Category talk:American criminals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A reasonable request

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. Ich (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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). Mdmcginn 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lohan

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... RadioKirk talk to me 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 O. J. Simpson? Jonny Cash? Anyone else who shows up at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/ ? -- Pinktulip 10:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Randal L. Schwartz? Convicted felon, but served no jail time. -- Pinktulip 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Randal just today got his felonies expunged; is he exempt now? Ysth 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. -- AWM 68.164.245.60 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Certain criminals can. However, after a year and a half, we will accept your suggestion :). WatchingYouLikeAHawk 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 Wikipedia 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? --Fastfission 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 United States federal courts or State courts, or else the person must have committed distinct, infamous, verifiable criminal acts but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof. --M@rēino 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What's "infamous"? Eugene Hasenfus is apparently in the category for exposing himself in a parking lot. Phr (talk) 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. Mdmcginn 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 Wikipedia category names starting with "American". --Hooperbloob 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. --Duemellon 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that the category name is that "American Criminals" implies that the person is an active criminal. A better name would be "Americans with a Criminal Record" Cigraphix (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Elliott Abrams

What's Elliot Abrams doing on this list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

He's off the the list as he was pardoned. Thank you. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Incarcerated Celebrities

This category has apparently been deleted. Can someone tell me how and why this was done? John celona (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it was in bad taste and did not further the aims of the project? David in DC (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. [redacted] John celona (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a shame. And tendentious. David in DC (talk) 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 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. David in DC (talk) 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 Wikipedia dispute process should be treated as vandalism. John celona (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that strongly. For example, most people given the name of Billy Preston would think of his association with The Beatles 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 WP:POINT and WP:BLP considerations, and put it before the community for consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only don't I mind, SI, I think you would be doing the project a service.David in DC (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, per above.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 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. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 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 categoriesJohn celona (talk) 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.David in DC (talk) 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. --Jkp212 (talk) 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 Peter Yarrow and does not want to see his hero in this category-ergo he attempts to delete over 400 people's work! Amazing. John celona (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning re WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. 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. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:john_celona --Jkp212 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed jkp's link. David in DC (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed not to add any more names to this category while the RFC is pending. Can we at least stop wholesale removals from the category while the RFC is pending? For instance, Jpk212 has unilateraly deleted over 3 dozen articles from this category, some of which users had put in the category years ago. To name just 2, W. George Bowdon was put in this category by user Billy Hathorn on September 2, 2006; the Ray Blanton article was categorized on August 16, 2006 by user Blueboy96. John celona (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If a person is convicted and serves time, does that NOT make him eligible for "American criminals"? So Preston Bynum, W. George Bowdon, Jr., and Ray Blanton all qualify. Richard Nixon does not qualify as an "unindicted co-conspirator"? Spiro Agnew may qualify because of nolo contendere. Maybe there should be a separate category "Criminal politicians"?Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of couse you're 100% right Billy. This is rather silly. These names have been in the category for years in many cases. John celona (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be the threshold for inclusion of this category?

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 John celona (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a good compromise would be to change the category to "Americans convicted of crimes". This would clarify any claimed ambiguity concerning people like Martha Stewart, Michael Vick, and scores of others in this category who are clearly notable both for their internationally reported convictions and in other fields like sports, business, music, politics, acting, directing, etc. John celona (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, John. My main reservation is would it be potentially too broad? I'm not certain. Has Wikipedia:WikiProject Law been informed of this RFC? I would think they would have comments to make. Aleta ^Sing 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John. I am unaware of any category that requires that the subject of the article be primarily known for that activity. For example, it makes perfect sense that Benjamin Franklin is in both Category:American diplomats and Category:American inventors. The threshold for inclusion in the various criminals categories should be cut and dried: If the person was convicted, they belong; if they weren't, they don't. — Dulcem (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, there are some people who have come up with one minor invention, or have engaged in one minor act of diplomacy, but would not properly be categorized as criminals. I agree with the above proposal to change this to Category:Americans convicted of crimes, perhaps with a subcategory for those convicted of multiple, unrelated crimes, or for those convicted of particular crimes (don't we have, e.g., Category:American murderers? bd2412 T 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see we have a panoply of subcategories already. Good. Also, thinks for posting on WikiProject Law. bd2412 T 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the Category description says: "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime [emphasis added], or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed." The part I bolded is dispositive. Why is this such a hard concept? If their principal notability is for being the "5th Beatle" or being a member of a folk trio, then they do not belong in this category.David in DC (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about this wording. Most categories do not require that notability of subjects rest solely on that one criterion. Why should this one be different? It doesn't make sense to me that a person's notability should have to be only due to criminal activity for inclusion. Aleta ^Sing 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As the history shows, you are correct; unfortunately, the author of that wording is unavailable for comment because he is indefinitely blocked. My own take is that this is overly restrictive wording. A "criminal", per Merriam-Webster's, is "a person who has been convicted of a crime". (By the way, what's a "crime" in this instance? Shall we restrict it to felonies?)

To those who argue criminals should be notable only because of their crime to merit inclusion: why? How many of the American vegetarians or the American Episcopalians (other than clergy) are notable solely or primarily because of their dietary habits or creed? Similarly, if one is convicted of a crime, whether he is Al Capone or Bob Taft, Jeffrey Dahmer or Tom Finneran, he belongs in the category.

