Jump to content

Talk:List of lists of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes

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

expand

[edit]

The predominate number of entries of recent years is probably a WP references' artifact and not a reflection of any reality that convictions in recent years are more numerous than past years. So past years need more entries. Hmains (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Politician

[edit]

A politician is considered by Wikipedia to be: People who are politically active, especially in party politics. A person holding or seeking political office whether elected or appointed, whether professionally or otherwise.Birdshot9 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: A politician, political leader, or political figure...is someone who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making.Birdshot9 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes for lengthy discussion of this topic, although note that it includes a lot of sockpuppet accounts pushing the line that everyone in government is a politician. Hairhorn (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and note also that Birdshot9 above is also one of the socks. Hairhorn (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


What about this mess?

[edit]

R._Budd_Dwyer#Bribery_investigation_and_conviction. He was treasurer convicted of bribery, but commited suicide on television before sentencing. Also convicted was the state Republican Party Chairman, Bob Asher. The article is pretty top-heavy towards recent decades, and something from the 80's would balance it slightly, especially given the notoriety of the outcome (indeed, Asher is still a politician). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwo (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]
Closed as no consensus. Opinions were roughly split between keeping convictions overturned on appeal and pardons; and only deleting pardons.- MrX 🖋 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When a person receives a pardon, or the conviction is overturned on appeal, does that mean we should delete the entry here; or should we keep the entry and mention that the conviction was overturned or that they were pardoned? 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep entry and mention overturned/pardoned

[edit]
  • both the conviction and the overturn/pardon are historical facts and should be kept in this article. This is a history article, not a discourse in law. Hmains (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. This is a history article about legal convictions, not guilt, and isn't necessarily intended to pass judgment on the people listed. (eg. it includes people whose 'crimes' are civil disobedience as well, even civil disobedience that most people today would consider proper.) We can provide 'overturned' or 'pardoned' for context, but the conviction is the important part; nothing that happens afterwards should remove it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for appeals, Keep for pardons

[edit]
  • checkY Accepting pardon is an implicit admission of guilt, and the pardon itself is (usually) an executive fiat and not a judicial decision. Appeals, on the other hand, correct the verdict of the previous court. In my mind pardons should be kept here (but the pardon noted), while successful appeals - not.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY See my comments below. See also that Johnsagent also articulated this position, so that's now five editors who've expressed support for keeping pardoned convictions in the list, and only one for deleting them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY While a presidential pardon or an expungement erases the criminal record it should not erase history. --RAN (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Second choice. I'd prefer to keep even overturned convictions (since they are still historically relevant), but a pardon definitely shouldn't get someone removed, since it doesn't even involve any finding that they weren't guilty. --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entry

[edit]
  • This is an article for those who have been convicted of crimes. If someone has bee pardoned or the conviction has subsequently been over turned then they should not continue to be on this list. Regardless of whether or not they are 'historical facts' this is an articles for political criminals, not for those who have subsequently been found innocent via their convictions being overturned or those who have received pardons. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

It would be helpful if an example could be given, or point to discussion about a case. It is difficult to answer an abstract question.Pincrete (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. We (me too) seem to be confusing, REVERSAL and OVERTURNED with PARDON and by whom. Mr. Bohling was not pardoned by a federal court, or a governor or a president whose pardon does not negate a finding of guilty, but only forgives the penalties. His charges were overturned by the State Supreme Court of Wyoming which found errors in the trial and/or law itself. In my opinion, yes, this makes Bohling innocent of the 4 counts mentioned, and those should be removed from this list. However, the SC court let stand one count of official misconduct of which he was both convicted and guilty.

