Talk:William J. Zloch

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/William J. Zloch was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

UBS case

Once again, I am reverting this addition due to lack of relevance. This individual has a career that spans 24 years as a federal judge. No rational reason exists why a biographical Wikipedia entry should include the sentencing results of one recent case, particularly one as insignificant as this one. Trowbridge (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've lived with the two different exclusions by Trowbridge, these intervening months. The record's been in the page history and here, if anyone has cared to see what's being kept out of this judge's record, and why. Part of Trowbridge's reasoning, stated just above here, was the assertion that the UBS case was "insignificant." This article today, I think, highlights from a new angle the continuing considerable significance of the case. The judge's action this summer was curious, at best, and certainly worthy of note. Now the individual who stood before the judge is being seriously considered for a multi-billion-$ award. I'm by no means sure I like such a result, but I also, as I did this summer, find the actions of this individual to be intriguing, at least. And perhaps even he's heroic, worthy of those billions. Can any of us really say we can understand all that goes into such a decision? Our financial/political system has plenty of problems. Lots of people are working on addressing those problems. Our judge, this public servant, took a stand on this subject. He spent a lot of time on it, presumably (a lot more than me, I know that), and he made his ruling. I don't know all of what the ruling meant, or means, but I do know it's something for which the judge is accountable. I don't think he'd have any problem with that. I don't know why we here seem to have a problem with it.

Would it be possible to get back on track here, put some info in the article, add today's update, here or in another appropriate, linked place, move on, see where it all goes? Why are we hiding from what's going on? Swliv (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that you personally have a passionate interest in this case, and you may be perfectly justified in using the information in your linked article to expand the listing for UBS AG (provided you are able to do so using a neutral point of view), or perhaps Bradley Birkenfeld is significant enough to deserve his own Wikipedia entry. However, I don't understand how your linked article is at all relevant to the biography of Judge Zloch. The article never mentions Zloch by name; it never mentions any particular controversy associated with the sentencing of Birkenfeld. If anything, the article confirms that Birkenfeld's actions were illegal and that his admission of guilt and subsequent whistleblowing, while perhaps admirable, does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

While you may disagree with the sentencing, nonetheless from the standpoint of a neutral observer there is nothing about Judge Zloch's sentencing in this one case that is particularly noteworthy. We're not "hiding" anything, we're simply enforcing the rule that any events documented in Wikipedia biographies must be notable and not simply indiscriminate news points. In short, your personal disagreement with Zloch's decision in one particular case over a 24-year career is not sufficient to give said action undue weight in a brief encyclopedic entry. Perhaps if you wish to do a complete restrospective of Zloch's judicial career, giving equal weight to his accomplishments as well as his more "dubious" actions (and providing linked evidence for each), then a brief mention of the Birkenfeld verdict might be appropriate. Otherwise, let it go and move on. Trowbridge (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Birkenfeld's whistle-blower effort continues, fwiw. Did I mention that the sentencing was noteworthy because the judge exceeded the recommendation of the prosecutor? Not usual, from what I know. And, yes, I did mention it. Swliv (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So does my "passionate interest" in my obstinate colleague's ... reading of noteworthiness ... continue. I'm here to report today that I just stumbled onto Judgepedia: an interactive encyclopedia ... (which apparently has no connection to Wikipedia; see Sam Adams Alliance; it's my sense there's no connection); I had to go to Judge Zloch's page, if they had one; they did. And while I was tempted to draw Kylecarroll1's attention there to the situation over here, when I saw some of what he'd done over there (I had to do a double take, and check the history; "Notable case" for Mr. Birkenfeld was like déjà vu man) I ultimately decided just to do the external link on our page here; and even spell it all out on this discussion page. I'm not trying to be difficult; I just think ... our article's missing a significant something (and I think Mr. Carroll's is missing a few things -- football history ... not alone; and four months of the sentence, maybe -- too) but that really is for another day. For now, I'll say I did not register as a member at Judgepedia. Swliv (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Though the judge's page remains innocent of the Birkenfeld case, I'm happy (not passionately, ... but yes happy) ... to report there is now a Birkenfeld article which (a) includes the still-puzzling sentencing variance Zloch v. prosecutors; and (b) has no contribution from me. I don't know the Birkenfeld connection if any to today's "Swiss Bankers Charged by U.S. in Tax Case Said to Have Worked at Wegelin" (Wegelin, not UBS), but FWIW it's what brought me back here. (I had discovered the Birkenfeld article some time ago.) Happy New Year! 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. ... Ah, "insignificant" .... Caught my eye as I came in for a small added bit. Swliv (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Birkenfeld case belongs because of WP:WEIGHT:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

There have been many articles about Zloch and the Birkenfeld case in WP:RS. That's the criteria we use. We do not edit on the basis of a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion about what is significant or insignificant. If you can find another case by Zloch (or anything else about Zloch) that was reported in multiple WP:RS, feel free to add that. --Nbauman (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)