Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [1].

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses edit

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of federal officials convicted of public corruption. If consensus is reached to promote this list, I hope to use the style to raise the similar lists for state, local, and territorial officials to a similar standard, with an eye toward a featured topic. Efforts to ensure comprehensiveness include: searches for reported judicial decisions on Westlaw and Lexis, a read of "Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed" on Credo, a review of this and similar lists and categories, searches of news databases, and, of course, the research that went into the main article. I would be happy to address any comments or concerns. Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments quick ones.
  • Don't start "This is a list..."
  • What makes these more "notable" than others?
    • I don't know that I have excluded anyone with a Wikipedia article, but I wanted to make clear that this is not a list of every single federal employee convicted of these crimes. There is no good reason to list mail men, administrative assistants, meat inspectors, etc. In addition to their not being relevant, issues with WP:CRIME and WP:BLP could arise. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the point of the question is that you should define notable, i.e. clearly describe your inclusion criteria, or else use the {{incomplete list}} template... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have defined what is meant by notable. Basically, the highest members of each branch of government. We're talking about offices that are defined in the Constitution, except for the cabinet, which, while alluded to in the Constitution, is defined by the U.S. Code. Savidan 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the individual tables and make their roles another column.
    • Let me sleep on this one. There are problems with this: cabinet secretaries and appellate judges are not have a "state," for example. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Savidan 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the images to the right-hand-side, or if you have enough, add them as another column in the table.
    • I will also think about this one. Especially combined with the above suggestion, it will significantly increase the width of the rows, and thus decrease the number of entries that the reader can see at a given time. I think less than half have an image. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Add them to the right-hand-side then. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That will have the same effect by taking space away from the table. I'll try it and see what it looks like, though. Savidan 18:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Table has plenty of horizontal space. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think galleries is the best stylistic choice. Put simply: there are too few images to include them as a row in the table (and this would make the rows much fatter, and thus only a few would be visible on the screen at a time) and too many to include them on the right at any reasonable image size. See: undefined image size; 150px; 100px. Anything smaller than 100px would really be too small for the images to be visible, and, as you can see, 100px is already too large in relation to the content. Please advise. Savidan 20:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I moved the images to the table. I don't particularly love it; but, I'm fine with it. Savidan 21:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18 has odd font.
  • So does ref 31.
  • And ref 41. A lot of them do actually...
  • Newspapers are "works" so they should be in italics.
    • The use of smallcaps is per the Bluebook, which is the citation style used in this list. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would you use that citation style for newspapers which should meet our own MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Bluebook has a style for newspapers and there is a preference for having a uniform citation style within an article/list. From Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style: "Wikipedia does not have a single house style." Savidan 18:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, how odd. So newspaper names with small caps and odd abbreviations are ok? Won't argue, there are more important issues to deal with than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't legal cases usually displayed in italics?

At some comments to be considering.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Interesting but the first sentence is lacking a verb; can't expect much after that. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. My apologies for the error. It was an artifact of changing the lead in response to Rambling Man's comments. Savidan 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, but the intro does not discuss/summarize at all the contents of the table. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must confess I don't understand what you mean. I have added the count of the total number convicted and the names of the two least-used statutes which were previously not mentioned in the intro. What else do you have in mind? Savidan 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • First ones that come into mind: list states with at least 3 officials, earliest high-level official, some sort of summary of conviction totals per period, perhaphs in the second paragraph give totals for such crimes, perhaps talk a bit about the entries that are not HoR members. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added the states with 3+. I was able to find sources for the first cabinet member, senator, and judge. I was not able to find a source for the first House member (although I am VERY sure of the right answer, it would be original research.) I also worry that totals per period would constitute original research depending on how the periods were drawn. I haven't seen to reliable source that adds up the totals per period. I don't understand what you mean by "talk a bit." Do you want me to explain the "story" of the 7 convicts that weren't House members? I feel like that goes way beyond the scope of the list. The point is to list all 40+ of them. Not to tell 40+ stories. Savidan 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like this table. Tables are very useful to organize large gobs of similar material in a way that the reader can interface with directly and they also make for a lot of "did you know" reading as other things besides the one sought are seen in context. I was surprised in this table by how few people were convicted of anything before 1930 and how many after. Structurally I like the arrangement where the table has photos second from left column which draws the eye down the page very rapidly. I think it's very helpful to be able to rearrange the data by name, year or state. The only thing I see that I would change is either the sentence "The year of conviction is included (if the official was convicted multiple times due to retrials, only the year of the first conviction is included)" or the inclusion of "Mario Biaggi" two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. Biaggi was convicted in two separate cases arising from totally separate sets of conduct. The sentence quoted refers to situations where an appellate court reverses a conviction and the defendant is re-convicted at a retrial. Savidan 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses/archive1&oldid=515685689"