Though it was a misdemeanor, some misdemeanors are quite serious and have substantial penalties. I see no discussion of how slight an infraction should be included in this list. I see some drunk driving and one time tax citations I would have left out as too trivial and other misdemeanor citations with heavy fines and jail time I would have included. I would suggest, we leave it to the judge. If he feels only a ticket or a class is necessary, we leave them out. If classes, fines, probation, community service and jail time are added, we include them on this list. 5K seems to me to be a pretty hefty fine. What do you think? Johnsagent (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a person was convicted of a crime, but they were later pardoned for that crime, they were still convicted of it, and acceptance of the pardon is a tacit admission of guilt. That's what the word "convicted" means: verb, past tense. The conviction is a matter of historical fact, and the pardon doesn't mean it never happened, only that they are exempted from any legal consequences of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. 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) 09:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make easier to navigate

[edit]

Instead of breaking it down by decade, it would be a lot easier to navigate if it was just in strict chronological order by each state. Maybe it is time to break out each state into its own list. What do you think? --RAN (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some Issues

[edit]

First this article is already unwieldy in its length. I strongly suggest breaking it up into separate lists by state. If this ever turns into something other than an exercise in current events we will probably need separate lists by both state and decade. Secondly we need to set a few standards. As a matter of common sense I think we should restrict this list to individuals convicted of felonies. As satisfying as I am sure some find it to put former Sheriff Arpaio on here, his conviction was legally on the same scale as reckless driving. Sorry, misdemeanor convictions are fine to mention in an actual article provided they meet our other criteria for inclusion but on a list like this, including such would be categorically nuts. Also just say no to red links unless there is a VERY strong likelihood that an article will be created in the near future. If they don't have an article then there is a strong probability it's because they don't pass WP:N. And I would be very leery about including small town politicians on this list for the same reasons. Most of them won't pass WP:NPOL and if the basis of their presumed notability is their crime then you need to question the extent and duration of the coverage. Was it more or less local or regional? Was it WP:LASTING? And then there is WP:1E. So unless we are talking about a politician who is clearly notable independently of their criminal behavior (think mayors of really major cities) I'd just say no to local pols and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove all local citations?Valleyjc (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Local citations, provided they are otherwise RS, can be fine for establishing the accuracy of claims. But they probably should not be considered when weighing notability either for the subject and/or criteria for inclusion on this list. If the person, and their crimes have not received extensive coverage in multiple non-local reliable secondary sources then I don't think they belong on this list. Likewise crimes that are not felonies should not be posted here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

split at 1999/2000

[edit]

I propose to split this article into two articles: '2000 to present' and 'prior to 2000' as a first measure to reduce the size of this article. This will not eliminate any of the content. Any comments? Hmains (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its too long. Yet. Caltropdefense (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can divide it by states?Orliepie (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we don't delete anything, per state articles is OK.Newlenp (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should divide by state and, absent objection, will start to do so. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph W. Chandless

[edit]

I have reverted the re-insertion of the entry for Ralph W. Chandless, who was expelled from the New Jersey State Senate. I haven't seen a citation indicating that Chandless was actually convicted of a crime by a court, which is necessary for inclusion on this page. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted an attempt to reinsert this material on this page, which was made without any attempt to discuss or gain consensus here. Kindly do not reinsert this material. I'll add that including this material raises a serious concern about WP:BLP insofar as it could set a precedent for inclusion of other material on this page. Neutralitytalk 00:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. And the claim in the edit summary that expulsion constitutes a criminal conviction is factually wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to guess, the federal procedure is described here, Expulsion from the United States Congress. The states are all similar. Caltropdefense (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information

[edit]

