Talk:Angelo Errichetti

Democrat or Republican?
Which is it? Why does this article omit that? --69.37.84.35 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This Guy Fits American Criminal Category
Twain said the only distinctly criminal class we have in America are the members of Congress. More seriously, if the guy is taking big bucks on the side --- by working in the state legislature for the side-guys giving him the big bucks --- and he's convicted of it, I'm prepared to concede that he was a criminal by occupation. That's what the cat requires. David in DC (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The cat and mention of crime should be taken out until the article is expanded. Right now, it's 50% of the article, a clear case of undue weight. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Respectfully, he's notable for being a politician on the take. That's an occupational criminal. The article can be expanded to deal with the WEIGHT issue. Heed the English philosopers Lennon and McCartney for the moment. Let it be. David in DC (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine leaving it, but my point is that as it stands now it's suffering from undue weight. My personal feeling is that we shouldn't have a hugely weighted negative BLP. If another editor expands the piece then it makes more sense (to me) to have the other info you mention, but only AFTER. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Source for conviction
It's in footnoted article. The second-to last paragraph reads "Angelo Errichetti, who was mayor from 1973 to 1981, spent nearly three years in prison after being convicted in the Abscam scandal. Errichetti accepted a $50,000 bribe from an undercover FBI agent." The closer question is whether he's solely notable for his crime. I think so. No one ever heard of him until he was convicted in ABSCAM. But reasonable people can differ. If another editor feels he was notable before being caught in ABSCAM, for instance for being a mayor of a podunk New Jersey town or for being a Congressman state senator, and deletes the category again, noting that he's not solely notable for his ABSCAM conviction, I won't argue the point. However, it's surpassingly strange that the same editor who four times re-inserted the category --- once noting that the conviction was well sourced and another time rejecting the "solely notable" aspect of this category --- now seeks to delete it. David in DC (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)