Category talk:English criminals

This category is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles

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 articles

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

I'm currently editing Danny John-Jules. He has been found guilty of two counts of battery, and people seem to want to add this category to his biography. I claim that the word 'criminal' implies more than 'has been found guilty of a criminal offence'; that the word 'criminal' implies a habit of criminal behaviour or notoriety for criminal behaviour; that two counts of battery over one's lifetime does not constitute being an English criminal.

Could we have some guidelines for inclusion? - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think it is very simple. Does a person have a criminal record and are they English. If the answer is yes to both then they are English criminals. A crime is a crime, Wikipedia is not judge nor jury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.129.35 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, seems we don't need discussion anymore. Just prevent Anons from editing and put in your own opinion - he is not a criminal. Magic and Wiki at its best!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.129.35 (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battery is not in the Crimes Act in my jurisdiction. Being found guilty of battery probably would not lead to him having a 'criminal record'. As to 'a crime is a crime', there are different levels of seriousness, and the lower types of seriousness, although being considered along with criminal law, do not necessarily constitute a crime. For example, parking tickets are a matter dealt with by criminal law principles, but a person who has received one could hardly be described as a 'criminal'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a parking ticket though is it?

The 47-year-old actor, who starred as Cat in the BBC sitcom, spat at refuse collector Jaroslaw Lisiecki and kicked and punched his son Jan when they refused to empty his recycling bin at his home in north-west London as it contained polystyrene.

If this is not serious enough then maybe the Wiki police could decide just how serious it has to be for inclusion instead of just killing discussion by protecting pages?? No, thought not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.129.35 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see that you yourself have just made a judgement on how serious something is? You've dismissed the criminality of someone who received a parking ticket straight away, yet you wish to enforce it for John-Jules. Our bar (mine and Richard's) is clearly set higher than yours, but that's the issue - it's entirely subjective. I'm not at all happy with this category as a whole, because in a way you're right - a crime is a crime, and by that logic John-Jules should be listed here. However, that, in my opinion, is a clear breach of WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. I'm seriously thinking of listing this page at WP:CFD - I'll do that tonight when I get home. _Talk Islander 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did that get done then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.13.234 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't until tonight, when actually I wrote something in preparation... only to find the definitive (and fairly bloody obvious) answer to all of this: Wikipedia:Categorization of people, specifically: "For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability". _Talk Islander 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm! Or maybe you decided (as an administrator) that your word was law and to not put this up for CFD and thereby obtain consensus in the tried and tested WIKI way????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.13.69 (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at what I linked to above? _Talk Islander 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way of avoiding answering my question - by asking me a question. Are you a lawyer? Yes I have read it. If it is notable to include the narrative about Jules and his conviction then it is also notable to categorize him as a criminal, don't you think? If you think that those categorized as criminals are notable because of their criminal record then perhaps this category needs CFDing as it includes the likes of Axl Rose and Eric Cantona (and many others). Hardly notable for being criminals. I've put it back in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.70.178 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood - a person has to be notable for commiting a crime to be branded a criminal. It is notable that John-Jules commited a crime, hence it should be mentioned it the article, but it's not what he is notable for - there's a very solid difference. _Talk Islander 10:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]