mass consumption. Even experts found it hard to make sense of the transactions.

Oddly, the DOJ award page, also inserted by tvwatcher, inaccurately states that the case involved “looting” National Heritage of $250 million. The word “looting”, meaning to steal, is a different crime from money laundering. I suppose we cannot expect the DOJ awards people to understand the cases they are giving awards for (even though the prosecutor is clear about the crimes in the indictment). The amount of money laundered was about 100 million dollars, depending on how it is calculated (this is the amount wired to South Star to purchase mortgages). As stated in the Weiss article, Weiss was convicted of using about 7 million for personal use. However, it was not alleged that this money went into his pockets. It was used for business expenses. Because the transactions were illegal, the expenses were considered, legally speaking, to be diverted for “personal use”.

On the issue of Weiss’s innocence: this remains relevant because he has not had an appeal. As the Ken Lay case shows, if a person dies after a conviction, but before an appeal, the conviction is extinguished because an appeal is considered integral to the finding of guilt (abatement rule). Weiss was barred from getting an appeal because he was a fugitive (fugitive disentitlement doctrine). However, during his extradition from Austria, the U.S. provided letters of assurance to Austria that he would get an appeal. Weiss is still challenging the government on this issue in a habeas petition. Thus, this is certainly relevant information. An appeal is considered to be a fundamental right, and thus this should be a major part of the Weiss article. Materials on this are available at pacer.com (although it does cost a small amount money, and a lot of time to research it).

Weiss’s basic argument on his innocence is that he was out of the loop, and was not aware of the illegal activities. I know of no other sources for this other than the trial transcripts. Although not available on the internet, they are public documents. Weiss’s defense should not be considered biased if it is made clear that it is his position/opinion. Bias comes into play only when an opinion is presented as a fact, or where the opposing opinion is not adequately presented. I think the government’s position was presented well. But invite any improvements on it. Rogerplunk January 20, 2007. Edited roger 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "Mr. Weiss"
A Wikipedia contributor completely redid this article, and although it is in intelligent language and seems to contains some accurate contributions, it contains obvious bias. It needs to be revised.

First, this is not the New York Times, and in Wikipedia one doesn't write, Mr. so and so. So the first thing to do is delete all the "Mr." references.

--Tvwatcher 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but much more needs to be done to fix this article up. See my post above. &mdash;Stimpy 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And apparently nothing ever was done. This article is a disgrace. I will try to run up the red flag, if I can figure out where. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Section Titles
These seem a bit long... I think the first one could just be National Life Insurance Company Fraud, which is a bit shorter. The fact that amounts of money are involved should not need extra emphasis, really — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Call-girl
My recollection of the story (and I could provide links later) is that the authorities followed Weiss's Brazillian girlfriend. I know some sites use the "callgirl" term. But I think it is unfair to her to call anyone a callgirl, unless there is good reason. The story is that she was with him in Brazil and Europe. It was a long-term relationship, not a callgirl relationship. roger 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An Orlando Sentinel article that I found in Google News says that he "cavorted with call girls." Multiple sources on this apparently exist, though the similarity in phrasing suggests this might be a repetition of the Sentinel article. I don't see the harm with adding that to the article if it can be appropriately sourced.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Extradition
I inserted a section on extradition with the references tvwatcher asked for. roger 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I study extradition laws in the European Union. The statement referenced in [5] goes against our understanding of the legal rights of the criminally accused. Could you please make sure to cite an active source for the statement, as it requires some evidence? Thanks! 95.20.34.142 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Incarceration
I inserted one sentence on the nature of the habeas argument, with reference to pacer.com, where both the government and Weiss's arguments may be studied. Also corrected the name of the prison. It is federal, not state: USP Coleman. roger 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
I inserted the Best's Article as the primary source for the collapse of National Heritage. It is the most researched and reliable source of informaion on this subject. The source that was there before was about fraud in general, but not about National Heritage. Took out references to the amounts "looted", which is addressed in the next section where they will be re-inserted. Corrected years as fugitive (one, not three). Corrected the claim re longest sentence. It is the longest sentence for a white collar crime. There are criminal convictions with higher sentences. Inserted in statement that Weiss has not had his appeal, and he still claims he is innocent. If he claims he is innocent, this should be made clear at the beginning of the article, especially since he has not been able to appeal his conviction (though promised by the Government).
 * Stating Weiss's claims of innocence at the beginning of an article is an excellent way of writing a 5 paragraph essay on why Weiss should be granted an appeal, not the proper manner in which this encyclopedia article should be composed. This is clearly an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free medium by an individual trying to attain an appeal for Weiss. --Tvwatcher 07:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The appeal issue, as stated below, is central to the Weiss story, which is why a sentence was added. How many U.S. citizens have had the United Nations Human Rights Committee rule on his extradition case (which involved the appeal issue)? Only one: Weiss. That is significant. The fact that the U.S. gave assurances to Austria that he would get an appeal, and he has not received and appeal after 4 years, is also significant. How is this part of the story less significant than his year as a fugitive? roger 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias in section titles and terms used
The section, "Looting of National Heritage (1990-1993)" should be simply be entitled "Looting of National Heritage." This is an attempt to broadcast that Weiss, based on the time period in the section title, could not have possibly contributed to the looting of National Heritage. The intention of this addition is obvious, and the time period should be removed. Readers should be able to make that conclusion for themselves if inclined.

