Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New paragraph suggested to perpatrators Section

Answer to fritz' question when he reverted my edit: I've added a paragraph to the perpatrators section that, if adopted, would help resolve a knotty dispute in the American Criminals category. David in DC (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:-) Yes, I saw you say this in the Opinions section. But you still haven't said what that problem is? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many articles carrying the "American Criminals" category are not primarily notable for their crimes. I've been working to fix that, but it's hard. This language might help. Check out the RfC on the American Criminals talk page for the ongoing debate. Check out my contribution history for cases I've pulled the tag from like Billy Preston, Kendra James, Eugene Hasenfus.David in DC (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to the RfC? I can't actually find it anywhere Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here 'tis: [1] David in DC (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Why is this here? Can't we just use WP:NOT#NEWS or some other guideline" - a rationale

I thought this might be a useful discussion point, having written this elsewhere to provoke interest. The guideline was originally written with AfD conflicts in mind, as stated on the project page. The general problem at the AfDs was the conflict between the notability guidelines allowing inclusion if covered sufficiently by reliable, third-party sources, and between WP:NOT#NEWS which has some isolated statements that can be interpreted against inclusion or as irrelevant to the debate.

Consider the text: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopaedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)"

When used in debate, the first sentence became a fight between "won't know it is historical until later, but it is notable now per WP:N" vs. "wait for it to become historical before inclusion"

The next two sentences in the debates could either be split apart to favour exclusion using the "not all events warrant an encyclopaedia of their own". or read together with the second sentence clarifying the first, meaning that not everything in a newspaper is valid for inclusion, such as announcements, sports and tabloid journalism.

The remaining parts of this paragraph were the source of debate, but this seems to be resolved with the criteria in place at this guideline should it be adopted. However, the proposed guideline also attempts to interpret the conflicting interpretations of NOT#NEWS in relation to criminal acts. This is likely to be the trickiest thing, although the building consensus on Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions suggests the balance is right so far - that said, this should still be a topic for discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fritz, this is just more well intentioned WP:CREEP as attempts to put bandaids on a flawed AfD system. It was tagged rejected last month, but resurected with unfulfilled promisses of progress. It seems time to bury the dead horse -- mark rejected. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  I appreciate your opinion, but I can't say much more on the creep issues that hasn't been covered above or on the opinions subpage. And I didn't resurrect it - User:Fuhghettaboutit did and gave a rationale for doing so. Discussion may be scant, but it is taking place - I guess these things take time. That said, it shouldn't be allowed to run indefinitely, but I'm not personally sure the timing is right yet. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with Fritzpoll, K. Murray. What's the rush? There is no dead horse to kick yet (and if there were, would he be notable for his one event, that of being dead?) These things take time. Fuhghettaboutit said it sometimes takes several months or over a year to establish a new, relevant guideline. This one needs no "kill" button yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD for a biographical article on a criminal act

I just now started a new AfD for a biographical article on a perpetrator known for a single event. The event received worldwide news media attention, but just 2-1/2 years it seems to be largely forgotten, so I judged that it would be best covered in the article about the military base where the event occurred. People interested in this proposed guideline may be interested in considering how this particular AfD relates to the guideline (and vice versa). --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Serial Killers

I'm really no good at writing things, I'd rather leave it to others. I'd like to propose that we include something small on the topic of low victim serial killers. I've ran into an issue (self contemplation really) when I was planning to create an article on an individual who is in books, web sites, and other indexes on serial killers, but has only killed 2 people. Hes been related to people like Henry Lee Lucas, on the topic of false claims/confessions (and as far as I have read, it can't be established as of yet that he hadn't killed more). But I'm just not sure of his notability. I have several sources (nytimes, news week, book references) and I'm ready to create it, but I'd like to see other opinions now. Any thoughts? — _Maggot^Syn 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What about creating it in your userspace first with refs? I'd be happy to look it over before it goes live and give you advice. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand. I was already thinking about my sandbox. I was using it as an example of possibly adding to this proposal (I can write a bit for articles, what I meant was: I'm not good at amendments to proposals). Any thoughts along those lines? — _Maggot^Syn 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be too daft here or noncommittal, but I'll simply say "depends". For example, if you have an article subject that is notable, ie multiple independent sources, a long timeline of events, book references that analyze his particular case, crimes, confessions, claims, and their merits, it would pass notability. A "buddy" of mine way way back in high school killed 3 people in a drunken stupor, with a shotgun. Got wrote up in the local paper, the court case was all over the news. He's not notable though, never been written about outside that event. See the difference? As for updating the language of the proposed policy, I don't think it would be necessary to add more too it. At its conception, it was meant as a "general policy" to cover "specific news items". Sorry for rambling, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Borderline guideline criteria mentioned for serial killers is what I'd like to see still (I'm particular for the written word; nothings set in stone, but it is still on topic for this proposal). I do realize that asking that this be put into this proposal might be a bit redundant to other guidelines, but if I'm not mistaken, other editors also think that too many add ons such as this proposal itself to BLP is also redundant. If I'm wrong then tell me. I'm just looking to add to it, for thoroughness. — _Maggot^Syn 16:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're slowly convincing me...hmm. Ok, the "perpetrators" section already reads (in part) for justifying an article on a perpetrator: the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy. Generally this will be case if books have been written about the criminal (bolding mine). What if we wording that more along the lines of the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy. Generally this will be case if books have either been written entirely about a criminal or heavily cite a criminal's actions as noteworthy. (bolded change). Thoughts? Tweaks? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)I'd have to give this more thought, after work I'll get back to you. — _Maggot^Syn 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounded good. Although I think what I was getting at was an actual criteria to determine how notable a serial killer has to be, to justify an article. Does that make more sense? And apologies. It took me this long just to say that. Synergy 20:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I saw this, no need to ping my talk. I'll respond shortly (or maybe I'll take 6 weeks like you did :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. I figured your watchlist to be three times the size mine is, and as such, would have made this page land somewhere in the middle. I edit proven wrong (which means I'll wait as long as you did). Synergy 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the guideline to reflect the sentence above. That said, this kinda feels like a "dying effort" really (no pun intended). At least, until another "nobody" gets murdered and makes it on CNN...Keeper ǀ 76 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. This is not specifically for new serial killers. There are a few that date back to the 19th century, and happen to be what I'm talking about. These would be marginal biographies that could possibly be deleted under the pretense that they are only in a few published works, and newpapers. Synergy 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Write em up! Actually, what I would do, is write up a List of serial killers from the 19th century, with subsections of the serial killers' names. Write a paragraph about each person's "story/crimes/motives/patterns". If you can't feasibly see anyone, yourself included, writing more than a paragraph, don't write an article (stubs are good; perpetual stubs on the other hand...). The subject matter is definitely notable, and I imagine, regardless of this (unadopted, non-) guideline, that you wouldn't need to worry about a mass-deletion (although the irony of a "mass deletion" would be thick...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to prove I still care...the guideline as it stands is good, but I think the more fundamental issue is probably the way WP:N is structured. That said, it will take a crime for this to become a hot topic again....perhaps we could take affirmative action ourselves in that regard? :-P Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You said you need a new one?. How about the CEO of Minnesota's largest florist outfit (Bachman's Garden Center) being killed overseas during the Olympics? An American, killed in China, while a tourist. Connected to an Olympian coach. That should be interesting. It's already at AFD. Keeper ǀ 76 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How to title murder articles