Finally, to address BLP concerns: BLP says that "material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." Of course. No one says we should stick people in this category without ample, reliable citation. But once we have the citations that demonstrate a criminal conviction, I don't see what the issue is. Biruitorul (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP is more complicated and nuanced than simply having a source. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds rather occult - would you perhaps be able to reveal some of these "complications" and "nuances" to those of us who take the policy at face value? Biruitorul (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

sure: blp policy states that somtimes "including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced" -- this is especially true if the details are "off topic", as is relevant here, where some users are including material that is off topic. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also add to the category those individuals whose criminal trials led to substantial changes in the law in their jurisdiction. Robert A. Berkowitz's rape conviction in Pennsylvania was overturned while he was found guilty of indecent assault, a misdemeanor. Berkowitz is notable because his case led to the passage of PA's sexual assault statute in 1995. I think the criteria should be based on notability for the crime that is independent of any other notability that the person might have. Some of the crimes of celebrities are only notable because the celebrity was notable before the crime. In other cases, the crime overshadows any previous notability the individual may have had. A criminal is regarded for their commission and conviction of a crime. One can be convicted of a crime and cease to be regarded as criminal. One may also be acquitted of a crime, and yet be regarded as a criminal by significant numbers. It may be easier if you insert the person's name in the sentence "X is a criminal." "Al Capone is a criminal" gathers less controversy than "Martha Stewart is a criminal." Some may disagree with the later statement, whereas "X is an American Episcopalian" would gather little or no disagreement for those it includes. I think it is a factor of both notability for the crime independent of anything else, and whether there is a greater consensus of the person as a criminal. The more controversial or disputed the status, the less likely the individual should be included in a category of criminals rather than a category of persons having committed crimes. At arraignment, we refer to all individuals as criminals, but convictions over 7 years old are not taken into consideration for bail arguments. Of course, we have a certain bias on the side of the State. Just my 2 cents. Legis Nuntius (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. If someone is convicted of a crime and is American they should be in the category. Changing the name of the category to "Americans convicted of crimes" would end this debate as the pro-censorship contingent would lose the little bit of "leg" they are trying to stand on. John celona (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to go on record and say that I don't think every person who has been convicted of a crime needs to be labeled as a criminal and thus put into this category. I think the category is intended for guys like Al Capone who's whole claim to fame was their criminal activity, not some guy like Billy Cannon who was known as a football star, but later in life was caught in a counterfeiting scandal. Sf46 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Otherwise, this category becomes more of a game of "gotcha" -- we do not need to hold a scarlet letter to everyone who was ever arrested or convicted of any crime, without considering the circumstances. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is especially salient because this category is actually a subcategory of people by occupation. I'm not making that up. It's right on the page. How on earth can it be right to be putting in people who make/made their living by doing something else? It's inconvenient as hell for anyone wanting to expand the scope of the category, but it's a fact nonetheless. David in DC (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Either it should not be a subcategory of people by occupation, or the description should specify that the category is for people who make their living through criminal activity (in which case that wording should replace the "solely notable for..." wording). Aleta ^Sing 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable.David in DC (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me to. Either way, individuals who are not well known as a result of their crime do not belong in this category. Can we please conclude this with consensus so that the ridiculous additions to this category will stop? --Jkp212 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do object to the "solely notable" wording. Whether or not it's the person's occupation, I think "solely notable" is too restrictive. The person should, however, have at least a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity. We of course always have to heed Wp:BLP where it applies. Aleta ^Sing 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if someone was convicted of a crime, or there is no reasonable doubt that they did not commit a crime, they should be included in this category. I have to agree with the rationale given above with Benjamin Franklin as an example. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a working consensus is that as Aleta says, the person should "have at least a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity. We of course always have to heed Wp:BLP where it applies." There is no black and white here, but we have to use discretion. Is that generally agreed, and can we move on? --Jkp212 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm closer to Aleta's or Jkp's wording, which calls for editorial discretion, than to J.delanoy's on/off, black/white switch. Calling someone (dead or alive) a criminal is qualitatively different from calling them an inventor or a diplomat (or an Episcopalian or a vegetarian as someone else posits above).

Look at poor Eugene Hasenfus. His sole notability is for his role in the Contra part of IranContra. Later in life, after he was by no stretch of the imagination notable, he had embarrassing criminal trouble entirely unrelated to his notability. BLP and Undue Weight tell me his later convictions don't belong in his article at all. But J.delanoy's formulation would put the material I've deleted back in the article and then lump him in with Al Capone.

Now look at poor Billy Preston. He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply, but how the heck do his drug problems, even if they're in the article, rise to the level that he should share a list with Jeffrey Dahmer? David in DC (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I support a renaming to Category:Americans convicted of crimes. While some would argue being convicted of a crime makes one a criminal, the term "criminal" has certain connotations that would be best avoided by rewording. Moreover, such a change makes inclusion easier to ascertain and takes away concerns over the "scale" of criminal one needs to be to be categorized. Rockpocket 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anew, I was struck by how horribly this category lends itself to mischeif. Read Kendra James. If the categorization I removed here doesn't make your blood boil, you're not paying attention. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to the proper board where I can request that this category be changed to Category:Americans convicted of crimes? There should be a standard set. The category has been used (as common sense dictates) for anyone who has been covicted of a crime if there is a verified source. Recently, a tiny pro-censorship contingent has embarked on a campaign that would immunize politicians, actors, musicians, sports figures and other celebrities from being included in this category. Not veryone though. They make no effort to remove conservative or Reublican figures. Any attempts to remedy this situation result in a self-admitted COMMUNIST administrator blocking the user. The changing of the name would unambigously put those (administrators included) who would censor convicted criminals (pedophiles included! [1]]) on notice that this is vandalism. John celona (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing it in mediation, to which we all agreed, is most certainly not vandalism, John. Aleta ^Sing 15:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review this ANI and chime in as appropriate. [2] David in DC (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly object to the language, can claim notability solely because of the crime. Is John Ehrlichman solely notable for his crime? No, but his crime was notable. More generally, I think that "notable" is too hard to define. Categories should be clearly defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Above, Aleta suggested this: "I think "solely notable" is too restrictive. The person should, however, have at least a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity. We of course always have to heed Wp:BLP where it applies." JkP endorsed it a couple of comments later. I think it makes sense too. David in DC (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the definition of "a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity"? How would this be determined? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good faith editors using editorial discretion and mindful of BLP? David in DC (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not sufficient, obviously. Criteria for inclusion in categories should not require discretion. If a clear standard for notability can't be found I think the only alternative is to drop it and set a different standard, such as felony conviction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Rosa Parks an American criminal? The article on her doesn't say anything about being pardoned, and most of her notability clearly stems from a single act which was criminal at the time. (It's not clear from the article whether Parks appealed at the state level, so if not, she would at least be exempt on the grounds that the category only applies to state or federal convictions.) For that matter, is Leo Frank an American criminal? Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say "yes" to both Parks and Franks under the existing criteria. However I'd guess that Parks was charged with a misdemeanor. I suggest that the category be limited to felons. Unfortunately, we don't have a neutral way of dealing with "unjustly" convicted or exonerated people. Either they were convicted or they weren't. It isn't our place to second guess the court system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the limitation to felons only. As for Frank, he was issued a pardon in 1986; that excludes him from the category. Hmmm... rereading, I see they didn't actually clear him. However, there has been so much doubt of his guilt published, that I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to include him in the category. Aleta ^Sing 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a limitation only to felons. But I don't agree that it is "obvious" that a category must be an on/off, black/white determination. Editors exercise editorial discretion. Exactly the kind of discretion Aleta posits in the case of Leo Frank.

