Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Discussion regarding WikiProject Listing for Donald Trump

[edit]

There is a discussion over on Talk:Donald Trump regarding whether said page should be listed under the following WikiProjects: Discrimination, Freedom of Speech, and Law. Since Donald Trump is within the scope of this project, please feel free to share your thoughts on the matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for R v Thomas

[edit]

R v Thomas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gill and Category:British politicians convicted of crimes

[edit]

There is some edit-warring in progress at Nathan Gill, on the basis of whether he should be categorised under Category:British politicians convicted of crimes [1][2][3], or indeed, described as a criminal in the lead [4][5].

The claim is that "per WP:BLPCRIMINAL 'should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability' - he was notable before that happened"

This is wrong, IMHO, on two counts. Firstly, the category becomes an oxymoron is we exclude all notable politicians from a category specifically about politicians who then went on to commit crimes! Secondly, the policy (as usual, the policy itself is fine, it's just being misrepresented) is specific that this exclusion doesn't apply if the offence "is relevant to the person's notability". Nathan Gill was a senior politician within Reform UK but his public profile, even in Wales, has never been large. His notability, indeed his entire existence, is known to most people in the UK simply because of his recent conviction.

The category and description should be included.

Thoughts please? @DeFacto: @Subzero55000: @PatGallacher: @Butterscotch Beluga: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this, just a member of the Wikiproject, but while I'm ambivalent on the category I would oppose the person being described as a criminal in the lead. It is not what he is notable for. And if we were to describe the crime, per MOS:CONVICTEDFELON phrasings like "convicted [x]" are strongly discouraged by the manual of style in the lead. If it is relevant to notability, describe the specific crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Gill article was created in May 2014 and he was convicted in September 2025, so given that WP:NOTABILITY says On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article, he was clearly considered to be notable long before his criminal conviction, hence the conviction had no relevance to his notability.
Given the above:
  • I'm against using that category because it is a BLP contravention. WP:BLPCRIMINAL says, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability. The category in question is such a subcategory and the conviction is not relevant to his notability, so we should not add that category.
  • I'm against that inclusion in the first sentence of the lead beacause it is a MOS contravention. MOS:CRIMINAL says, When the person is primarily notable for a reason other than the crime, principles of due weight will usually suggest placing the criminal description later in the first paragraph or in a subsequent paragraph (e.g. Martha Stewart, Rolf Harris, Roman Polanski). If the crime is not a significant part of the person's notability (e.g. Tim Allen, convicted of a felony 16 years before his rise to fame), it may be undue to mention in the lead at all. Gill is primarily notable for a reason other than the crime and the crime is not a significant part of his notability so we should not make that inclusion.
-- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do we mean by 'notability' here?
His original basic pass for WP:N inclusion here was due to his earlier career as an MEP. However there is also still the 'real world' (or at least 'outside world') meaning of notability. Which is less binary, it does not reduce to simple objective criteria for whether a subject exists or not, as we were forced into providing to implement the WP:N test. Gill's broad notability has quite clearly been very much increased by his conviction. This, not simple WP:N, is what matters for BLPCRIMINAL. The conviction was certainly "relevant to his notability". It is not common to find examples of other people of substantial notability who then commit a major crime, but it is not hard either: John du Pont, O.J. Simpson, Oscar Pistorius, Anthony Blunt, T. Dan Smith, all of these are described in the lead according to their crimes, and categorised accordingly.
I cannot see any justification for your claimed invalidation of Category:British politicians convicted of crimes as if the first part somehow negates the second. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of 'notability' used by WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear as it is Wiki-linked to WP:N, the first sentence of which says: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Hence the notability of the topic here is due to what the subject was notable for before the article was created in 2014. That makes sense, and in articles such as Bruce Reynolds we see criminal/crime descriptions and categories used that way as they are the reason that article was created, and the fact that he became an author or a musician later in life does not feature in the first sentence of the lead or in the categories. That the articles you refer to may not abide by that Wikipedia policy is irrelevant per WP:OTHERCONTENT, which gives "This information should exist here, because it exists in article x" as an example of an argument to avoid on discussion pages. I see no reason for contravening the BLP policy here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that Category:British politicians convicted of crimes should be deleted as empty by definition, because no politician can ever become a criminal, according to Wikipedia's rather novel definition here? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not claiming that. All I'm doing is giving my understanding of part of a policy, as I read it. If it turns out as you say, that that category becomes empty, then sure, it should be deleted, of course. I know that categories are easy to create and easy to apply, and possibly not rigorously checked for policy compliance, so I guess that there will be many categories that were created in error. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defining does not mean it had to have been the initial reason they became notable, it just has to be something defining about them. Relevant does not mean the first thing. I cannot say if it is in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about 'defining' here, WP:CATDEF is only a guideline. Here we are talking about the WP:BLPCRIMINAL section of the BLP policy, which says Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability, with the linked WP:N saying, On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. That decision was taken in 2014 when the article was created. As the notability test was made in 2014, how could it have considered his 2025 criminal conviction? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think what someone is notable for can never change? Is Donald Trump not notable for being the president? After all, his article was made over a decade prior to that occurring. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why he was notable though, in Wiki's definition, that's something he achieved afterwards. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and the reasons someone are notable can change. It is not a one time thing, at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the article was created cannot change, and that's the WP:N definition of notability that WP:BLPCRIMINAL uses. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the definition of notability is. Where in WP:N does it say the reason someone passes these guidelines is static when the article was created and cannot change? Our notability standards themselves change all the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in the very first sentence of its lead, which says, On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. The test used in 2014 to decide whether to create the article cannot be retrospectively changed to say it was created because of something that happened in 2025. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it does not say warranted, it says warrants, so ongoing. And the reasons something warrants an article can change! Someone can become more or less notable, notable for different things, or they can become non notable if our guidelines change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in relation to the topic, yes. But once the topic has has achieved notability, in the Wikipedia sense, that reason for notability does not disappear, and will always be the reason that article was created. I think we've thrashed this point enough for now, and should leave it there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the non-inclusion of "criminal" in the lead, but not with the removal of the category of "politicians convicted of crime". I think this falls into the territory that the broad application of a line of the MOS to all categories pertaining to criminals stops us from improving the article, because it'd frankly be baffling for the category to apply only for politicians convicted before they became notable. Hell, look at Category:Sportspeople convicted of crimes, almost exclusively consisting of athletes who were already notable prior to their convictions. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my position. The category is obviously due, but referring to them as a criminal in the lead is unnecessary. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree wrt to Gill's notability, he was a notable figure and the chaotic situation within the UKIP/Reform block in the Senedd was well covered, but absolutely agree with the outcome you seek to achieve. Very much concur with @Ser! on the application of WP:IAR. The lead section of the article as it currently stands, with a sentence about it but no mention in the lead sentence feels appropriate. Having no mention at all in the lead section wouldn't be useful for anyone seeking to learn about Gill, but having the lead sentence is definitely too far. Flatthew (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Randy Stair have an article?