Perhaps this policy should address more specifically how to approach the naming of murder cases. Currently, articles tend to be named after the victim. This seems to me to be counterintuitive to writing an article about the crime when the subject appears to be a biography of the victim. So instead of an article being named Gwen Araujo it should be named Murder of Gwen Araujo. I think a clear policy in this area would be helpful in order to prevent biographical articles on victims.Nrswanson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is actually mentioned within the proposed guideline. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• This has become a controversy at Matthew Shepherd. While naming an article for the crime makes sense when the focus of an article is exclusively about the crime, that may not be the end of the equation. In some cases, the victim's life is fully covered in the article, and in a few cases the victim becomes a symbol. In those instances, using the victim's name seems more appropriate. Also, in the name of parity, should we look at how we treat the criminals? Certainly Jack the Ripper is known only for his murders. Yet I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting moving that article to Murders by Jack the Ripper. Overall, I'm thinking that the "Crime of..." format may be best suited to lesser crimes, or at least allowed considerable flexibility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title I would make a motion to strike the words:

For example, a high profile crime would have an article entitled "Murder of Joe Bloggs", "Disappearance of Jane Doe", etc.

Replacing them with:

The article title should be the most common name used by the media, or either the victim's name or the perpetrator's, but should cover the event, and not become a biography, until and unless they become notable.

Everyone who becomes notable becomes notable beginning with an initial event, for example, Charles Manson has long ago passed the notability test, but initially, the event was what would be covered, not any of the individuals involved (other than Sharon Tate). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

This page had been sitting around with a "dormant" tag on it and no discussion for more three months and all of a sudden I see that it's now become an official Wikipedia guideline. Please pardon my ignorance, but I'm curious. Who makes the decisions about what becomes an official guideline, and where are they made? BRMo (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, just seems someone thought this was a good enough idea that had enough consensus behind it to become a guideline. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to ask for some additional discussion. BRMo (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The poll at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions#RfC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be adopted as a guideline? was quite clear. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BRMo: Do see any problem with this being a guideline? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if it was dormant, it should not have suddenly been adopted like that. Suggest we begin discussion/poll again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Handled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Need_a_closing_admin by BlackKite per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_process. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, if there is an issue with this, a new discussion on whether the consensus which was clearly present at the time is still relevant would be welcome. Black Kite 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Like to see what BRMo thinks about it, and then see where I stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The process seems strange to me - not sure why an administrator wasn't called in to close the discussion months ago, before the proposal was marked as dormant. I had a long discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions page with User:Fritzpoll in which I think he agreed in principle to make some amendments, but I don't believe he ever made them. So I guess I'll be bold and edit the guidelines myself to address my concerns and see if anyone objects. There were also some concerns raised about canvassing on the opinions page; I'm not sure how that was resolved. But if no one else objects here, I won't stand in the way of making this a guideline. BRMo (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I guess it is a 27th amendment sort of thing, dormant does not mean dead. I won't stand in the way either.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I always felt it was odd that this was never promoted. Glad to see someone finally took initiative.Nrswanson (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree that there is certainly an element of impropriety in going from dormant to guideline. Once it has been marked dormant that nullifies any prior discussion, and to become a guideline a new discussion would need to be initiated. I suggest in the meantime it be marked as under discussion, and a new poll be taken. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Political violence

Can we please clarify that this guideline does not, at least in its current form, apply to criminal acts of a political nature, such as acts of terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and so on? While this guideline could be adjusted to cover these types of crimes, its current focus clearly is on crimes by individuals against individuals. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - I imagine these kind of crimes would have substantial coverage that would fall under the GNG though, so it may not be necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)