Wholeheartedly endorse: "...it would be absolutely ridiculous to include him in the category." David in DC (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will_Beback (talk · contribs), Aleta (talk · contribs), and David in DC (talk · contribs) that the category should be limited to felons. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tightened inclusion criteria to felony [3], per talk page consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be contradictory to say that the category isn't for people who have been pardoned, yet still have a subcategory "American Pardon recipients". Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

True, American pardon recipients should not be a subcategory of this one (imo). Aleta ^Sing 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is that nobody should be considered notable for a crime until they have been convicted finally, and direct appeal has been exhausted. Wikipedia readers may be on a jury one day and we do not want somebody who has read a Wiki-article on a defendant to end up on the jury for that defendant's (re-)trial. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. A rule like that would exclude many notable criminals, including assassins such as John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald. However it may be worthwhile to separate convicted criminals from presumed criminals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the I.P.'s proposal is a good one insofar as it deals with living people (with the possible exception of acquittals by reason of insanity - see below). This is both because living people are the ones we need to take the greatest care to protect, and living people are the ones available to be tried, which means that there aren't a lot of Oswald/Booth cases among them (though there may be a few presumed-alive but untried fugitives that we'd want to apply the category to - can you think of any, Will?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly those who haven't had their cases appealed. Roman Polanski for example, was convicted but fled the country before sentencing. Note that we have an entire category for Category:Fugitives, so those are already covered. In some cases, there is no dispute over the guilt of the person. D. B. Cooper, for example, or Robert Vesco. The current criteria reads, in part:

• Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

I think that is proper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A related proposal

FYI: there is a proposal that deals with related and overlapping issues to those we're discussing here. You can read the proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and comment on the talk page thereof. Aleta ^Sing 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Category for deletion

