Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →


How do I nominate School shootings to be upgraded from "start"? - If this is it then I nominate the article and am currently working on it. Also I am a new member so be nice! LOTRrules (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Shame no-one had the courtesy to respond. Sorry newbie mistake I looked at the wrong page, it's good article nominations page I wanted. LOTRrules (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of "Justina Morales"

I would like to see the "Justina Morales" page tagged in the same manner as the "Nixzmary Brown" reference, both of which I've contributed to recently in light of Nixzmary's ongoing trial, and a comparison to Justina Morales by columnist Andrea Peyser. Thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Lane Bryant shooting

I'd have thought this to receive more attention (likely because it wasn't on the MP)... Circeus (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been some updates on it since. Anybody up to updating the article? Circeus (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Mafia

Mexican Mafia needs work. A lot of it. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject British crime

Can a member of this wikiproject take over the running of the British crime wikiproject and possibly merge it with the general wikiproject on crime. This is because I am taking a long break from wikipedia and I don't know when I shall be returning.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yigal Amir

There is an issue with an anon problem removing the "Infobox Crime" time and again, even though the recommendation was to add the infobox for convicted murderers. I would appreciate if someone can take a look, also on the talk page. gidonb (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Update on The Criminal justice Portal

AfD nomination of Timothy Shepherd

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Timothy Shepherd, an article which relates to this WikiProject, for deletion. Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Shepherd Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack on FAC

FYI, I have nominated the article 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack for consideration at WP:FAC. Your comments at the FAC discussion page would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to notability guidelines

There have been many arguments at multiple biographical AfDs about articles on the victims of murders that have received significant press coverage. I have, in conjunction with other editors, formulated a guideline proposal at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) which would potentially impact on some of the work you do here. I would like to ask people from here to come, read the proposed guideline and make comments or suggestions on the talk page. Your more expert feedback would be most welcome. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP Crime

For reasons I haven't been completely successful in tracking down, {{WP Crime}} generates Pages that link to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Geelong. I found some causes at Template:Crime opentask and Template:British crime opentask modified them. These templates also might be part of the problem. Anyway, please take a look and see if you can if fix. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New form of human trafficking

In February, a travel agent in Ghana chartered a Ghana International Airlines aircraft on the pretext that a group of 'Ghanian' tourists would be spending two weeks in Barbados. The aircraft left Ghana around 1 Feb 08, and was supposed to return to Barbados to 1) deliver any group of 'tourists' and 2) take the first lot back to Ghana. The aircraft didn't arrive as expected on 15 February, and to this day (15 April 08) most of those 'tourists', who turned out end up coming from both Ghana and Nigeria, are still stranded in Barbados, with the Ghanian government dragging its heels on their return. The rest have basically left Barbados for other countries (not long after arriving there). Due to the fact many of these 'tourists' are now working in Barbados (construction, etc), and some have gone on the record that they don't want to go back to Ghana, they want to be allowed to stay in Barbados to work, it is now believed that this is a new form of human trafficking. I think this would make an interesting addition to the Human trafficking article, and could also help build a Barbados-Ghana relations article as well. Having little time to add this, I am posting this at the following: Talk:Human trafficking, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Human rights. Perhaps contributors to the Human trafficking article or wikiprojects could look at it further and include it in the article, as this hasn't gathered much attention outside of Barbados and Ghana, and if it is human trafficking, it will change the modus operandi of traffickers. Searches of google and google news for barbados+ghana will return plenty of results, mainly from Ghana or Barbados which can be used. --Россавиа Диалог 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Range of crimes/Notability/POV

At present this project appears to be proceeding without a clear limit to its range.

  1. What crimes make the grade?

speeding?, littering, jaywalking, shoplifting, attempting to kill Hitler?, obstructing tanks in Tianamin Square?, following Falung Gong in China?, not being a Roman Catholic in Franco's Spain?, sodomy where and when it was/is illegal?, adultery?, heresy?, witchcraft?

  1. Do the following peoples qualify as criminals? Eric the Red exiled for killing Thorgest in a fight over a borrowed shovel?, St Peter crucified by Roman authorities, St James as he was charged with "breaking the law" before being stoned?, Alexander Solzenitzen and other political dissidents in the former Communist Bloc sentenced to Siberian gulags or killed by the Stasi?

I ask because the application of the term "criminal" has negative connotations and if it is being applied selectively in ways that amount to WP:OR then the wider WP community will need to consider how best to approach this project. The term "criminal" seems to be most accuarately applied to someone found guilty of a crime by an authority - any crime ruled as such by any legal authority in any period of history in any culture. The application of this NPOV use of the term would render this project rather large. And perhaps understandably lead to many contributors to biographies protesting. How do regular contributors to this project address the issues raised here? SmithBlue (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice

I am working on several wikipedia pages about people in jail who are probably innocent. People have been connecting them to this crime project. That is fine but please realise that there also exist people who, even if they are officially speaking "convicted criminals", probably did not commit any crimes whatsoever; sometimes the crimes they are supposed to have committed probably did not even exist. To mention my two favourite famous non-criminals: Lucia de Berk, Kevin Sweeney case. Gill110951 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Lizzie Borden

A request for comments on issues arising on the Lizzie Borden article has been opened. Please visit Talk:Lizzie Borden#Request for Comments to respond. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Does pop culture trivia belong in a serious article about a murderer?

