Category talk:American fraudsters

This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Crime and Criminal Biography

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related

Law

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw

parameters

Can someone explain what the parameters are for applying this category to articles? Because I've found it being used somewhat indiscriminately across a wide spectrum of people. Some have been convicted of fraud, which would seem to make sense. However, others have been convicted of a range of other crimes, and in some cases it's being used for faith healers and the like. I think the cat needs an intro that explains when to use it. --JJay 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think the category should be limited to those legally convicted of fraud. Though the word can be used more broadly, having the "fraudsters" category applied to someone's article might lead readers to assume someone has been convicted of fraud, when in fact they may not even have been accused of a crime. And even if the category tried to explicitly embrace the broader definition of fraud, we would then have a problem with the subjectivity of applying the category. I think Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Use_of_categories is useful here. --Allen 03:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sabo, well known Con-man should be added to the American fraudsters section.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcimiami (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change title

Category name should be changed to "American people convicted of fraud", a less incendiary and more encyclopedic term. This has actually been done in other articles to my pleasant surprise. Labeling people is unencyclopedic, to put it politely. Student7 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...is the word 'fraudster' even a recognised (ie in the dictionary) word in the English language? --Nozzer71 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently used in Brit and maybe Canadian English. Little used (and therefore sounds funny) in American English. Another good reason for selecting some other wording that would acceptable to every dialect. Student7 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion in 2011. See the relevant discussion and its results.: "(1) Contine to use the term "fraudster", instead of the phrase "person convicted of fraud".

"The primary reasoning behind this option was that the two expressions "are synonymous" (User:Will Beback; 01:21, 26 January 2011), and definitions of the word "fraudster"—"a person who engages in fraud", "one who commits fraud"—in Merriam-Webster Online (link ) and the Oxford English Dictionary were cited as evidence (access to OED appears to require subscription, but the quote is accepted in good faith). Another point was that categories for people by crime (see Category:Criminals by crime) follow the same format." Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not considered disruptive to nominate an article or category to be renamed every six months. Less than that has seemed counter-productive in the past. Nominating a "labelling" category for renaming every six months would be beneficial IMO. It would take the high moral ground (npov) in documenting what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. So a "discussion" once over, is not over permanently when it comes to renaming or merging or whatevering an article or category. Student7 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Criminal" categories removed.

Per BLP, this category absolutely cannot be included in a "Criminal" category, because any number of people listed in this category have never been convicted of any crime. Someone who is sued under civil laws and is found liable for (or admits to) fraudulent behavior may be a fraudster but they are not a criminal.

There exists an appropriate subcategory for people who have been convicted in a court of law of criminal charges of fraud. Such people *are* criminals and can be categorized as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since maximizing labeling is obviously high on somebody's list, it would be more accurate (a Wikipedia goal) to break the category into two separate categories: "Persons accused of fraud" and "Persons convicted of fraud." Student7 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]