I have nominated this category for deletion. I agree with many of the comments above. My view is that with regard to BLP policy (and NPOV policy as well,) a category is a unique situation in which there can be no rebuttal or diversity of views -- it is, shall we say, categorical. With Living Persons articles, each case has its nuances, and in order to Do No Harm, the use of categories should be excluded from the potential arsenal of POV warriors and any others who wish to to skirt the BLP policy. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a factual category. It's almost like Category:1933 births. Its basic criteria is a felony conviction. What rebuttal or diversity of views is there going to be? In the U.S. legal system, it's usually clear when someone has been convicted. The only gray areas are where someone dies before being convicted and where it's not clear that the crime was a felony due to vague reporting. In the case of Lyndon LaRouche, he was sentenced to fifteen years and, per normal practice at the time, served 1/3 of it. Nobody disputes that he was convicted or that he was in prison, the only dispute is whether he was tried fairly. Not surprisingly, that's a common dispute but it doesn't that there's anything wrong with the category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The analogy with Category:1933 births is ridiculous. Being born in a certain year carries no stigma. Categorizing someone as a criminal, even if technically correct, casts a shadow over their rest of their life story in a way that is entirely subjective -- yet you are claiming that it is a routine, objective, bureaucratic act with no moral consequences. This is why the use of categories is dangerous and should be curtailed. It seems to be an irresistable temptation for POV warriors. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when folks used slogans like "don't trust anyone over 40". Even now there are movements that condemn the BabyBoomer generation. Any category can seem derogatory to someone. But whether it's positive or negative having been conicted of a felony is a verifiable fact. It's not a judgment call, it's not subjective. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tricky. In the UK, where I live and practised law, we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 under which certain convictions by passage of time may become "spent" and although not expunged, deniable by the convict, on the basis that the penal process is intended to be rehabilitative as well as punitive and that less serious, or youthful, mistakes, should not condemn a person for all time to be labelled, and presumablt shunned by society and unemployable. Simplistic, yes, but it's a principle. WRT this category, my take is that it's an issue of weight per WP:UNDUE, in the sense that if you were to ask anyone to describe, say Billy Preston in a handful of words, they would say "The Fifth Beatle" rather than "convicted drug user"; that test would rule him out of this category as being irrelevant to the totality of his life. This is the "Man on the Clapham omnibus test" or "test of the Officious Bystander". Conversely, James Brown, by this test, could be described as "The Godfather of Soul, drug user, and voyeur" by a casual observer, so he might well be included. Al Capone would naturally be included, even though his only convictions were for tax evasion (probably a Federal offense), but he's labelled as a gangster, not a tax evader. So should one conviction, however long ago, qualify an individual for inclusion in this category? No. George Bush and Bill Gates have convictions for DUI, but we don't call them drunk drivers. That's where the weight argument comes in in the sense of "what is the encyclopedic benefit of categorising this person in this way?", and that, to me, is the acid test. The reason that that test is doomed to fail is that some editors think that everything about a person should be in their article, one way or another, and of course, vice versa. This is a clash of several policies, POV, BLP, UNDUE, etc. and there are no simple answers. Shame, but that's life. --Rodhullandemu 00:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gates and Bush aren't included because a simple DUI isn't a felony, and only felons are on the list (with two specific exceptions). I bet that some if not all of the "expungeable" crimes in the U.K. law are also misdemeanors, and so wouldn't be included either. Putting the standard at felonies sets the bar pretty high so the situation you fear shouldn't occur. Note also that people who are pardoned (including James Brown for his major convictions) do not belong in this category, and I'm sure in the same spirit folks who've had their criminal records expunged wouldn't be here either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WRT James Brown, technically a pardon is not a retrospective acquittal, it's a remission of the penalty, so according to the letter of the law, Brown does belong in the category, and that's one of its major problems. The felony/misdemeanour distinction is largely irrelevant from a UK perspective since it was abolished here in 1967, although replaced by a distinction between offences loosely based on seriousness, and even that is fuzzy. Whatever test is applied, a case of handbag-snatching may be charged as robbery or theft, depending on jurisdiction and local prosecution policy, and convicted as either, likewise. In one case, perp, if otherwise notable enough to have an article here, is in the category, and in the other, s/he isn't. It's all very well to argue that "common sense" will prevail, but IMO the whole reason we're having this discussion is because it hasn't. Labelling people has consequences, particularly if they're still alive, and that's why the application of this category is loaded with pitfalls and dangers. --Rodhullandemu 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The American criminals category could, I suppose, include Americans convicted in the U.K. but for the most part it will be limited to people convicted in America. Criminal records are public information. Pardoned criminals are specifically excluded from this category. An interesting case is Wynona Ryder. She was found guilty of felony grand theft, but the conviction was later reduced to a misdemeanor violation. Since there is no felony conviction anymore she is not in this category. Hypotheticals aside, are there any actual entries that are in this category that are problematic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That depends what the category is actually for, and nowhere have I seen a reasoned, NPOV argument to justify it. More so have I seen it used as a political weapon to advance some sort of WP:POINT, either intentionally or otherwise. If the underlying intention was to expose the weakness of dichotomous categorisation, then it succeeded in the objective in spades. Similarly, if the intention was to sustain a directed vilification of otherwise notable people based on events which occurred over 30 years ago, arguably just to make a WP:POINT, well, I've seen that too. This is politics (but not Politics), and it wouldn't be happening but for (i) language is imprecise (ii) that fact can be exploited and (iii) it can be especially exploited for evil, as well as good intentions. That is my opinion, and it may not be yours but at least I'm honest about it. Objectively, would I categorise [[Winona Ryder}} as an American criminal? No. Reason is that this is not, objectively, what she is. Perhaps we're just more forgiving in the UK of people like Ken Dodd and Lester Piggott. I only see a minority of editors seeking to push this point, but the way they do it it is oh, so unforgiving. If only it were them in the same position, I think silence would suddenly become more prevalent. --Rodhullandemu 23:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what your point is. This is a factual category. People either were convicted of a serious crime or they weren't. If they were, then it's appropriate to note that fact in their biography. Regarding your two examples, Ken Dodd was acquitted, and Lester Piggott is indeed in a related category, Category:English tax evaders, a subcat of Category:English criminals. There is no reason to avoid applying objective categories just because they have negative connotations. At various times and places being labled "Catholic", a "Marxist", or an "LGBT" have been conisdered derogatory or even defamatory. Yet we still apply those categories where appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Will, you may guess that your're not sure what Rod's point is, but as far as I'm concerned, Rod's point is as plain as the nose on your face. I seriously doubt that anyone really believes that this is a "factual category." To say so is sophistical argument in the extreme. It may be appropriate to "note that fact in a biography," but categorizing a BLP as "criminal" is an entirely different matter. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How are they different? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because noting the fact in the biography makes it one facet of a larger biography. Saying someone was convicted of a felony is quite different from labeling them an American Criminal. Billy Preston is as obvious an example as there is and it's already been suggested. In no sense is it fair to describe Billy Preston as an American Criminal. But it's entirely fair to note in a narrative that he had drug problems and that they led to convictions. Calling him an "American convicted of a felony" might be a little fairer, but not much. Calling someone an American Criminal ought to be reserved for people who fit the actual definition of this category. You'll remember that, many of the people in the category right now do not fit the definition, which requires that the person be notable solely for their crime(s). Even if we loosen the category as suggested above, to require only that a substantial part of their notability be for their crime, that would still leave out the Billy Prestons and Eugene Hasenfuses of the world. And that would be a good thing.David in DC (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the definition of the category. Please check again. I can't think of another category that's restricted to those who are notable solely for the topic of categorization. As for the name of the category, there's a proposal to rename it "Americans convicted of crimes" or something like that. Visit the CfD page and give your input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the category definition. I'm excerpting the applicable paragraph and bolding the applicable phrase: "Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or..." One of is having difficulty interpreting this phrase. Is it me? David in DC (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• That last clause covers people who don't fit into the other prongs, for example someone convicted of a misdemeanor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Not guilty by reason of insanity"

I was checking some subcategoies and came across Daniel Rakowitz. He murdered and ate his roomate, and was found "not guilty by reason of insanity". There's no dispute that he committed the deed. How should this category and its subsidiaries handle such cases? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that there's no reason to include him in any of this category's subcats. Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity seems to serve just fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Another example is Ed Gein, who was also found "NGRI", yet we include him in Category:American serial killers. If someone actually committed a murder, whether they were culpable or not, I seems like we should have a category to accomodate them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Solely Notable

The category definition, as it now stands, clearly states in its first prong that, to be included in the category for a felony conviction, the person must be solely notable for their crime. Most commenters on this think that this language is too strict. So maybe it should be changed. But until it is, heaping abuse on someone trying to conform practice to the actual definition of the category is unhelpful. Please see Raegan Butcher's talk page for an example of what I'm talking about. I'm amenable to having the language of the category changed to something like Aleta's suggestion above, about "...deriving a significant portion of their notablity from their crime..." but others have opposed it. In the meantime, until the language is amended, can we please apply the category as written? David in DC (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The category as written does NOT support the application you apply as the discussion in the paragraphs above clearly shows. John celona (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

