Category talk:Criminals by nationality

Move

I propose renaming or deleting this category. I've gone into detail why on Talk:Mordechai Vanunu and Category talk:Israeli criminals. See below. Lapsed Pacifist 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

From the Vanunu page:

Category:Israeli criminals

A criminal is a person who has committed a crime. A person who has been convicted of one is a convict. Many criminals have never been convicts, and many convicts have never been criminals. If the category is to stay, it has to be reworded.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Then to be consistent, you must make the wider proposal to rename Category:Criminals by nationality and all of its many subcategories. – Smyth\talk 18:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC) OK.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There's thirteen national subcategories in Category:Criminals by nationality. Only Israel and Poland have this definition, which I consider subjective: "citizens or permanent residents who have been convicted of crime by an independent court of justice." The others have none, so I don't see the problem with them.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

One cannot subjectively decide who is or isn't a criminal, certainly not on Wikipedia; the only way it can be decided is if someone is convicted of a crime in a court of law by an independent judiciary. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) A criminal does not suddenly become a criminal when he is convicted. He becomes a convict. The definition given for Poles and Israelis is inaccurate, and cannot stand.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There must be some objective criteria for deciding who a criminal is, otherwise people just make subjective judgements, and soon we have George W. Bush in the list of American criminals, Fidel Castro in the list of Cuban criminals, Yasser Araft in the list of Palestinian criminals, etc. You can't decide on your own who a criminal is or isn't, and any attempt to apply your own purely subjective critera cannot stand. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC) I think the problem here is that LP thinks that "criminal" = "a person who has committed a crime", while Jayjg thinks that "criminal" = "a person who has been convicted of a crime". Both definitions are reasonable, and whether you support Vanunu or not, you must agree that he fits both of them. – Smyth\talk 16:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Criminal" is still a subjective term. Many contend that Vanunu should be celebrated for what he did, as others do for Castro, Bush and Arafat. In order to have "objective criteria for deciding who a criminal is", we must have similarly objective criteria for deciding what a crime is. In Iran, adultery is a crime. In Singapore, chewing gum in a public place makes one a criminal. This is not the case in the United States or most of the western world. Most people would consider Adolf Hitler a war criminal, yet as he was never convicted of war crimes, by Jayjg's definition he is not. I have no intention of deciding on my own who is and who is not a criminal, which is why I am writing these lines. If some believe I'm being subjective, well, you're entitled to believe what you like.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but if "Israeli criminal" means "person who has committed or been convicted of a crime in Israel", doesn't he still fit? I'm not sure if it is a useful category, but it could certainly be a valid one. (I have nothing against Vanunu, mind you) --Fastfission 14:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's the definition given for just Israelis and Poles, but no other nationalities. My points are that someone convicted of a crime is not necessarily a criminal, and that many criminals (e.g. Jack the Ripper) have never been convicted of any crime, which is why I consider it a subjective definition.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you don't go by people who are convicted of crime, then you have no possible way of coming up with anything objective. Who decides, if not a court of law; Wikipedia editors? Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If we go by people who are convicted of a crime, then we have exactly that: people convicted of a crime. Courts of law don't make criminals. Crimes do. Don't underestimate Wikipedia editors, we're not doing too badly so far.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me make this very clear: are you proposing that: the "... Criminals" categories all have a restriction placed on them that the person in question is currently viewed as being a criminal by the legal system of any country whatsoever; and people not fitting these criteria, including Jack the Ripper, but not including Vanunu, are removed from the categories? I think a more sensible proposal would be to rename the categories to "People convicted of a crime in (country)", and then recategorise them by the convicting country, rather than the convict's nationality. – Smyth\talk 17:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC) Independent courts are the bodies best suited to determining whether or not people have committed crimes; certainly far better than Wikipedia editors, who are, in any case, forbidden from making these determinations under the WP:NOR rule. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC) But how can we determine whether a court is "independent"? Isn't that making a judgement about the integrity of a country's legal system? – Smyth\talk 16:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC) The U.S. State Department produces an annual report on Human Rights in countries, which includes how independent their judiciary is:[9]. I'm fairly sure Freedom House does as well, but right now their website is hanging my browser. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu was convicted of a crime. Jack the Ripper was not. I don't think it's very original research to accuse someone who cuts up women of being a criminal. Why not present the facts without unnecessary labels, and let users make up their own minds? I'm not going to go into how independent the State Department's view might be. Did it consider the British courts in India to be independent? That would make Gandhi an Indian criminal.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