Information is inaccurate. Caleb Powers, Len Small and Tom Berryhill were never convicted, Edmund Matricardi III is not an elected politician, local judges such Juvenile Court Judge Darrell Catron and those with DUI's have never been included, Frank Ballance was a federal politician etc so should be removed. HeggyTy (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff not being here is no reason to remove stuff that is. You'll need to provide reliable published secondary sources to back up your claims here, and I'd strongly suggest not changing the article again in any way without consensus. You are one edit away from a WP:3RR block. John from Idegon (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out numerous times now, which you could check yourself by either going on their respective wikipedia articles or typing it into google: Powers was pardoned by the Governor (We don't include people with pardons in the list as i've chekced), Small was aquitted in the trial so should never have been included anyway and Matricardi is not an elected politician nor is he an appointed politician, so again he shouldn't be included. HeggyTy (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are required to back up your position. If indeed the one guy was pardoned, I may agree to that removal (but you are going to have to link to the consensus for that along with providing a reliable source.) I don't have to check anything anywhere. It is you that wants the content changed, and the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove your point. Change the article again and it's a near certainty you will be blocked. The way you are going about this is not how it is done. Does that have to be demonstrated to you? John from Idegon (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000487 = House of Representatives website states Powers was pardoned so remove Powers. https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/ = Articles clearly states that Small was aquitted at trial so remove Small. As to your comment of 'I don't have to check anything anywhere' it is clear you have no interest in actually checking sources or links yourself and instead resort to throwing your weight around, which is so petty. I notice that you have had run ins with multiple editors on this page before, which begs the question 'Who is really the problem here' HeggyTy (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take no position in this dispute, but John is quite correct that it is up to you to make your case; others will not make it for you. You must provide the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have produced the sources backing up my claims, may I now delete the additions that I had originally wanted to have removed. HeggyTy (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon are you just going to ignore my question now that I have shown proof of what I was saying was right? HeggyTy (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no consensus to remove those that are pardoned. See above. The link to the Tribune leads to a page about content not being available in Europe. So you have not made your case. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Also, can the attitude. Thos is how Wikipedia works. John from Idegon (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW. What about the others? John from Idegon (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to escalate this to administrators. This is an article for people convicted of crimes, not those who have been pardoned or not convicted at all, so it doesn't need consensus. I'm not really that bothered if you can't open the article in Europe, I gave you a source, from a reputable site, so go on google if you want to find more. HeggyTy (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the others I will leave them in just for you since you want them in so badly :) HeggyTy (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators do not settle content disputes. There are several processes listed under WP:DR. Since this dispute involves only two editors, the most appropriate ones to try first are notifying the projects followed by WP:3O, assuming there are still only two editors involved. FYI, 331dot is an administrator. And I am on a totally different network now, and I am still getting the message about the content not being available in Europe. I am not in Europe, that is what the message says. You have entered a dead link, which clearly is not going to verify anything. Feel free to "escalate this to the adminstrators" , whatever that means. The only one behaving poorly here is you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New link just for you to read: https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-12-Most-Corrupt-Public-Officials-In-Illinois-History-Len-Small-137026563.html HeggyTy (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context, please? We are discussing several individuals. I'm guessing this is in regards Small, but what are you claiming it shows and how? John from Idegon (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the result of the RfC state that there was no consensus to delete if a conviction was appealed, overturned and the individual received a pardon. But it they are just pardoned, the RfC states that they should be deleted. And no one who is not a state or local politician should be on this list, they should be removed. I haven't looked at the sources yet and edit-warring is wrong but the editor might have some valid points. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to reread the RfC, only one editor voted for deleting pardons. The other 5 were split on whether to delete convictions overturned on appeal, but all 5 of them explicitly stated that pardoned convictions should stay. 199.247.45.74 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to remove Len Small from the article since I have given a source saying he was acquitted and not convicted of any crime. So why are you reverting it? HeggyTy (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page division

[edit]

Since this page is 333,550 bytes long, how about dividing it up into separate pages by decade? An alternative is to divide it up by state but I think it would be better to break it up by time than geography. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see that this division has been proposed several times with little response, unless there is opposition to the breakup that includes a justification for why not, I'll go ahead with this split-up in 7 days. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose putting it by state rather than by time. I think we should keep it how it is for now. HeggyTy (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion doesn't count, because you're one of the hundreds of sock puppets of the Maquis.Caltropdefense (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

[edit]

The removal of Len Small from the article. I have attached numerous sources, all of which state he was acquitted during the trial and was never convicted of any crime. This is an article for those convicted of crimes, not those who were acquitted or found not guilty.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-12-Most-Corrupt-Public-Officials-In-Illinois-History-Len-Small-137026563.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40191273?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://archive.org/stream/trialsoflensmall00hars/trialsoflensmall00hars_djvu.txt

https://illinoistimes.com/article-15149-illinois-governors-in-trouble.html

https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/kankakee-county-backs-memorial-to-ryan-two-other-ex-governors

Please remove Len Small.

HeggyTy (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC) HeggyTy (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

[edit]

Re-add: New York

New Mexico

  • State Senator Manny Aragon (D) was found guilty of three counts of conspiracy to defraud 4.4 million from the State of New Mexico. (2009)[2]

References

  1. ^ "Sheldon Silver Convicted of Corruption—Again - The Forum Newsgroup". theforumnewsgroup.com. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
  2. ^ The Seattle Times.com, March 16, 2009, "Federal judge sentences former NM senator to 5A1/2 years in prison, orders fines" by Ap writer Heather Clark.