David has incorrectly summarized the criteria. Any person conivted of a felony may be added to this category, even if they are not solely notable for the crime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. John celona (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think articles should be able to be added to the category without a person's sole notability deriving from the crime(s), but the wording currently says "can claim notability solely because of the crime". Can we get consensus to rephrase this? Aleta ^Sing 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The language now doesn't explicitly include the word "or" before "can claim notability solely because of the crime" even though it is CLEARLY implied since not a single Wikipedia category requires that a person be "solely known" for that category. this includes sex offender, embezzlers, statutory rapists and other labels even more "negative". John celona (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aleta and JC that the language of the category needs updating. David in DC (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I decided to be WP:BOLD and deleted the word "solely" from the category description. Aleta ^Sing 00:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Marvin Diode thought that was too bold and reverted me. Marvin, would you please discuss alternatives here? What if we change "solely" to "significantly"? Aleta ^Sing 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The "solely" is important because it covers people who have been convicted of minor offenses but who gained notoriety for that action. I've added an "or" (which was already implicit) and made it a separate point to clarify that it is a separate clause. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think adding the or solves the problem! (The "or" did not seem implicit before to me - it appeared to be an implicit "and".) Aleta ^Sing 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think adding the "or" solves the problem. John celona (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is much clearer, and much more in harmony with actual WP practice. There are still hard cases though, where sourcing a felony conviction of a living person would be ok within the context of a more robust article --- but where it would still be undue weight and overcategorization to add "American Criminal" as a category. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is still a potential for abuse. Editorial discretion is necessary with all categories, and that is especially so when dealing with BLP. Aleta ^Sing 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been enough miscarriages of justice in the US that I am uncomfortable with the idea that a conviction makes one a "criminal," regardless of what other notability the subject may have. I was hoping that the proposal to rename the category to "Americans convicted of a crime" would succeed, but it did not. Wikipedia seems to attract editors who want to carry out vendettas, so I hope that there is enough "editorial discretion" out there to restrain the POV pushers. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I think that the "solely notable" prong is an important exemption to the "felonies only" rule, in practice it'd used very rarely. WP:BLP strongly discourages articles about people who are solely notable for only one event so the only times this exemption would come into play are when people who were borderline notable become notorious for some non-felony crime, or commit a non-felony crime that is their chief source of notability but then do other things that increase their overall notability (such as write a book about the incident). Until we have an actual problem I don't think we need to worry about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note name change discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 21#Category:American criminals. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!

Given all the sturm und drang last time around, does this new formulation really represent consensus? The placement of the "or" after the first element and the "and" after the second seems to bring us back to a requirement that the subject be solely notable for the the crime.

The way I read it, it says the subject must be (1) convicted or (2) unquestionably guilty AND (3) solely notable for the crime. That's fine with me. I think the American criminal category poses a grave danger of overcategorization and undue weight.

But it excludes a ton of folks who are currently in the category. Should we start pruning the category? David in DC (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted, and invited the editor to comment here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The minor grammatical change I made follows the spirit of the discussion. The way it is worded right now means I can put Congressman Bill Janklow as an American criminal and this goes against the spirit of the American criminals category. I don't believe we have to prune the category at all, based on the names I see. What this grammatical change effectively does is say we will not classify public figures who are convicted of "private" crimes as American criminals. Of course public officials convicted of public crimes, like Watergate figures could still be classified as American criminals. I'm reverting back unless someone wants to make a case why this wording does not meet the spirit of the consensus that we've had. JustGettingItRight (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I potentially see is through the tagging of subcategories. For example, Bill Janklow is a person convicted of manslaughter. No one has tagged that category here yet, but what if they did? Do you call everybody tagged as having been convicted of manslaughter as an American criminal? But the names I see tagged directly in this category seem to meet this definition. JustGettingItRight (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The question I think we should ask is, "Would this person be in the national news for his/her crime if we didn't know about him already? Pacman Jones, and a bunch of other sports stars would not be in the news if they were not athletes. Is OJ Simpson an American Criminal because he was convicted of robbery? If DWIs were felonies, are those people that got DWIs American Criminals? JustGettingItRight (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

Marion Jones, DMX (rapper), Charles Colson. Three chosen at random. None known solely, or even primarily for their crime. If this new definition stands, please start pruning. David in DC (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Otto Kerner, Leadbelly. I'm not even halfway through the alphabet and I'm only choosing ones that grab my eye. Please rethink. David in DC (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of football: Billy Cannon, Maurice Clarett. David in DC (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Tyson, Ian Schrager. David in DC (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mel Reynolds, Richard Secord. David in DC (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the change again. JGIR, I think David has made the point that there are lots of folks in the category who would not be there if they were notable solely for their crimes. Aleta ^Sing 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, David has probably overmade the point. Sort of like taking a sledgehammer to a gnat. I sure can be a self-righteous bastard when I'm typing in the wee hours of the morning because of insomnia. It's why I felt compelled to put a less snide recapitulation on your talk page today. I apologize for my failure to temper my response last night. David in DC (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede the point then and ask for a new consensus. However, on a side note, it is extremely difficult to follow past discussions ... the only discussion I see right now is the VfD, which does not make the case for the current definition. I don't see a reasonable basis to put every famous person who's been convicted of an ordinary crime as an American criminal. There's a big difference in implication between say a Watergate figure (Chuck Colson should be considered an American criminal IMHO) and a sports star convicted of a drug offense. I won't edit to make a point, but after consensus is reached, I will edit according to those guidelines agreed to. JustGettingItRight (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Bill Janklow's manslaughter can be considered a non-notable crime. It was a major news event that lead to widespread public indignation and his resignation. A third of his biography is devoted to the topic, rightfully in my opinion. The article is included in category:American people convicted of manslaughter, a subcategory of this category, and I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that it shouldn't be.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue at hand: do we classify people as "American criminals" for non-notable crimes?

When the ordinary reader thinks of an American criminal, they think of someone who has commited a notable crime. They don't think of someone who happens to be famous that has committed a run-of-the-mill crime.

By the current definition, Barack Obama is a American criminal as he has unambiguously admitted to felony cocaine use in the United States. Forget the fact that he is not notable for his illegal drug use, according to this definition he is an American criminal.

