Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges/Archive 1

Placeholder names
Just for reference, the placeholder names used in the complaint are thought to be:

((    feel free to modify the above as new information becomes available --Underpants (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)     ))


 * The LA Times is reporting that Individual D is Raghuveer P. Nayak. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Category
Does this count as a Category:Congressional scandals or should it stay in the parent category Category:Political scandals in the United States?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a congressional anything, because no named congressman are yet accused of wrongdoing. Superm401 - Talk 16:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move
Why was this moved to Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases from Rod Blagojevich federal fraud scandal? The scandal involves the need to convene special session, possibly call a special election, maybe have an impeachment? The cases are only a part of the scandal?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did the rename. Scandal is too vague.  It does not come close to implying a indictment for a federal crime.  You can "scandalize" by just dating the wrong person in some cultures.  There is no reason this page can't include details on any special election and/or impeachment. Superm401 - Talk 16:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The page name seems to be against some common practice. See Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and Lewinsky scandal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal would be best. Scandal is too vague yes but it's still the best choice with a one word explanation added. Hobartimus (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Rod Blagojevich federal corruption investigation? That would allow more opening for background information.  Reports are saying that this has been going for a while, with some scandals from 2003.  Chadlupkes (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Hobartimus (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made it into a redirect for now I think the current title, federal fraud cases is pretty weak the above suggested one seems much better. Hobartimus (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither Spitzer nor Clinton were ever charged with a crime. Blagojevich was.  I think "Rod Blagojevich federal corruption investigation" is better than scandal, though still vague (again, people like Spitzer were investigated but never charged). Superm401 - Talk 09:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be "corruption" in the title, not "fraud". The first captures what the case is about, the second makes it sound like some kind of financial scam which is not on target. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be Rod Blagojevich federal corruption scandal--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows it is corruption not fraud. I am moving the article before the link is propagated in 250 places.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has been charged with fraud. Ponzi schemes are not the only kind of fraud. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "federal" which is superfluous in the title. The scandal is governor Blagojevich's, not the fed's. The investigation may be originally federal, but the scandal is not federal. The laws allegedly broken are state and federal. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How about soemthing more neutral, like "Rod Blagojevich Senate seat controversy"? at least until he is actually convicted of something. "Corruption" and "scandal" presume guilt, and do not seem to meet WP:NPOV. Ground Zero | t 13:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Corruption charges seems neutral enough to me. He was charged with corruption when he was arrested, and it has not yet been determined whether the charges are justified or not.  Scandal is more the problematic word in my view.  I think it would not be accurate to limit the article just to things surrounding the senate seat, and the seat was Obama's and has never been held by Blagojevich.--Bhuck (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You make good points: I think "Rod Blagojevich corruption charges" is the best idea so far. Ground Zero | t
 * I agree. That's definitely better than the current title (Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal). Superm401 - Talk 08:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this needed?
Is this article really needed? It doesn't say anything other than what's currently on the Rod Blagojevich article in the Rod Blagojevich section. --Tocino 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's often useful to split stuff like this out while it's being very actively edited. Maybe in a couple years, it should go back into the main article- time will tell.  Friday (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very likely to be disproportionately lengthy for a bio by the time everything unfolds. As with Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and Lewinsky scandal, dedicated pages are the best way to handle these situations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second TonyTheTiger's post. The scandal is barely a day old.  By the time this is done, the content will be way too long to fit on Blagojevich's article as anything other than a summary of this article.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template
Should the above template be used to keep track of many of the Illinois players?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Republican candidates
If the replacement is by appointment it will be a Democrat. However, if it is by election, presumably, Republicans could run. Has anyone seen any articles about this fact and a list of Republican potential candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that we'll know if the state-wide election will be held in a few months. So, it's safe to safe that we'll probably add that in when it becomes obvious that they'll strip the governor of that power.Bigvinu (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pat Quinn
There is some discussion in the Rod Blagojevich article about whether it's accurate to say Pat Quinn has called for his resignation since it appears he's just said Blagojevich should at least step aside temporarily which may not be the same thing as a resignation Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ABC News is reporting that Quinn is calling for his resignation with a quote from Quinn using the word 'resign'.