... and all of this would be avoided if the categories were by the convicting country rather than the convict's country of origin. I'd guess that 9 times out of 10 these will be the same. – Smyth\talk 21:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Hmm, it seem the issue has been discussed. Yeah, I saw the article and almost went nuts. I was planning to whine bitterly here, but then found a lenthy discussion. I don't think conviction by country is also far. Just be real please, if you look at the other people in that category, they have taken someone else life. How can you put this guy in that group? If he is a criminal, are we supposed to call Aung San Suu Kyi criminal too? Unless someone wants to rename it, I'm going to get rid of it.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do so, as it will just be restored. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It will just be restored? I should walk away?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've proposed a rather unworkable scheme whereby you get to decide who the real "criminals" are, and who aren't, as opposed to some sort of outside body (e.g. an independent Court of Law) making that determination. I don't see how your POV could possibly be compatible with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Where was this scheme proposed? I don't recall doing so. And don't you consider a scheme whereby you get to decide what makes a court independent similarly unworkable? How could anyone's POV be compatible with Wikipedia policy?

Lapsed Pacifist 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest sticking to the criteria of "who is an Israeli criminal" which I defined in this category that I created. Again, the inclusion or non-inclusion in this category is not a value judgment on the character of the individual, only a statement that the person was an Israeli at the time of his trial or any time before and that he was convicted in an independent court. This is the most NPOV way of defining who is a criminal. I do believe there are more criminals out there. They did not pass the same or even similar legal procedures to the three which are now in the category - I am thinking of including Baruch Goldstein - and therefore it would be POV (in the case of Goldstein also my POV) to include them. The criteria maximize the objectivity of the category, whereas our opinions are valid POV, but not more than that. gidonb 02:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You may not have intended a value judgment, but that is how it reads. If the title of the category was more closely related to its definition, perhaps this could be avoided. Neither am I happy with the criteria of using "independent courts". Independent from whom? Politicians? If Iran's courts can be shown to be independent in this way, must Wikipedia consider all Iranian adulterers and homosexuals criminal?

Lapsed Pacifist 20:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, I am very glad you give the example of Iran, because it perfectly illustrates my point. In a non-democracy a court can never be independent, because of the consequences to the judges when acquitting the "wrong" "criminals". gidonb 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I will repeat my edit summary here: Mordechai Vanunu meets the criteria of the category. It is clear POV to only include convicted criminals of one side of Israel's political spectrum, even if one sympathizes with that side of the spectrum. gidon 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't claim Iran's courts were independent, I asked, if they were, would Wikipedia then consider Iranian adulterers and homosexuals criminal? Your reference to sympathy with one side of Israel's political spectrum tells me you're not getting where I'm coming from. Yigal Amir shouldn't be in this category either. Both of these men, in different ways, affected modern Israel. Both were politically motivated. To include them in a category that would be more fitting for pickpockets and pimps trivialises the men, their actions and the consequences of those actions.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've asked about this on the mailing list, and so far the only working definition of a criminal that has been forwarded is someone convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Israeli criminals talk page:

Name of this category I propose to move the category title to more accurately reflect the definition given. Suggestions welcomed.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why the category title does not accurately reflect the definition given, can you explain? Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC) I also cannot see where the category does not accurately reflect the definition given, or vice versa. It seems a very valid member of Category:Criminals by nationality. 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

See Crime; [Category: Israeli criminals (narrow definition)] would be compatible with the second definition. As I've said before on Talk:Mordechai Vanunu, while most people convicted of a crime are indisputably criminals, and many criminals have been convicted of a crime, the two things are not the same.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

We have to use the narrow definition, since any broader definition inevitably involves personal judgement and original research on the part of the editor. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Done.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I undid the name change as there is no consensus on such as a move. gidonb 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nor is there any discernible consensus against, as far as I can see. What exactly is the problem?

