Talk:Robert Chatigny
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Bot-created subpage edit
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Robert N. Chatigny 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) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering how best to address the second paragraph, from the Washington Times editorial (as footnoted) citing its reasons for saying "Judge Chatigny has a weird record of empathy for those accused of sexual crimes involving children." The Wikipedia entry does not quote that opinion, but this collection of data, with no extenuating circumstances described, would seem to lead the reader to think that. Temporarily, I added some of the context, but I think there is probably a better way to approach it!
Thanks for any ideas! Net Researcher (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
...............
As you can see, I went ahead and integrated the article, paraphrasing the Washington Times editorial because there'd been no feedback so far and because the WT paragraph was very close to the Times' wording. Edit away! Net Researcher (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC) ...................
I think portions of this bio are lacking in due diligence. I am tempted to edit out the sentence stating he started a new pro bono program. Left bare, it suggests that litigants in need of pro bono services were somehow better served thanks to changes, when the changes may have been merely administrative changes that pleased lawyers and resulted in no net improvement in representation to litigants. The pro bono panel is entirely voluntary in the Connecticut district. Research on the actual changes to the pro bono program under Chatigny needs to be done to verify that they are anything even worth noting. To even note it at this point could be misleading in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainingout (talk • contribs) 06:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
feedback edit
I am the same person whose user name was rainingout. Having forgotten my password I had to register again under a new user name, rainout.
I have no problem with your quoting the Wash Times criticism of the judge and the judge's supporters' statements.
I am not sure why you chose to leave out the Wash. Times blunt and provocative statement that he was soft on sex criminals (the one you quoted in on this discussion page) but the rest of the Wash Times quote provides the muted context the Wash. Times put forth to support its claim about him. I see no real problems with this encyclopedia entry.
Original quotes by the judge himself, from the Ross hearing transcript and/or from the Judiciary Committee might add quite a bit to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainout (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)