Most of the names that David cited should not be classified as American criminals, with the exception of Chuck Colson who committed a notable crime in Watergate.

We can rephrase the definition as:

and the crime committed is notable.

I think that was the original intent of the phrase itself. In fact, the phraseology currently makes no sense. If you are acquitted of a crime but you are solely notable for having been put to trial, you are considered to be an American criminal.

If you are going to claim consensus, at least make sure the definition actually makes sense. JustGettingItRight (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed definition (10 days for discussion from 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Resolved

 – Definition adopted. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

• Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a notable felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), or

*Can claim notability solely because of the crime, or

• Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

JustGettingItRight (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, classifying famous people who commit non-notable drug offenses as American criminals is ridiculous and I'll take the time to prune the list if I have to if this is the new consensus after discussion.

JustGettingItRight (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting is of limited utility. Discussion is the way to go. 72 hours is way too short. Many people interested in this could be on a long weekend and return to a fait accompli.

With those caveats, I like JGIR's formulation, although I'm sure some more seasoned BLP hands can suggest useful tweaks.

I get your point about Colson, but I think his later career and ministry make him very different from John Mitchell, H.R. Haldeman, James McCord, Bernard Barker, etc. Also (and I have not researched this) I have a recollection of his getting some kind of clemency or a pardon. If it was a pardon, that rules him out. I'll try to find a source to augment my memory. David in DC (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We can make the time frame longer (I have no intention of steam rolling this), how's 10 days from the 20th? I went ahead and changed it for now. JustGettingItRight (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

"Can claim notability solely because of the crime"

I don't see any discussion for why this was deleted from the category criteria. That was discussed and agreed upon here: [4].   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a question you'd have to ask JGIR. I raised it on the BLP/N Board at the time, but caught no one's attention. David in DC (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. If there's no good reason for the deletion I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That would address my BLP concerns. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this edit of February 19, JGIR raised the issue for discussion. Apparently nobody objected to the strike-though, i.e., removal, by the March 17, and so s/he implemented that change and archived the discussion that never really happened but could have. Aleta ^Sing 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's proposed above but there's no reason given for the change. I'll go ahead and restore it and if he wants to discuss then we can.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the prior, and I guess current, wording. Since the or operator is used, instead of the and operator, the situation that is created is that you can tag those people who have never been convicted of highly notable crimes (potentially including Lee Harvey Oswald). Of course, as David points out, if you use the and operator instead of the or operator, you might have a too strict definition (potentially excluding OJ Simpson).

The use of the and operator instead of the or operator changes the criteria 180 degrees from too strict to too loose and potentially libelous if the person were alive.

With the or operator, instead of the and operator, what is the purpose of the soley notable criterion?

JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this criteria is to cover people who are solely notable for crimes that don't meet the other criteria: namely misdemeanors. Hypothetical examples would be some minor crime or scandal that gets major attention, or a major crime that gets pleaded down to a misdemeanor. As for the or comnjunciton, yes, it's meant to allow any one of the three criteria to be met, including poeple who have never been convicted but are widely considered to have been criminals, like Oswald.   Will Beback  talk  15:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If Oswald were living, this would be a WP:BLP violation. Alternatively, classifying John Hinckley Jr. would be a violation of WP:BLP in my opinion, though many people may agree. This policy would also classify Jennifer Wilbanks as an American Criminal, which I believe is overkill and also perhaps violates the spirit of WP:BLP. I would not oppose posing this question for discussion, with examples cited as to how changing the criteria would affect classification. JustGettingItRight (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we agree that with the or operator, the solely notable criterion adds people, rather than removes people, in the interest of WP:BLP, I'm going to revert the criterion for now to the prior version. I don't mean this to be a confrontational edit, just a temporary one, and I still want to discuss (promptly this time???) the merits of this criterion. Perhaps it could be reworded. JustGettingItRight (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The particular criterion under dicussion in this thread doesn't involve Oswald, since he is alleged to have committed a felony. I don't understand what BLP issue there is for including people in this category who are solely notable for committing a crime. The or issue seems secondary (either they've committed a notable felony or are solely notable for committing a lesser crime.) Please explain the reason why this criterion is so objectionable.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any more discussion of why this criterion was removed. If there's nothing more I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• This has been deleted again, now with a claim that there was a consensus for the deletion. I can't see any discussion of the deletion or any logic for it. Please restore it unless there's a good reason why people who are solely notable for committing a crime shouldn't be categorized under the "criminals" category.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see above. I posted this discussion topic over a month and a half ago and albeit lightly discussed, it did receive consensus. I guess since this category is lightly traversed, it did not garner attention, but that was not for intention of not seeking comment. The version with the solely notable criterion violates WP:BLP in my opinion as it would ensnare people adjudged innocent. JustGettingItRight (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of the removal of this criterion. Please quote any commentary about it. By comparion, please see the full discussion of it last year here: [5].   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And by what logic would "Can claim notability solely because of the crime" "ensnare people adjudged innocent"? Can you give an example of an article about someone who is adjudged innocent of a crime yet are solely notable for committing it?   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Solely notable criterion (with or operator)

According to David, if we leave the solely notable criterion with the "and" operator, we have a too strict criterion. Specifically, OJ Simpson could not be considered an American criminal for his robbery conviction, even though we have a separate article for his robbery case. Do you believe OJ Simpson is an American criminal for his notable robbery conviction? I personally believe he is and concede David's point from last year.

This criterion was initially created, we can presume, with the "and" operator in mind. You now put an "or" operator in its place while leaving the sentence parts intact, you have just changed the entire meaning of the sentence. Specifically, are John Hinckley Jr. (not convicted of attempted murder but solely notable because of his asassination attempt on Ronald Reagan) and Jennifer Wilbanks (solely notable for having an emotional breakdown, running away, and making a false report to police)) would be American criminals. I believe this is overkill and would violate WP:BLP. We have other categories to accurately classify these two individuals.

