Jump to content

Talk:Frank LaGrotta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox

[edit]

I added a new infobox detailing LaGrotta's criminal record. I followed wikipedia guidelines on this, following all WP:BLP rules. See the articles on James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom Delay to see similar infoboxes in use.--RedShiftPA (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The "mugshot" attached to the article is not a police "mug shot." It is LaGrotta's Pennsylvania driver's license photo. It is also misattributed to the Dauphin County Pa. Police Department. There is no such entity. The photo was distributed by the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Removed section from article

[edit]

I removed a paragraph from the article on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV grounds. The paragraph contained a link to a site called the New Castle News, and used as its source a fairly tabloid-style webitorial. I didn't consider it be a reliable source, and therefore removed the section. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been somewhat uncomfortable with the nature of the paragraph, since it doesn't seem that important to have the editorials written about him. However, I really don't see what you find unreliable about the News: it's a reputable newspaper, and (with the things that it covers) a trustworthy and reliable source. What gave you reason to find it unreliable? Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more specific. I have no quarrel with the NCN, rather, I don't think that we can use a editorial of this nature as a source for opinion-based conclusions. The paragraph I removed restated the opinions in the editorial (his trouble is just beginning, he has a problem w/ the truth, etc.), then cited the paper. This is the reason I removed that paragraph. Although I'm not crazy about talking about the civil suit in this article until there has been some sort of final decision, I would not have removed an NPOV statement of the facts of that case. In my opinion the former paragraph went beyond that. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the action taken. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another paragraph removed

[edit]
In January 2008, Philadelphia Daily News contributor Ben Waxman described both the larger investigation and specific charges against LaGrotta as "politically motivated", and accused Corbett of "using the attorney general's office to help the GOP", stating that "He's investigating House Democrats because Republicans are frustrated...Corbett's investigation is seemingly designed to weaken Democrats as the legislature gets back into session."[1]
  1. ^ "The too-political Tom Corbett". Philly.com. Retrieved 2008-01-09. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)


There's nothing wrong with this paragraph, but it was presented by itself, without anything from another POV. We can be NPOV by attempting to present nobody's POV or multiple different POVs, but only presenting one POV makes the article itself POV. Someone please restore this paragraph if a pro-Corbett POV is also presented. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your concern, but I respectfully disagree. It's my view that that something like the above paragraph is necessary to balance the reporting of the allegations against LaGrotta - we give substantial space (as we should) to these, and I think that NPOV requires that, if there's a notable belief that the charges were tainted by political motivation, these be reported. I'd say that, for the purposes of this article (things would be somewhat different in the Tom Corbett article) the "pro-Corbett POV" is expressed in the allegations against LaGrotta. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Criminal

[edit]

The editor who reverted my deletion of the American Criminals category asked why I deleted it. I explained in shorthand in my edit summary. I'll expand further here.

This is a biography of a living person. Categorization must be balanced against the special rules for WP:BLPs. From WP:Categorization of people#General_considerations:

  • Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

and

WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT counsel conservatism here. Politicians convicted of crimes is sufficient. American Criminals is overkill. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a criminal? By his guilty plea he is convicted of a crime; therefore, he is a criminal. This isn't an issue of saying that he's a criminal because he's been accused of something. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it's not overcategorisation: neither category is the parent of the other. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this issue at WP:BLPN#Frank LaGrotta.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard-pressed to understand why "Politicians convicted of crimes" and "Political scandals in the United States" don't cover all of these attributes sufficiently. David in DC (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, the political scandals category is really more for the scandals, not for those involved therein; moreover, neither of these categories is a parent of the other, and you could have a politician who reasonably fit in both but wasn't an American. For example, imagine if a scandal were to break tomorrow in which someone from another country were arrested for bribing a leading official in the United States, and that person ended up being convicted in an American court — this person would reasonably fit in both (unless perhaps not fitting in the scandals category), but in no way would be an American criminal. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Rd points out on the BLP Noticeboard, American Criminals is a subcategory of Americans by occupation. Do you really believe all of the politicians labelled American Criminals were criminals by occupation. Otto Kerner? Martin Luther King Junior was convicted. Was he an American Criminal by occupation, too? David in DC (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was King convicted of a felony? If not then the category wouldn't apply. Let's keep this discussion in one place, please.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank LaGrotta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frank LaGrotta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&oldid=1208077074"