Revision as of 20:53, 24 April 2008 editDavid in DC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,601 editsm →This Guy Fits American Criminal Category: copy-edit← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:28, 24 April 2008 edit undoJkp212 (talk | contribs)769 edits →This Guy Fits American Criminal Category: it's still UNDUE WEIGHTNext edit → |
Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
: 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. --] (]) 19:48, 24 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. --] (]) 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. ]. ] (]) 20:01, 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. ]. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
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)