Please discuss. Does the solely notable criterion violate the spirit of WP:BLP? If so, why? If not, why not? JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

According to whom was it created with and in mind? If it is clear that people have committed notable crimes then I don't see how BLP is violated by reporting that in their articles. Being convicted and jailed is a more important aspect of a person's life than which college they attended, or other categories we routinely apply. BLP is only triggered if we're making poorly sourced assertions. In such cases the answer is to delete the category from the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"BLP is only triggered if we're making poorly sourced assertions." I disagree. BLP is also implicated if adding the well-sourced assertion places undue weight on one aspect of the living person's biography. To note, in a short well-sourced paragraph, that Peter Yarrow was convicted of a crime --- giving sufficient details about the crime --- is qualitatively different from labelling him an "American Criminal" on the Peter Yarrow page and automatically listing him on a page that makes no distinction between Yarrow and Willie Horton. It gives Yarrow's conviction undue weight.

BLP is not implicated when considering Otto Kerner or Leadbelly, because they're both dead, but I think the principle applies here too. Kerner's late in life conviction must be noted, as must Leadbelly's early violent history, in the articles about them. But labelling each an American Criminal on their page, and including them on a category page with Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, not only gives their crimes too much weight but borders on indecent. David in DC (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as possible, every article about criminals should be in a subcategory, so that a thief isn't in the same category as a murderer. Yarrow is a special case, which we've argued over enough. The criteria call for a criminal category to be added only if the crime is a notable felpny, or if the subject's notability derives solely from the crime. If it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article then it's notable enough to use as a category. Wikipedia is not the entity labelling these folks as criminals - that's the job of the justice system or history. We're just noting a major characteristic of individuals. Getting back to the subject at hand - is there any dispute about the use of or?   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Will, it seems as if you want to include some people convicted of notable misdemeanors in this category. What if we follow the FBI's NCIC definition (combined with Wikipedia's criterion of notability) and add the criterion notable serious misdemeanor, which means a misdemeanor with a potential jail time of one year or more (this would be equivalent to a "class A" misdemeanor in Texas, for example). Of course, there are policy and BLP implications with such a word change, and I don't know if I personally support it (give me a few hours to think about it), but such a wording will ensure that those acquitted of crimes will not be classified as American criminals (IMO, we CANNOT do the former without violating BLP ... John Hinckley Jr. cannot be classified as an American criminal, regardless of how much he may or may not deserve it) and also those convicted of minor misdemeanors (like a first time DWI) will not be classified as American criminals. JustGettingItRight (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone is notable because of a crime, then it is logical to include them in a criminal category. I don't see why it would be a BLP violation to include Hinckley in a category of assassins. No one has ever (to my knowledge) disputed the fact that he tried to assassinate a US president, which is a criminal act. Hinckley may be criminally insane, and thus not fully responsible for his actions, but that doesn't mean that a crime didn't occur.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Legally, a crime did not occur. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, but let's stick with discussing this category. Is there any issue about the or/and matter that needs to be resolved? The issue of the deleted criteria is still outstanding in the thread above.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is germane to the discussion at hand as it most probably would be a violation of WP:BLP to classify an innocent as an American criminal. To answer your question about going back to the and operator, I think that issue has been resolved, as the and operator leads to a totally different criterion than the one you wish to have, and we have determined it to be "too strict", though I'm sure we could rediscuss it. However, David, it is interesting that you don't consider Otto Kerner to be an "American Criminal". I know you're not advocating this, but we can't loosen the criterion for some people and not for others. If you don't want a too strict criterion, whereby a person is an American criminal only if that crime would have been notable even if the person were not notable already, then Otto Kerner would be an American criminal. In fact, I would argue since we're talking about public corruption, even under that "too strict" criterion, Otto Kerner would still be an "American Criminal." To everybody, the wording of this criteria matters immensly as we wish to apply to standard uniformly. We cannot rely on a faulty ignore all rules premise or let's just be reasonable premise for including people in this category. Without a clear definition, that means what it says, the inevitable result will be edit wars, potential violations of WP:BLP, and allegations of bias. JustGettingItRight (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Kerner be categorized as a criminal? He was convicted of a felony and the case was notable. The criteria we had was very clear and I don't see the problem with it. I'm afraid I'm just not understanding your objection or what it is that you want to be different.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Answers and a proposal for a radical overhaul

• Hinckley was acquitted. He was found "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity." It's not just that he wasn't convicted. He was acquitted. He cannot be placed in the category of American criminals. Under American law, he is most assuredly not a criminal. If the language of this category permits him to be categorized as an American criminal, the language is fatally flawed.
• "If it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article then it's notable enough to use as a category." It should be no surprise that I disagree. We exercise editorial judgment. A fact, placed in context and properly sourced, may be enough. Adding a derogatory category like American criminal may add undue weight. It's especially important in a BLP.
• Otto Kerner played a critical role in identifying the class- and race-based causes of the urban unrest of the sixties. It's the most notable thing he did. His later conviction for graft is notable and well-sourced and belongs in his article. But the addition of the derogatory category "American criminal" gives his conviction undue weight in an encyclopedic treatment of his life. Categories are not meant to be exhaustive. That's what our policy says. If they're not meant to be exhaustive, we're responsible to make well-considered editorial judgments. For the life of me I cannot understand why the editor of an encyclopedia would advocate abdicating that responsibility in favor of mechanistic application of a category that so clearly demands adult, nuanced, careful, case-by-case handling.
• "let's stick with discussing this category". O.K. This is how it should read:
  

Introduction

This category is not intended to be exhaustive. It is intended to be illustrative. Application of derogatory categories, like those labelling a person as a criminal, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, mindful of the danger of giving a particular aspect of a person's biography undue weight.

Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations
Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics.

Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal".

Furthermore,

• Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignation can be marked as such). See also Wikipedia:Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding robotized operations.

• 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.

• Double check: Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The Wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. In order to avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point and inoffensive. Create a new category that better serves what you want to communicate, rather than using an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article....

• Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories....

Guidelines for inclusion and exclusion of the American Criminal category

(A) For inclusion in the American Criminal category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a notable felony by a federal criminal court of the United States, or by a state, county, city, district, or territorial criminal court in the United States.