Lapsed Pacifist 11:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The current category name is eminently reasonable, and the name you moved it to seems more like an example of WP:POINT than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The current name is a perfect example of WP:POINT.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The current name is according to our policies and runs parallel to all other criminals by country categories. If you wish to add in all cases the criteria in brackets to the definition, this should be raised for all categories. I will oppose such a proposal, as this undermines the efficiency of the Wikipedia categorization system. Right now, however, I get the impression that for some odd reason you want to add additional specifications only to the category Israeli criminals. That would be discriminatory. Please correct if I am wrong and you run similar proposals elsewhere, that will make our entire categorization non-workable. gidonb 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The current name is according to your policies, as you created the category and imposed the definition that entries should have been convicted by an independent judiciary, which is not the same thing as being a criminal. I looked at the other categories for criminals by nationality, and only Poland had the same definition. If the definition is to remain, then yes, that category will also have to be renamed. I don't see why that would make categorisation unworkable. Your impressions are your business.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well did you or did you not run proposals to add to each single one of these categories in brackets (broad definition) and (narrow definition)? By the way, the fact that similar definitions are not included beyond the two categories that you name, does not necessarily mean that in all cases you can include persons that are by your personal POV criminals, without them being removed after a while. Only there is no such warning. A conviction is an NPOV criterion by which one can make this category manageable, no more but especially no less. As you may have noticed, all information that relates to Israel is extremely exposed to politically motivated POV-pushers (with one agenda or another) who are sometimes totally fixated on this area and will never address similar issues across the board. Regards, gidonb 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to go by convictions, then that must be reflected in the category name. If you have a better suggestion, run with it.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You do not answer my questions. I will lay them out, since some were explicit, but others implicit. Do you believe all criteria for all categories should be included in the names of categories? In which cases have you made similar demands, for criminals by country categories, or for any categories? Are there any similar category names to the cumbersome one you are suggesting for criminals by country or any other category? Do you believe it is wise to open the discussion on including selection criteria INSIDE the category name on this page or is this a policy question that effects the entire Wikipedia categorization system that should be discussed elsewhere? gidonb 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Do you believe all criteria for all categories should be included in the names of categories?"

No.

"In which cases have you made similar demands, for criminals by country categories, or for any categories?"

Nowhere.

"Are there any similar category names to the cumbersome one you are suggesting for criminals by country or any other category?"

I wouldn't suggest anything cumbersome.

"Do you believe it is wise to open the discussion on including selection criteria INSIDE the category name on this page or is this a policy question that effects the entire Wikipedia categorization system that should be discussed elsewhere?"

I don't know.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb, you seem determined to enforce your understanding of the word "criminal" (i.e., a person convicted of a crime in a democratic country). You know I'm not happy with this, but if you will be consistent with it, I will let it drop. So, here's what I want you to do:

Go to the articles on Eamon de Valera and Ian Paisley, and insist that they be included in the Irish criminals category. Both were convicted by an independent judiciary of the United Kingdom, the former for illegally entering that state in the '20s, and the latter for illegal assembly in the '60s. Get thee to the George W. Bush article. Obviously, his conviction for drink-driving in the '70s necessitates his inclusion in the American criminals category. If you succeed in this, I promise you I will let the matter rest.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the definition of a criminal, not what happens on the George W. Bush page. Have you come up with a more objective set of criteria? I mean, other than "whoever Lapsed Pacifist thinks is a criminal". Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a definition for a criminal from gidonb and yourself, that a person convicted of a crime is automatically a criminal, and anyone not convicted of a crime cannot be a criminal. I don't like it, but I'm prepared to accept it if you and gidonb are consistent in its application (see above). Given your definition, the Bush page is probably the most glaring example of a criminal (by your definition) whose page does not include them in a criminals category. Which is why I write of it.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't defined what a criminal is; rather, legal systems have done so. You have yet to suggest a more objective definition. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor will I, for the word cannot shake its subjectiveness. As I wrote before, the whole thing reeks of WP:POINT. It has already attracted people with a "Whoopee, someone I don't like has a criminal conviction, so I can call them a criminal" mentality. The futility of attempting the tests above must be obvious to you. Supporters or admirers of Bush, de Valera or Paisley would quickly revert should anyone attempt to brand them criminals. Where do you stand on Wikipedia being unable to label people with criminal convictions (from an independent judiciary) as criminals? Up to now, you've been pretty consistent.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all "criminals" categories be done away with, since (in your view) they are inherently subjective? Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no alternative. While most people (including myself) wouldn't have a problem with most entries, many political and historical figures have convictions for one thing or another, sometimes minor offenses. In my view, it's a potential nightmare.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, you should probably take this to WP:CFD, and suggest there that the entire "Criminals by nationality" category (and its sub-categories) be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) For what it's worth, I disagree with changing the general category of criminals by nationality, I agree the category is consistent, I agree the Israeli criminals section is consistent with the general criminals by nationality categorization, and I disagree that the meaning is subjective. I would also disagree that the idea that poltiical and historical figures having convictions is a challenge to the category's effectivity. To the extent it's felt that those criminal convictions do not impugn their character, this tells us something useful about criminal laws, the people judging character, or both. To the extent that the issue is whether or not the crimes are minor, I would only add that criminal law is generally considered a serious matter, which is why its burden of proof is so high compared to, for instance, civil law, and that consideration of this point should probably proceed through specific examples, if at all. AnotherBDA 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Before I take it to CFD, Jay, I'd welcome your thoughts. AnotherBDA, as you disagree, would you like to try the tests I've set above?