Frankly, even the title of the section and distinctly making a section entitled "looting of National Heritage" is an attempt to put as much space between a convicted individual (the recipient of the harshest sentence related to the collapse of National Heritage) and crime. Furthermore, the insisting that such terms as "white collar crime" be used is also an attempt to present the case that because the crimes involve improper monetary transactions as opposed to violent crime, the defendant does not deserve an 845 year sentence.

Even the last section title shows obvious bias. By using the term, "Current proceedings," the contributor is attempting to make the claim that the convicted individual (an accurate reference) is on the verge of a breakthrough moment in his case (the basis of which is that he has not been granted an appeal, which he forfeited when he fled his trial). I'm sure Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, and other convicted individuals also have their own "current proceedings," but their articles do not have such sections, and neither should the article on Shalom Weiss. At most, this article should only have one brief section for the purpose of explaining the appeal issue. The prominent theme of the article should not be a campaign for an appeal for an indiviudal. --Tvwatcher 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias?
Please, please study the Best's Review article, esp p. 100. Neither the Government nor insurance regulators claim that Weiss was involved at the beginning (1990). He came in later in 1993, after NH had been so looted, that they were looking for a way out. That was the whole reason for the mortgage scheme. This is an important part of the story, and made clear in the Best's Review article.

"White collar crime" is simply being clear. It does make a distinction between violent crimes, or drug crimes. But these are important distinctions. (Also, there are longer federal sentences out there for some drug crimes, which is why I inserted "white-collar crime".)

The appeal issue is a big issue in the Weiss story. It has been reviewed by the United Nations, and the European Union. It was central to the extradition from Austria, and it is the reason why his side of the strory is still relevant.

"Current" means what is currently happening in the Weiss story. How is that biased? This is relevant information. Wikipedia, especially, is designed for current developments on a subject. This small paragraph covers the last four years. It is a very brief review, with links to his docket for people to view the government's and Weiss's competing arguments.

Lastly, I do not see how the term "campaign", fits here. The information provided is relevant information on the Weiss story that was missing in the earlier versions of the Weiss article.

roger 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article issues
Based on the above exchange it seems that this article has had serious issues for two years. That boggles the mind. I have tagged the problematic paragraph, but I will review the entire article to see if there are other issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've drastically rewritten, basically throwing out most of the confusing old text and substituting text from the FBI website and a 2000 NY Times article on the case. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

UN action: secondary sources needed
There is a reference to a decision by the UN Human Rights Committee, but not to any reliable secondary sources concerning it. I've done a search through Google News and can't find any. Thus it is difficult to assess how important this is, and how much weight should be given to it. Suggestions for secondary sources on this particular subject, and the "fugitive disentitlement issue" in general would be helpful in getting this article in shape.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a source from the "EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights" discussing this that is currently in the article, that qualifies as a secondary source. Will look for some more.  nableezy  - 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have quite a lot on him. But on the other hand, there has been an utter absence of U.S. or European media coverage. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

March 27, 2010 Wikification
I just finished a major cleanup of the article to make it more Wikipedia-like. The main problem was that a number of important concepts and terms were mentioned in the body of the article, but not linked. For example, in the sentence "In 1994, Weiss was indicted on mail fraud charges," the term "mail fraud" should be a link to the article on mail fraud so readers can actually learn what it is. Of course, there is a fine line between not enough links and too many, but hopefully the article is now closer to the right balance. See Manual_of_Style for more info. Gbabywiki (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sholam Weiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512125426/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/lormel.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/lormel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We can't use sholamweiss.com
We can't use sholamweiss.com as a source for this article. As WP:RS puts it, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that website does not qualify. I'll remove those references and mark the statements that cited sholamweiss.com as needing references. 92.19.27.156 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit. Sholamweiss.com WAS NOT used as a source. It was the documents that the website provided (and linked) that were used as a source. The documents are primary sources. What documents? Letters from the Austrian Chancellor, and a document from the European Parliament. BTW, Shalomweisscom could be used as a source for the Weiss' position on of his life, like an autobiography could be used. It is a reliable source for that, as long as it is clearly stated. However, the site here was just being used as a place in the internet for those documents. Please revert! Lexjuris (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

According to guidelines for editing, "Wikipedia: identifying reliable sources", subheading, "biased or opinionated sources",WP:BIASED states: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Thus, wikipedia guidelines would support the use of the Weiss website for providing Weiss' viewpoint, which is relevant in a biographical article, as long as it is identified. Lexjuris (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Biased wording
I have substantially modified the article, in particular to remove self-published sources that were being used to push a rather (to put it mildly) pro-Sholam Weiss PoV. However, much of the wording remains questionable, and I'd appreciate a copy-editor coming by and re-writing the article to correct these defects. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 14:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Source RfC in lede
The current lede uses the following sources in order to support a claim that the offenses committed by Weiss are "victimless":

From my point of view, these are completely inappropriate as they are either self-published (medium), and from a generally deprecated source (marketwatch). I posit that it should be removed, and the self-serving claim that these offenses are victimless removed with it. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 14:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The section on clemency also appears to be largely self-serving. A wp:list of various people of questionable notability advocating clemency in a tone suggestive of being written by either defense counsel or by a public relations firm is worrying to me. I do not know what the best way to deal with that is however. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 14:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Can we remove the tags now that that's been fixed? It makes the entire article look biased.

