| Revision as of 02:55, 20 April 2008 editRodhullandemu (talk | contribs)115,150 edits →Recent additions: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:39, 11 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,637,154 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (297 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
==A reasonable request== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|listas=criminals, American| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States}} |
|
Why don't we have a sub-category for elected officials? God knows there are enough of them and it's a relatively clear delineation. ] (]) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
Add every elected official who was a criminal? The list would become so long it would become unusable! As said below, anybody who is not primarily known for their criminal activity should be removed from the list. No reader should have to say, "What is that person doing there?... Oh yeah, I see now." In other words, this list should include Al Capone but not Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton (all of whom broke laws). ] 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Is it just me, or does Lohan's inclusion in this category stretch its credibility? Were it not for his daughter's celebrity, here is a person who would be of no note whatsoever. I've met the man, and I assume he hopes to change that (preferably for the better) someday; for now, however, notability is (literally) relative... ]] ] 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criteria == |
|
|
|
|
|
We do need to set up some criteria for this category. Do we include those guilty of misdemenors, such as DWI, minor drug offenses and domestic violence? How about someone like ]? ]? Anyone else who shows up at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/ ? -- ] 10:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How about ]? Convicted felon, but served no jail time. -- ] 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Randal just today got his felonies expunged; is he exempt now? ] 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criminal by occupation? That is ridiculous. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Folks: Many Americans have criminal records but very few Americans can fairly be characterized as having an occupation of "criminal". We need much more clear criteria in this category. If we want to drag in the many more Americans who have misdemenors on the records (and then get into issues such as criminal record expungement, since misdemenor punishment is usually not intended to ruin someone's legal occupation as a felony conviction might), perhaps a new category of "American petty criminal" would be appropriate. -- ] 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Certain criminals can. However, after a year and a half, we will accept your suggestion :). ] 15:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==A suggested criteria== |
|
|
A category like this simply ''must'' have a limiting criteria on inclusion, since "criminal" can be highly pejorative or controversial. A proposal: |
|
|
*All people in this category must have been ''convicted'' of a crime ''or'' in a situation where their having committed crime is otherwise totally unambiguous, and the crime must be one which is not today considered to be a crime of conscience or something like that (i.e. not just an abuse of the legal system). |
|
|
*All people in this category must be ''primarily known'' for their criminal activities. That is, their inclusion in Misplaced Pages at all must be primarily because of their criminal acts. |
|
|
That would keep the category fairly trim and fairly useful, weeding out everyone who had minor offenses or questionable crimes and keeping mostly the hard-core "criminals" or people whose notability is defined by their criminality. Thoughts? --] 00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**OK, here's what I'm posting, obviously feel free to edit if you have a reason to improve it: |
|
|
For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly and lawfully convicted by one or more ] or ]s, or else the person must have committed distinct, infamous, verifiable criminal acts but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof. |
|
|
--]]]]] 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:What's "infamous"? ] is apparently in the category for exposing himself in a parking lot. ] (]) 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I think we badly need the second part of Fastfission's criteria. The category becomes useless (and unwieldly) if every bad American needs to be added to it. This lists need to include only Americans who are primarily known for their criminal activities. Right now it becomes a great tool for political and personal vendettas: we could add several US Presidents and staff members simply because they were indicted, convicted, or should have been convicted. But that's not what they were known for. ] 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Category name== |
|
|
|
|
|
With the word "American" in the the title, casual readers can only assume that it pertains to the nationality of the criminals, not the locale of the crime or context of any conviction. I think that the current definition is too expansive and misleading. Including foreign nationals who committed crimes in the US (i.e. 9/11 hijackers) contradicts the usage of all other Misplaced Pages category names starting with "American". --] 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a further problem with the title being "American" because the U.S. is not the entirety of America. I understand that it is common usage, but doesn't this inheirently include Mexico, Canada, and even Brazil? I suggest the U.S. be referred to as the U.S. & not America. Then there's the aforementioned issue about what is included. Those of that national origin, those who committed crimes in that area, or some combination of both? If I do not hear any further discussion on this topic after 1 week I will take it upon myself to rename the article & add defining criteria. --] 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Elliott Abrams == |
|
|
|
|
|
What's Elliot Abrams doing on this list? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
He's off the the list as he was pardoned. Thank you. ] 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Incarcerated Celebrities== |
|
|
