Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article nomineeRod Blagojevich corruption charges was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
July 5, 2011Peer reviewNot reviewed
July 5, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 16, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Rod Blagojevich fraud cases (Blagojevich pictured) caused the Illinois General Assembly to consider erasing the Illinois Governor's statutory power to appoint a United States Senate replacement for Barack Obama?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 30, 2009.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 9, 2009, December 9, 2013, December 9, 2018, and December 9, 2023.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Placeholder names

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

[Senate Candidate 1] Valerie Jarrett (probably)
[Senate Candidate 2] Lisa Madigan (confirmed)
[Senate Candidate 3] Jan Schakowsky (speculation)
[Senate Candidate 4] Louanner Peters (probably)
[Senate Candidate 5] Jesse Jackson, Jr. (confirmed)
[Senate Candidate 6] J.P. Pritzker (speculation)
[President-elect Advisor] Rahm Emanuel (probably)
[Deputy Governor A] Bob Greenlee (probably)
[Individual A] John Wyma (probably)
[Fundraiser A]
[Adviser B]

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

The LA Times is reporting that Individual D is Raghuveer P. Nayak. [1] 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good. Hobartimus (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes it should be Rod Blagojevich federal corruption scandal--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, he has been charged with fraud. Ponzi schemes are not the only kind of fraud. Superm401 - Talk 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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#Federal arrest on corruption charges section. --Tocino 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template