[edit]

There's quite a lot of videos and information about him, and per WP:CRIME on perpetrators: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are not a lot of RS about him. The crime itself is notable, but not a lot. So no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for inclusion?

[edit]

I've read the scope for this project, but compared to that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement, I am unsure if it applies to one, both (or neither?) of Crime in the United Kingdom and Crime statistics in the United Kingdom. I think the former could be covered under "General true crime" but I'm confused as to whether that in fact refers only to biographies. Would they apply to both this project and law enforcement (I see Crime in the United States is part of this project)? Thanks. gilgongo (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crime statistics are in scope because it relates directly to crime. Anything directly related to crime is in scope for the project.
The reason the project is called that is that this project was born out of, in the 2000s, merging WP Crime and WP Criminal Biography. We just never bothered to change the name. Even though the scope is "all crime". PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. Thanks. The phrase "General true crime" confused me as I'm not sure what an "untrue crime" would be :-) gilgongo (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira#Requested move 1 December 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira#Requested move 1 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Dupe (product)#Requested move 20 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dupe (product)#Requested move 20 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 06:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Slavery in Finland#Requested move 29 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Slavery in Finland#Requested move 29 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system#Requested move 11 December 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system#Requested move 11 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feoffer (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting#Requested move 14 December 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting#Requested move 14 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography&oldid=1327453919"