This category has apparently been deleted. Can someone tell me how and why this was done? ] (]) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because it was in bad taste and did not further the aims of the project? ] (]) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Too bad. ''<nowiki></nowiki>'' ] (]) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That would be a shame. And tendentious. ] (]) 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Definition == |
|
|
How was the decision made to include only those who are "solely" notable for their criminal convictions? Sure, Christian Brando and the former Mayor of Atlanta don't fall under that, and others as well. If this is for people only notable for their criminal convictions perhaps the title ought to be changed as well. ] (]) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent additions == |
|
|
This category has recently been inflated with a number of subjects whose main claim to notability IS NOT their crime. I urge that this wholesale change in the nature of the list be reviewed by fair-minded editors and administrators. Where the subject does not belong in the category, I urge that the subject be speedily deleted. Bullies don't get to change policy wholesale by calling edits to their additions censorship. ] (]) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: This category has LONG contained the names of literally scores of political, musical, sports and other figures who have been convicted of crimes, without the slightest protest by you. For instance Tonya Harding and Joey Buttafuoco, to name just 2 out of untold dozens long placed in this category, were famous in their own right well before being convicted. Another would be Denny McLain, one of the most famed athletes in America, the last 30 game winner baseball will likely ever see. His subsequent criminal conviction has properly placed him in this category for over 2 years without a murmur. Just because their fame preceded their well-sourced convictions surely doesn't mean they must be censored from this category. Such a result would be absurd. If there is a question as to the source that is a different matter. However, if a musician, athlete, etc. has a subsequent criminal conviction well sourced in the national media, that person is quite properly placed in this category and any speedy deletion from the category without following Misplaced Pages dispute process should be treated as vandalism. ] (]) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wouldn't put it that strongly. For example, most people given the name of ] would think of his association with ] rather than his convictions. The problem with the category definition, as currently set out, is that it is unnecessarily vague. To avoid disruption to the project, I will take some time working on an appropriate definition, not least to avoid ] and ] considerations, and put it before the community for consensus. --''']''' (]) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Anybody object if I open an RFC on this one? John, I appreciate that you're trying to do this outside of the Yarrow dispute, but right now the only participants in this discussion seem to be those of us from Yarrow. I think getting other opinions in here as quickly as possible would be beneficial. ] (]) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not only don't I mind, SI, I think you would be doing the project a service.] (]) 02:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree, per above.--''']''' (]) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I can see that the vast majority of this talk page is concerned with scoping this category. If it cannot be plausibly scoped by consensus, it should go as lacking certainty. --''']''' (]) 02:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I think about half the articles in this category are on persons who are, at least arguably, notable for both their crimes and something else such as politics, sports, music, acting, etc. These articles have been up for years. In the interest of fairness I will refrain from adding any more articles to this category for the time being. Hopefully others will not delete articles which have been on this category for years as one user has already done-AFTER stating he wouldn't! It seems commonplace to me that if someone is famous for both a criminal conviction and say a sport-that they are properly placed in both categories] (]) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think rodhullandemu is right. Given the recent demonstration of this category's potential for tendentious mischief, deleting the cat may prove necessary. That would be a shame though. Reasonable people should be able to come to consensus. Unreasonable people should go play on blacklisted sites like Free Republic.] (]) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I agree that the category should be deleted. It is too ripe for BLP violations and mischief. There is no purpose to be served by it. If another user would like to nominate for deletion, I would vote in favor. --] (]) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It's a fine category which has been up for years. The above user is a fan of child molestor/one hit wonder pop star ] and does not want to see his hero in this category-ergo he attempts to delete over 400 people's work! Amazing. ] (]) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Warning re ] and ]. That really doesn't help one jot. What we are here to do is build an encyclopedia, if you remember. If we can't do that with ALL policies in mind, we are wasting our time. --''']''' (]) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What should be the threshold for inclusion of this category? == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{RFCbio| section=What should be the threshold for inclusion of this category? !! reason=What should be the threshold for the inclusion of this category in a biography (and, if it makes a difference, what should be the threshold for inclusion in the biography of a living person?)? Is it sufficient to have been convicted of a crime, or should the subject's notability need to be a result of being convicted of this crime? Additional issue: should this category exist? !! time=02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
:: Should be simple enough: If a person is notable for a well-sourced criminal conviction they should be eligible for the category-just like any other category. If there is not a good source showing they have not been convicted they are ineligible for the category. If they are notable for some other reason, they can be in that category also ] (]) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