Editor removed them even though Silver's appeal failed and he is still in jail and Aragon's fraud case related to his time in public office. 193.60.159.61 (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 193.60.159.61 (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing leaves a lot to be desired. Completely oppose Silver, pending reliable sources. Aragon is sourced to an AP story. Can we find anything we can actually read? In theory, AP stories can be picked up by multiple papers. John from Idegon (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: Manny Aragon was not convicted whilst in office, so not added. Sheldon Silver added with NY Times source. MrClog (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

[edit]

Can you please put this in the Virginia category

State Delegate Ron Villanueva (R) was convicted of fraud. (2019)[1] 193.60.159.61 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/03/19/former-fil-am-lawmaker-sentenced-for-defrauding-federal-government
 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it is made clear. Villanueva, according to the source, defrauded the federal government while in office and so was added.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

[edit]

In South Carolina:

has been added twice. Can someone remove one please. Also with Ron Villanueva please could his conviction go on top of Phil Hamilton since his was the most recent conviction. XieXie97 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) XieXie97 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "James Harrison". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 16 April 2019.


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

[edit]

Kentucky

  • Secretary of State Caleb Powers (R) was convicted in the assassination of Democratic Governor William J. Goebel. Powers was found guilty and served eight years in jail.(1908) (1900)[1][2]

Powers was removed by a BLOCKED editor. I don't know why, but he should be in here.Caltropdefense (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY v. CALEB POWERS. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
  2. ^ "POWERS, Caleb - Biographical Information". bioguide.congress.gov. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
@Caltropdefense: So, are you requesting Powers to appear twice? [Once here and again.. here? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Caltropdefense: He's already listed in the article, so no change needs made. @MJL: I missed the dates as the top-level headings in this article. I'll take my trout glazed in Kentucky bourbon, please. :) —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: No can do. I'm not able to serve alcohol until I turn 21.. lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Will Campos.

[edit]

In Maryland 2010- please can someone add State Delegate Will Campos (D) was convicted of bribery. (2015)[1]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

[edit]

In Alabama:

In Arkansas:

State Senator Jeremy Hutchinson (R) convicted of bribery. (2019)[3]

In Idaho:

State Representaative JOhn Green (R) convicted of fraud. (2020)[4]

In Maryland:

State Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D) convicted of fraud. (2019) [5]

State Delegate Tawanna P. Gaines (D) pleaded guilty to fraud. (2019)[6]

State Delegate Will Campos (D) was convicted of bribery. (2015)[7]

In Missouri:

State Representative Talibdin El-Amin (D) convicted of bribery. (2010)[8]

In North Carolina:

State Representative Rodney W. Moore (D) plead guilty to fraud. (2019).[9]

State Representative Cody Henson (R) convicted of cyberstalking. (2019)[10]

In Pennsylvania:

State Representative Movita Johnson-Harrell (D) convicted of theft. (2019)[11]

In New Jersey local:

Mayor of Atlantic City Frank Gilliam (D) was convicted of bribery. (2019)[12]

In Florida local:

Tallahassee City Commissioner Scott Maddox (D) convicted of corruption. (2019)[13]

In Louisiana local:

County Executive of St. Louis County Steve Stenger (D) convicted of bribery and fraud. (2019).[14]

In Missouri local:

County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri Mike Sanders (D) convicted of fraud. (2018).[15]

In Georgia local:

Mayor of Atlanta Bill Campbell (D) convicted of tax evasion. (2001)[16]

In New York local:

County Executive of Nassau County Ed Mangano (R) convicted of bribery and fraud. (2019)[17]

