User:FormerIP/Crime

There is no policy or principle stating that articles related to crime should be treated any differently to any other articles on Wikipedia. However, various policies do have an impact on how articles about individual crimes should be treated and, in some respects, there are clear patterns of best practice which should be followed in deciding how to give coverage to individual crimes.

Single events and dissociability

General presumption against content forks

There is a general presumption on Wikipedia that multiple articles should not be created to cover the same subject matter. This presumption operates with added strength against the creation of articles dedicated to people notable for only one event and even more so against the creation of articles dedicated to such people who are still alive.

Victims, witnesses, lawyers, investigators and others notable only for their association with a crime or sequence of crimes should not, therefore, normally have biographical articles dedicated to them. Perpetrators of crime not notable for other reasons may have biographical articles dedicated to them, provided such an article would not be an unnecessary content fork and the perpetrator is covered publicly in other media.

Material concerning an individual crime or a series of related crimes should normally be covered within a single article. Where appropriate, this may be an article covering a wider topic than the crime itself - for example, minor offenses committed by the actress Winona Ryder are covered in the article about her.

There may, however, be conditions where the general presumption against multiple articles loses its force.

Legitimate spinout articles

Topics concerning a crime or series of crimes should be covered in multiple articles if a single article would be excessively long. Excessively long would normally be articles that have more than 6000 words.

Where an article appears to be poorly written, unbalanced, excessively detailed or insufficiently sourced, consideration should be given to whether it could be improved in a way that would reduce its size before a decision to split the article is made.

The standard process for splitting an article is to reduce one of its sections to a short summary, placed below a section template. The previous contents of the section should then be used to form the basis of a new article.

Criteria for spinning-out

In deciding which section of an article to spin out, the following should be considered:

Is there enough information in the section to make it worth spinning out?
How easily dissociable is the section from the rest of the article? In some cases, the new article may need much of the content of the old one in order to make sense - if this is the case it is not easily dissociable and may be a poor choice for a spinout. Care should also be taken as to whether it is proper with respect to neutrality to dissociate a person from a crime they were involved in. Accordingly, there is no spinout article for Murder of Lana Clarkson, an event which looms large in the life of Phil Spector, whereas there is a spinout for Wall of Sound.
If the section is about an individual, would it be a BLP violation to spin it out? This will not always be the case, but BLP policy requires that a conservative attitude be taken in this regard.
If the section is about an individual, how important is their role in relation the events and compared to other individuals mentioned in the article? If an individual is notable only for a particular crime or sequence of crimes, then both the events concerned and the individual's role in those events, as reflected in reliable sources, should be highly significant before a spinoff article is considered.
Where, for example, there are multiple participants in a crime, it should also be considered whether, it is balanced to treat any one of them differently from the others. It may be if, for example, one participant is clearly the principal perpetrator of the crime or crimes in question. However, caution should be exercised in judging this purely on the basis of the extent to which the media has focussed on that person.
Is the section about the victim of a crime who is not otherwise notable? In this case, the section should not be spun out.
Articles should not be spun out in such a way that no single article contains a coherent account of the crime or crimes concerned.

Notability for multiple events

Where an individual is notable for more than one event, it will be appropriate to have a biographical article dedicated to them, regardless of the above considerations. This may apply where otherwise notable people are the victims of crime (e.g. Ronald Reagan was the subject of an assassination attempt). Kenneth Noye is an example of someone who is notable for being involved in a major robbery and also for committing an unrelated murder. Elizabeth Smart is notable as a victim of crime and also subsequently as an advocate for victims of crime.

This principle is not only applicable to people. For example, there are separate articles on the 2009 Bank of Ireland robbery and the Bank of Ireland.

Renown

The renown of an individual connected to a crime or sequence of crimes is not normally, in itself, considered sufficient reason for the creation of a biographical spinout article dedicated to that individual. Some extremely well-known criminals do not have articles dedicated solely to them: Myra Hindley, Lyle Menendez, Jon Venables, Ian Huntley, Dylan Klebold, Talmadge Hayer, Scott Roeder, Bonnie Parker.

Where a criminal is of very high renown and there is a large amount of encyclopaedic background biographical content about them to be found in reliable sources, in additional to material about their crimes, a spinoff article may be legitimate. This is the case, for example, for Seung-Hui Cho.

Where a criminal is of such renown that they have the status of being a significant historical or cultural figure, as is the case with Guy Fawkes and Lee Harvey Oswald, then it is likely to be appropriate for Wikipedia to host a biographical article about them (although in most such cases, there will be legitimate reasons for a spinoff article anyway).

Naming of articles about crimes

Common practice

Commonly-followed practice on Wikipedia is:

Articles should not be named after people who are notable only for being the victim of a crime or for being associated with a crime as a witness or in a professional capacity.
Where someone associated with a crime has independent notability (for example, Jill Dando is a murder victim and is also notable as a television presenter) then it will be appropriate to set up an biographical article with that person's name as the title and include details of the relevant crime or crimes within that article.
Where an independently notable person is also the perpetrator of a crime (for example: Phil Spector, Mike Tyson, Hugh Grant), details of the crime should normally be covered within that person's biographical article unless a spinout article is legitimate.
Where a person is notable only for being the sole perpetrator of a crime or sequence of crimes (for example: Ted Bundy), this should normally be covered in a biographical article about that person, focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity.
Where a number of people are notable only for having committed the same crime or sequence of crimes, the crime or crimes should be covered in a single article named after the events to which it relates (for example: Murder of James Bulger).
Where is is clear that a criminal event is commonly known in the English speaking world by a particular name or where there is a commonly used collective name for its perpetrators, then this name should be used, regardless of other considerations (for example: Murder of Philip Lawrence, Bonnie and Clyde).

Accuracy of titles

Titles should be accurate and reflect the balance of reliable sources. For an article to be titled "Murder of..." for example, it should be clear that a murder is generally held to have occurred. In cases where it is established or widely stated that no murder occurred, or where the matter is genuinely unclear, articles should be titled accordingly (for example: Death of David Kelly).

Good taste

Wikipedia is not censored. However, it also strives not to be needlessly offensive or disrespectful. Neutrality is always important in articles related to crimes and the privacy and dignity of living people, as well as the living relatives, friends and associates of deceased people, should be respected.

Wikipedia articles and their content should not be prurient or sensationalistic with regard to crime. A conservative attitude should be taken, for example, in describing events that caused any living person to suffer (including those who knew a deceased crime victim). It will not normally be appropriate for Wikipedia articles, either explicitly or in their presentation, to condone or attempt to apologise for criminal activity or to celebrate or glamorise criminality.

In cases where a criminal is considered to have been treated unjustly by some reliable sources, this should be treated with caution and regard to neutrality (example: Mumia Abu-Jamal). Where a person is widely acknowledged to have been treated unjustly (for example: Alan Turing, Birmingham Six), this should be properly reflected in the article.