(B) Impeachments are not criminal convictions and do not qualify a person for inclusion in this category. Neither are acquittals by reason of insanity. These too are not criminal convictions and do not qualify a person for inclusion in this category.

(C) Convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases where a conviction has been sealed or expunged, and cases resulting in a conviction that is subsequently overturned, dismissed, or reopened with a new trial do not qualify a person for inclusion in this category.

(D) Some people shall also be eligible for inclusion in this category if they have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but gone unconvicted for reasons unrelated to a lack of proof. Such reasons include (1) death during the commission of a crime where the allegation of criminal activity is undisputed, (2) undisputed confession, (3) death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or (4) being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

David in DC (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you're proposing an entirely new criteria for this category? I don't see that problem with the existing category criteria. Should Kerner be categorized as a criminal? Sure. He may have done good things, but he also accepted bribes. Those bribes led to his conviction and his resignation as a judge, so they had a major effect on his life, career, and reputation. If this is about Kerner then let's addres that directly rather than changing the criteria just to accomodate one individual.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A slightly tweaked proposal from the one above

I like where you're going with this, David. It essentially conveys the same criteria, but it's much better worded. I have some amendments, that go back to the "too strict" criterion (and actually a bit further than that), but it keeps people like Otto Kerner out of the American Criminal category. That being said, you keep Otto Kerner out, you keep OJ Simpson out as well, which should be fine in further retrospect as there already is an article about his robbery case. The American Criminal tag just adds insult in both of these cases. We already know that Otto Kerner and OJ Simpson have been convicted of crimes. Their inclusion in this category adds little encyclopedic value. I would not keep the underlined or bold font in the actual definition, should it be adopted. This is just for ease of analysis right now.

(A) For inclusion in the American Criminal category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a notable felony by a federal criminal court of the United States, or by a state, county, city, district, or territorial criminal court in the United States.

(B) Impeachments are not criminal convictions and do not qualify a person for inclusion in this category. Neither are acquittals by reason of insanity. These too are not criminal convictions and do not qualify a person for inclusion in this category.

(C) Convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases where a conviction has been sealed or expunged, and cases resulting in a conviction that is subsequently overturned, dismissed, or reopened with a new trial do not qualify a person for inclusion in this category.

(D) Some people shall also be eligible for inclusion in this category if they have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but gone unconvicted for reasons unrelated to a lack of proof. Such reasons include (1) death during the commission of a crime where the allegation of criminal activity is undisputed, (2) undisputed confession, (3) death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or (4) being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

(E) The criminal act used to classify the individual as an American Criminal must be the most notable item in the individual's biography.

JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's out of line. How many categories have comparable criteria?   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they don't opens the category for abuse. When I think American Criminal, I think of someone who is a professional criminal. I don't think of someone who has screwed up once or twice in his or her life. Wikipedia is not used to tag loaded labels on people and we need to be very careful how this tag is applied. Specifically, American criminal in this sense does not, nor should not, mean anybody with a criminal record. This would violate the spirit of WP:BLP and only serves as an insult. If it were not for some of these qualifiers, I guarantee you partisans would tag George W. Bush for his DWI conviction, the Bush twins for their MIPs, and Barack Obama for his admitted cocaine use. We'd have a firestorm. I've had to delete some of the categorizations in American fraudsters today because they were blatantly false and definitely WP:BLP violations. Aside from this category's definition, there is no definition on that category. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous people who are very notable for their crimes but who are not "professional criminals". The existing criteria does not include "anybody with a criminal record", and strawman arguments won't help clarify the issue. Let's use the BLP noticeboard to gain input on whether categorizing criminals as criminals is a BLP violation.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it before you suggested it. Great minds warped along the same curve, I guess. David in DC (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous consensus version:

• Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a notable felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), or
• Can claim notability solely because of the crime, or
• Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

I make my proposal because of this excerpt from the Wikipedia categorization policiesguidelines:

Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations
Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics.

Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal".

Furthermore,

• Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignation can be marked as such). See also Wikipedia:Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding robotized operations.

• 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.

• Double check: Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The Wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. In order to avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point and inoffensive. Create a new category that better serves what you want to communicate, rather than using an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article....

• Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories....

Nowhere in the line of arguments advocating a policy that "If s/he was convicted of a crime, then s/he's a criminal" can I find any deference, heed, notice (or even glancing, over-the-shoulder concern) for these explicit caveats about this specific topic - the categorization of people. Heavens to Betsy, the very first line says "[b]e aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics." The very first example cautions against categorizing a politician convicted of a crime as a criminal. It directs us to characterize the act, not the person.

Hmmm. That sounds familiar. It sounds a lot like editorial discretion. It sounds a lot like things advocates of change have been scrivening.

The American criminals category is a mess and has been for quite some time. We should take the time to get the policy right, and then apply it, case by case, to the current inhabitants of the American criminal category page. A lot of folks, dead and alive, are being evaluated by tabloid editorial philosophy rather than encyclopedic editorial philosophy. It's a shame. It's a blot on our good name. And it's against Wikipedia categorization policyguidelines. Applied to living people, it's against policy. David in DC (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this lengthy argument out of the RfC, which is really intended for outside input (or at least less-involved editors).   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd still love to hear why the quoted words of the WP guidelines on categorization of people aren't relevent. Because if they are, it's impossible to square them with the "anyone convicted of a crime is a criminal" approach:

"Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics.

Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal"."

That's a direct quote from the guidelines. Why is this a hard question? And have you noticed that I'm supposed to let uninviolved parties post to the RfC, but Will is supposed to answer each contribution? What's up with that? David in DC (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't say, "don't do it". It says it's more controversial. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's incorrect. Many categorizations are controversial. That's no reason to redefine categories to avoid all possible controversy - it just means that we should define categories with clear, logical criteria. The suggestions above are unnecessarily complex and address a non-existent problem.   Will Beback  talk  17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's regrettable that you find the suggestions above over-complex. I disagree with the adjective "unecessarily". Unsurprisingly, I disgree with the adjective "non-existent", too. David in DC (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to any other category with such a complex criteria? What is wrong with the criteria we had before?   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)