Please could you remove Antonia Novello from the 2010- statewide list as she has already been mentioned in the 2000-2009 list which is when she was convicted. Herssed (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Johnsagent (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland (May 18, 2018). "Former Maryland State Delegate And County Councilman Sentenced To More Than Four Years In Prison For Participation In Bribery Scheme" (Press release). Greenbelt, Maryland: Department of Justice. Retrieved March 18, 2019.
  2. ^ https://www.cullmantribune.com/2019/02/22/updated-former-al-senate-majority-leader-zeb-little-allegedly-stole-more-than-25k-from-client-trust-funds/
  3. ^ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-arkansas-state-senator-jeremy-hutchinson-pleads-guilty-bribery-and-tax-fraud-charges
  4. ^ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jan/16/idaho-house-expels-rep-john-green-after-fraud-conv/
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/former-md-lawmaker-cheryl-glenn-pleads-guilty-to-bribery-fraud/2020/01/22/d6958c60-3c97-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
  6. ^ Wood, Pamela (2019-10-07). "Prince George's delegate charged with wire fraud, resigns from Maryland General Assembly". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2019-10-08.
  7. ^ U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland (May 18, 2018). "Former Maryland State Delegate And County Councilman Sentenced To More Than Four Years In Prison For Participation In Bribery Scheme" (Press release). Greenbelt, Maryland: Department of Justice. Retrieved March 18, 2019.
  8. ^ https://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2010/01/06/jail-time-for-former-state-representative-talibdin-td-el-amin
  9. ^ https://www.wfae.org/post/ex-rep-rodney-moore-indicted-false-campaign-report-charges
  10. ^ Travis Fain of WRAL-TV on Twitter.
  11. ^ https://www.inquirer.com/news/movita-johnson-harrell-pleads-guilty-theft-case-20200123.html
  12. ^ "Atlantic City Mayor Gilliam resigns after guilty plea in federal court, Small to take over". pressofatlanticcity.com. 2019-10-03. Retrieved 2010-10-03.
  13. ^ https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/fbi/2019/08/06/scott-maddox-paige-carter-smith-plead-guilty-public-corruption-probe/1919742001/
  14. ^ https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/steve-stenger-sentenced-to-months-for-criminal-conduct-prosecutor-calls/article_adfbb4b9-9800-5095-91cc-c8a50ece6ac4.html
  15. ^ https://www.kcur.org/post/former-jackson-county-executive-mike-sanders-spend-27-months-federal-prison
  16. ^ Dewan, Shaila (2008-03-05). "Ex-Mayor of Atlanta Enrolled in Prison Drug Program After Denial of a Problem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  17. ^ "Former Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano, wife convicted of corruption charges". Newsday. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
 Partly done:

 Not done Failed WP:V

 Not done Did not qualify for inclusion under criteria established above

 Already done

 Done Passed WP:V and qualify for inclusion under criteria established above

Please note the inclusion criteria at the top of this page. Also, please be more careful in the future when bundling large edit requests such as this. Multiple requested additions failed verification, mostly because an indictment is not a conviction. Even in the ones that passed verification, there were numerous inaccuracies in positions held, geographic locations, and charges. Bribery and wire fraud are objectively different crimes, for example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

[edit]

@Eggishorn, I have found up to date sources for the three politicians that you couldn't add previously

In Alabama:

In Maryland:

State Delegate Tawanna P. Gaines (D) pleaded guilty to fraud. (2019)[2]

In North Carolina:

State Representative Rodney W. Moore (D) plead guilty to fraud. (2019).[3]

In Louisiana:

State Senator Wesley T. Bishop (D) pleaded guilty to making false statements. (2020)[4]

Please could you also move Movita Johnson-Harrell, who was convicted in 2019, from the 2000-2009 section and add her into the 2010- section. Also I note that Jeremy Hutchinson's article isn't attached to his addition, which is in Arkansas 2010-.

Thank you for doing the other ones btw, I really appreciate it. Herssed (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Herssed (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Johnsagent (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.trussvilletribune.com/2019/09/24/former-state-senator-zeb-little-convicted-for-theft-of-client-trust-funds/
  2. ^ https://wtop.com/prince-georges-county/2020/01/former-md-legislator-to-be-sentenced-for-misusing-campaign-funds/
  3. ^ https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article233395677.html
  4. ^ https://www.fox8live.com/2020/01/21/senator-wesley-bishop-pleads-guilty-federal-charge/
 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can City of Bell be added?