Mcaserta31 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm not too sure why the clemency section looks biased -- it is standard to highlight individual people/groups with a section like that. And I think the source of the "victimless" crime claim is the Statement of Restitution PDF which is linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcaserta31 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply to - no, per wp:consensus. Tags are here to notify readers there is an active content dispute on a page, as this RfC is. Typically they aren't removed until it is clear a consensus is reached. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 14:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Victimless: It's extremely unusual to suggest a crime is "victimless". There is the interest of general and specific deterrence for instance. There is also the argument that the process has been victimized by the need to prosecute. Unless clearly reliable secondary sources characterize these crimes as "victimless", it would be inappropriate editorializing to say that they are indeed "victimless". BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 14:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Medium source (and the "victimless" statement it depended on in the lede) have been removed per WP:RSNP. I'll also note that the BBestReview source contradicts the suggestion that victims incurred no losses: Between the interest he and Nita lost on their accounts because of lower interest rates on the guaranty-covered portion and no interest on the amount that was in the National Heritage estate, Highsmith estimates thye lost $50,000 to $60,000."  Also from that source: At Weiss’s sentencing, Hunt told the judge that although many involved in the case were corrupt, Weiss was the most sinister because he drew in people who otherwise would never have become involved in crime.'' OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

These complaints are fair, but it's not fair to keep the tags after your suggestions on both your complaints were accepted. Again, it makes the entire article look biased because of a section that was already removed. Mcaserta31 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is especially not fair to make the claim that it's an "Autobiography" when there's plenty of unfavorable content toward Weiss. Mcaserta31 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Other editor are still reviewing the article for bias, and there is no consensus to remove them as of yet. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to boldly revert Mcaserta's removal of the tags, if that's OK with yall. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 15:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A 1996 NY Daily News article notes Weiss was also convicted and jailed in 1994, and in 1996 he was allowed out to spend Passover with his family but instead flew to a Trump hotel to gamble. . There's also a lot more detail of his 1994 sentence and his later trial in a 2000 NY Times article, from when he was a fugitive. This missing information should be included.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. So far I've just skimmed the surface, just googling, without using databases. I have no doubt whatsoever that there is ample sourcing available beyond what is already in the article. Also the article needs to be checked to determine if the footnoting reconciles with the text. The sense I get is that the editing of this article was dominated for a significant period of time by COI editors with an agenda so no offline sourcing can be accepted in good faith and all sourching must be checked. Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This article should be stubbed and started from scratch
This article requires a rewrite. I was going to attempt to one but ran out of energy after rectifying one of several glaring issues, which is misuse of court filing used to source a sweeping self-serving statement by the subject's attorney. The document in question is brief and can in no way be used to source such a statement.

Rather than plunge ahead with a WP:BOLD rewrite, I think it's most prudent I think we need consensus, so I'm going to start here. Coretheapple (talk)


 * Stubify and rewrite. Hopeless in its present state. Coretheapple (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tags
I've removed the "paid editing" and "BLP sources needed" tags, which (as indicated in previous discussions on this page) were placed on this article when it read like it was written by the Free Sholam Weiss Committee. Editors believed that paid editors were working on behalf of Weiss to skew the article. This was probably true. The state of the article was dreadful. However, that is all in the past and we don't continue such tags after the problems have been rectified. We particularly don't do that in BLPs, as the implication is that the subject of the article is continuing to skew it. If anyone believes that the fruits of the paid editing have not been satisfactorily removed, or that the article is not adequately sourced, please speak up. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Criticism of sentence" section
Hi editors, I moved the paragraph of commentary about his sentence out of the biography and into its own section. I felt this section doesn't describe his life, but is instead legal commentary about the US justice system in his case. I actually don't think it belongs in this article and should be placed in the National Heritage Life Insurance Company article or a new article about this event. I am soliciting opinions on this matter to see what others think. Do you think the "Criticism of sentence" should remain where it is, be moved, or deleted? Thanks for your opinions. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course it belongs in the article. It directly relates to Weiss. It relates far more to Weiss than to the article on the company, and if removed it would skew the POV of the article against the subject, because he and his supporters waged a campaign for his release and were successful. In addition, I do not think that removing it and placing it in its own section was appropriate. It belongs in the section on the sentencing.Coretheapple (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reversed the order of the sections to put in chronological order the criticism of the sentence and the commutation thereof Coretheapple (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)