Lapsed Pacifist 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, why don't you try out your challenges? After all you are the one who said he wanted the definitions throughout the categories to be the same or the nuances in the criteria to be reflected, in brackets, in the category names (making them very long). Looks to me that this is your brainchild, you are here supposedly the most concerned with the consistency throughout the criminals by country categories (that do differ, some go by conviction, some do not) and, moreover, the only one who is very knowledgeable on Irish politics. I would not take it away from you. Please report your findings to a CFD since all this has very little to do with Israeli criminals. As things stand now, you remain inconsistent in your search for consistency. A CFD could put an end to this. gidonb 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure I follow. It sounds like the tests you've set out above involve (1) agreeing that Eamonn da Valera, Ian Paisley, and George W. Bush were convicted of infringing criminal law; and (2) acting on that agreement to urge others to include them in this classification. If that's what you'd like me to do, then I must decline; I know nothing about the criminal records of any of the individuals involved, and don't see any good reason to begin researching them. If you would like to undertake that research and convince me that they each have criminal records then, of course, I would naturally support their inclusion in the various criminal categories. Is that what you mean by "try the tests", or would you like to have me spend time in some other way? AnotherBDA 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the futility of those exercises should be obvious. They serve to highlight the impossibility of a consistent neutral approach as regards the definition of a criminal, and raise the question as to whether a past conviction suffices to label someone a criminal, without any explanation as to the gravity of the crime or its relevance to their life. "...some go by conviction, some do not..." is just one example of the arbitrariness of these categories. My knowledge of Irish politics is irrelevant here. The two Irishmen I wrote about were convicted by an independent judiciary in the parliamentary democracy of the United Kingdom. Do you believe they should have [Category:Irish criminals] at the bottom of their pages on the strength of that? This question has everything to do with (take your pick):

Israeli criminals (Wikipedia's narrow definition) Israelis convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary Naughty Israeli people and those of every other nationality. I will probably go to CFD. I'm canvassing opinion here before I do. In closing I repeat the question I asked above and put another: do you believe de Valera and Paisley should have [Category:Irish criminals] at the bottom of their pages on the strength of their convictions? Do you believe Bush should have [Category:American criminals] on the bottom of his page on the strength of his drink-driving conviction?

Lapsed Pacifist 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They all have records. You're unclear as to what level of proof you require. You seem to miss the point. Including any of them in a criminals category wouldn't last, as their supporters would not wear it. There's a double standard operating.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacificist, the persons you refer to - if they are criminals - they are definately not Israeli criminals. I am fine with them being categorized either way. It is of course OK for you to express the same opinions and points time and again, make demands from your collegues in areas we know little or nothing about and to get the same answers from additional particpants, but it does not foster our encyclopedia very much. It would be helpful if you would hold this discussion at the appropriate place. You may get the same answers there as well, or entirely different answers, but the outcome will be much more efficient for everyone. Regards, gidonb 18:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason Wikipedia standards should differ between nationalities. What applies elsewhere should apply here, and vice versa. Going by the definition of a criminal you like so much, it is unnecessary for you to know anything more about the three men I mentioned in order for you to make a judgment on whether or not they are criminals, other than that all were convicted of crimes by independent judiciaries in democratic states. I'm asking you to be consistent in your approach to categorisation.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As you know I would like he categories to be consistent. Knowing Wikipedia, I am unsure however if it is going to work. In an ideal world I think it would. But lets really leave the discussion of non-Israeli criminals for where it ought to be held. gidonb 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category_talk:Israeli_criminals"