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noraehara (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

[edit]

Please can someone add to the various sections:

Alabama

California

Local

Colorado


Kentucky

Florida

Local

Michigan

Missouri

Local

North Carolina

Ohio

Local

Texas

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsfa.com/2020/09/21/former-state-sen-david-burkette-receives-suspended-jail-sentence/
  2. ^ https://mynewsla.com/crime/2023/01/19/jose-huizar-agrees-to-plead-guilty-to-racketeering-tax-evasion-5/
  3. ^ https://coloradosun.com/2023/02/10/tracey-bernett-pleads-guilty/
  4. ^ https://www.wkyt.com/2022/05/26/goforth-pleads-guilty-federal-health-care-fraud-case-involving-27m-excess-billing/
  5. ^ https://apnews.com/article/politics-government-and-politics-baabc0bc60d898cacab299e7ff2c0ea4
  6. ^ "Ex-Michigan House speaker, 3 others plead guilty in marijuana bribery probe". mlive. 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2023-04-06.
  7. ^ https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2022-08-26/former-st-louis-aldermen-boyd-reed-admit-to-their-role-in-bribery-scheme
  8. ^ https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2022-08-26/former-st-louis-aldermen-boyd-reed-admit-to-their-role-in-bribery-scheme
  9. ^ https://www.wral.com/state-auditor-beth-wood-pleads-guilty-to-hit-and-run-charge/20777571/
  10. ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2022/11/08/derwin-montgomery-guilty-plea-fraud.html
  11. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/09/politics/larry-householder-ohio-speaker-convicted-bribery/index.html
  12. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/09/politics/larry-householder-ohio-speaker-convicted-bribery/index.html
  13. ^ Levy, Angenette (June 29, 2020). "Former Cincinnati city council member pleads guilty to corruption charge". WKRC.
  14. ^ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/27/ron-wilson-tax-evasion-guilty-plea/
 Partly done I've explained below individual entries whether they have been included, and if so why not. (Good work, by the way.) Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