 * http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6442798&page=1 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee in the lead
I'm going to remove the following sentence from the lead: "On December 10, Deputy Governor Bob Greenlee resigned from office". The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and there is only a brief mention (two sentences) of Greenlee so I don't think it's significant enough to be in the lead, not to mention we don't know (yet) whether it's related to the scandal. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially because the AP just ID'd Louanner Peters. (albeit only via an anonymous statement so far)  --Underpants (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The "idiots"
"The idiots were woken up by the FBI." -Paragraph I, line II

Anyone want to change that? Richardkselby (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"he [Quinn] could appoint Madigan to the Senate to get her out of the way"
The article says that Quinn could appoint Madigan to the Senate "to get her out of the way". It sounds unencyclopedic and I'm not sure the Time article explicitly states that. There's one sentence in the Time article that sort of implies it "Quinn also could decide his chances are better in a three-way primary against Madigan" but making that interpretation might qualify as original research. Anyway, I removed the "to get her out of the way" bit. If anyone can think of a better wording, that's fine with me. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old photo
Why is "Blagojevich's congressional photo" from at least five years ago used in connection with an article solely about events of 2008? Can't we possibly use up-to-date pix? It's not like he's been a recluse. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (one who tries to believe in the presumption of evidence)

FBI agents or US Marshals?
I realize that the aticle in TIME on the Blagojevich case said he was arrested by "federal marshals". However, I have checked numerous reliable sources and TIME appears to be the only one that says he was arrested by the Marshal Service. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents. Not to mention that when the TIME article is referenced side by side with articles that say FBI agents arrested him, it appears to contradict itself. I will change it and add a second reliable source. --Abusing (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The deputies probably actually picked him up, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Term "federal agents" would seem to work in this case if any confusion still lingers. Bigvinu (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The lede needs some work
The article starts with the following that tells you exactly nothing:
 * The Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal became public knowledge with the simultaneous arrests of Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff John Harris at 6:15 a.m. on December 9, 2008, at their homes by deputies of the United States Marshals Service on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Then it prattles on for three wordy paragraphs that barely talk provide any overview, just a lot of current events. I'm thinking those last two paragraphs should be moved into a heading and the first paragraph reordered/rewritten. --William Graham talk 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I added an "update" tag just now, not for content, but for form, as you stated - it now needs to lead with the 59-0 impeachment and then reach back into history, in a much more brief fashion. Tempshill (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was just about to start a new section on this this page to discuss exactly this. I'm not from the US and I've got no idea from this article what the scandal actually is (although I gather it is a big deal). It suffers like a lot of wikipedia articles from competing editors trying to cram every reference, claim and counter-claim into the intro. The following things are not needed in the intro and can be put later in the article:
 * 27 citations to reference articles
 * things like '6th or 7th including this guy' or '3rd or fourth including that guy'
 * that obama has done no wrong doing
 * a date by date account of who said what to whom

What it does need is:
 * a bullet point list of the main charges
 * The circumstances surrounding the charges being brought
 * the current status and result of the impreachment hearings.

I'm not going to make changes myself until i've seen some responses to this proposal especially since it's on the main page today and i don't want to get flamed by everyone. Also, as I've said, I don't really understand the topic so I'm not best placed to make the edits. ChrisUK (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shoved all the previous intro into a section called "Summary" and wrote a new 3-sentence introduction which has only the essentials. Tempshill (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good solution and now you can at least see the wood for the trees now. However, just to be pedantic, the intro now focuses more on the person rather than about the corruption charges themselves (which is what this page is about - he also has a personal page for his details).  So I think a little more info can now be added in to the intro about the key characteristics of the charges themselves before the reader dives into the detail of the Summary/Background section.  ChrisUK (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)