I have split this list; it was mentioned two or three times above, no objection made except by one blocked account labelled as a sock. The options seemed to be chronological or geographical; there seemed to be a feeling that the former was better, so that's the choice i made. As with everything i do, especially bold edits such as these, i welcome any discussion. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LindsayH: I think reorganizing the List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes into decade lists is a particularly bad idea, especially when the List of 1850s American state and local politicians convicted of crimes becomes a list of one person. Splitting by decade loses sight of the purpose of having a list in the first place, which is to make similar articles easier to find. In this case, splitting by state would make more sense, as all the sources that are state specific would only appear in one article. While lists of people involved in events are often ordered chronologically, splitting by decades disassociates the related articles about people in the same jurisdiction who exhibit the same behaviour and one loses sight of common themes in the criminal offending. It also turns what was a list into a timeline. That means one needs sufficient events in a decade for a decade (or year) list to work; perhaps with a minimum of 10 listed articles to be worthwhile. Additionally, then further splitting by state jurisdiction makes no sense at all, as one ends up with a list of one for one state and nothing for any of the others. The result is not a list, but a page that is crying out to be a redirect to the listed article concerned. If one wanted to split this list, it would make much more sense to split by states, which have a common criminal jurisdiction and set of law, and order each state list chronologically. Then the lists would align with the state laws and legal systems dealing with these criminals. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cameron Dewe. I don't fully disagree with you; let me take a moment to review my thought process with you, if i may.
  1. Clearly it needed splitting ~ it was huge, some automatic tools couldn't be used on it (not a reason in itself, for sure, but a sign it is very big), the TOC alone stretched for several screens, making navigation awkward
  2. There seemed to be two suggestions above it be split, curiously both by current admins who didn't follow up though both indicated they would (no implication of anything bad there, we all get busy and move on), so i felt i could follow up
  3. I saw one suggestion to split it at the year 2000, which i did consider, but i also thought that the post-2000 article would still be very large and would continue growing like Topsy
  4. I did not think there was consensus to split by state (looking back, now, i fear i may have misremembered what i had read when i came to do the actual work of splitting)
  5. It also seemed to me that by state was less than ideal, as some states would have tiny articles and some still very large
  6. The same point concenred me with splitting by decades, as you point out, the 1850s article is certainly small now!
Ultimately, i went with decades, feeling that that was more acceptable. I do, however, understand your points, and don't really dispute. In the end, in mine opinion, there isn't an ideal way to handle it ~ the ideal would be if politicians weren't so universally naughty if so many politicians weren't convicted of crimes and we could have one more manageable article! May i suggest that we leave it as it is for the present and make a decision, ideally bringing in some others who have had opinions or worked on the article (or the community as a whole)? I apologise for the long response; i just want to give your comment full value and a proper reply. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 07:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LindsayH: The trouble with splitting by decade, first, is that one winds up with a multiplicity of fragmented lists of one or twos per state per decade, especially if one retains the state breakdown in each article. The reason the table of contents is huge is because there is a state breakdown. If one breaks things down by state, one has the further option of breaking the list down by state level politicians and local level politicians, and then, at the local level, by individual counties and towns. Suddenly you do not have a table of contents with 50-100 entries, one or two for each state, you only have a single list for the state legislature and one for the local legislature. If you want to split at the local level, then you can split by county, or even individual settlements, too. Also, splitting by state gives the lists more coherence, as a politician who offends on multiple occasions only needs to appear once, on a single list, not in each decade of their offending. Addressing your points in turn:
  1. Yes, large unwieldy needed splitting. But the way to do it well is to create a sub-list of the largest parts of the list. That means splitting a whole section off into a separate list. The way the article has been organised by section tends to dictate the best way to split it too. Splitting by state potentially results in having about fifty separate coherent lists, each organised by state, but with a small table of contents, if any at all. Cause of the long table of contents is because each section has a heading for its list. When one moves to a list of lists by states, the need for a table of contents goes away, because one has a longer list of state list articles, instead of a table of contents.
  2. The discussion at "Please make easier to navigate" proposes putting the list into strict chronological order by state. The discussion at "Some Issues" also suggests a split by state, and also discusses omitting non-notable local politicians, and those without articles. The discussion about proposal to "split at 1999/2000" also concludes that a split by state is OK. While the "Page division" proposes a split by either decade or state, but doesn't seem to have received any real discussion or interest. The one comment in opposition to splitting by state is allegedly a sock-puppet account. However, the lack of discussion about splitting this article makes it difficult to decide the best way to go. However, now it has been split by decade, I can see a time split is the wrong way to go because of the fragmentation that occurs. Because I want to propose merging a lot of these decade articles, which is only going to return the article to the state it was in originally.
  3. A "split at 1999/2000" still leaves a large and unwieldy list because that is where the bulk of recent articles are. I am not sure if this is because the politicians are behaving any differently now that previously, or if law enforcement has become stricter, or if the news media are reporting this better and recent reports are more accessible. This may just be a recentism bias phenomenon, which no split by time is really going to solve, as recent articles will continue to grow like Topsy.
  4. Reading back over the discussions, I don't think there was a consensus to actually split the article either by state or by decade, so I am not surprised you chose to make a bold move and split the article. Since the split is done now, so it doesn't actually matter. Let us not go back, but go forward from what we now have.
  5. Whether one makes the split by decade or by state, one is going to wind up with some big articles and some small ones. Them's the breaks. Accept it and move on. However, there are some things that can be done to stop articles being too small, or too large. If splitting by state produces too many small lists, consider having lists by groups of states, like New England states or Mid-western states, or only have a state list if there are at several people on it. A rule like Seven, Plus or Minus Two might be a trigger point for having a separate state list, instead of a single list.
  6. Looking at the decades, before 1900 there do not appear to be more than one or two politicians per state on the list. This suggests that the 19th century decades might be merged into a single century list, but one is still left with the 20th century, where, prior to the 1980's one still gets single entries per state and decade. It is only in the last 30 or 40 years that one really needs a decade split. Currently, there are 17 decade articles. However, a split by state would give us up to 50 separate list articles, although some states and territories could be grouped together if needed to make fewer larger articles.
One option might be to start a state list article for each state that has a single politician listing during the 19th century, starting with the oldest decade first. Then see how that pans out with lists running state by state as an initial trial. The alternative is to formally propose an article merger or page move and see what happens. But that is what the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is all about. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lists_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes&oldid=1258059875"