I wanted to invite wider comment on a discussion about whether the article on Fred West should contain an "In popular culture" section. The discussion is here. It clearly has a wider application; other articles on murderers such as Harold Shipman and Peter Sutcliffe also currently contain such lists. Thanks in advance for your participation. --John (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1015 articles are assigned to this project, of which 414, or 40.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some guidance?

Hi, I've worked on a few articles about criminals and victims, and often the question comes up whether the article is, or should be, "about" the criminal, the victim, or the event. I'm considering starting an article about the murder of Tim Moreau by Larry Hurwitz, owner of the Starry Night (nightclub). This was a notorious crime committed almost 20 years ago, which took about a decade, and collaboration between the FBI, Moreau's parents, and a determined newspaper owner to solve. But, I'm not sure which of the redlinks I just posted to start with, and focus my energy on. Any thoughts, or written guidelines? Thanks in advance! -Pete (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The overriding decision is going to be based on what can be best established as notable. A cursory check on Google pulls up a lot more hits for Larry Hurwitz. It's a judgment call, but my leaning is generally for the criminal, as the action by that person is going to be more notable that the victim. I do know there are a lot of people who would prefer to see the article about the victim, but to me, those articles tend to be more in the category of memorials, which Wikipedia is not. Had the crime not been committed, would the victim be notable on his or her own merit? My two cents. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That's about the way I was leaning -- but I appreciate the outside perspective. Thanks! And, sorry it took me so long to find your reply… -Pete (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

David G. Ludwig murders

I suggest that David G. Ludwig murders should be moved to David G. Ludwig over the existing redirect. It looks weird seeing an article called "David G. Ludwig murders" in categories such as Category:1987 births, Category:Living people, Category:Americans convicted of murder, Category:American Christians, Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. An alternative would be to transfer the listed categories to the redirect. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the article (and did a little bit of clean up and ref fixing), and I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved. It's an awkward title and it is likely that anyone looking it up would search for David Ludwig, which takes one to a page which redirects to the current Ludwig redirect page. Go ahead. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've listed the article at Requested moves. DH85868993 (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Per WP Policy[1], "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Unfortunately, this either means that the article should be about the murders (not the murderer) or it should be deleted altogether. I'm not opposed to either option, but in order to make the move, someone would need to provide a reason for exception to the rule.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've removed it from Requested moves pending a consensus. DH85868993 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be a viable argument if this were an AfD discussion or a content disagreement. However, the only proposed change is the title of the argument. The article is already about the murders, committed by this individual. Calling it "David G. Ludwig" vs. "David G. Ludwig murders" does not require an exception to the rule, the change of title does change the focus of the article. By your argument, you can't separate the person being mentioned (the murderer) from the larger event (the murders). The overriding question is whether the subject of the article is notable, and I believe it meets notability. A criminal infobox has been added, which categorizes it, and the categories of the article further clarify that this is about the crimes committed. By this argument, few criminal biographies would be included. The article is under the baliwick of Project Crime and Criminal Biography. This article, as the majority of criminal biographies, covers both the perpetrator and the crime. Changing the title doesn't change that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, there is only be a semantic difference between the current title and "David G. Ludwig". However, the rule states that articles about a person should not be about events, and articles about events should not be about persons. If this article was properly titled it would be something like "Lititz Borden Murders." However, to name it something like that would make it pretty obvious that the article is non-notable (merely a chronicle of the kind of crime that happens daily everywhere). That said, I would probably argue for deletion if any further action is pursued. My opinion is that it's probably better off deleted than significantly altered.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I really think you're misapplying the guideline. Covering the event and not the person takes a different path when referring to one person who perpetrated an event. This article, which you wrote, covers the actions of David Ludwig relative to the murder and little, if anything, else. The two are inextricably connected. The guideline of Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them would be applicable to creating an article about Kara Beth Borden, or in a non-crime related example, Sam Lufti, the guy against whom the restraining order was taken out by Britney Spears' father; essentially a non-relevant person only tangentially connected to the overall article. That can't be said for Ludwig in relation to this crime. He did it, he isn't a low-profile individual in that regard. Criminals have an odd presence and consideration in encyclopedias, and while there is sentiment that the victims should be the main subject, news sources, which translate to reliable sources, concentrate on the perpetrator. Meanwhile, Ludwig is notable, based on international coverage of the crime, the circumstances around it and its relationship to the myspace/blog world, not to mention coverage by Court TV. WP:NPF is as applicable here as any: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. This article already does that quite well. Meanwhile, the precedent that's currently being followed doesn't result in a myriad of articles titled the way Ludwig's is. If one looks through the 1700 or so articles in the crime and criminal biography project, very few are titled beyond the name of the perpetrator, or more rarely when the perpetrator isn't known, the name of the victim. I honestly don't think your argument for not changing the article title is valid, and I'm certain the article would stand a deletion review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Crime-related

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles article review

I will be opening a sub-page with a listing of articles related to this project which have been selected, in order to review them for inclusion. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Wikipedia 0.7 article review for the listing and issues. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardoned criminal

Should Fife Symington III be categorized under Category:American fraudsters? He was convicted, but received a presidential pardon. i suppose the article warrants inclusion in this project nonetheless? __meco (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article, he was convicted but the conviction was overturned on appeal, and he was never retried. Clinton's pardoned really didn't absolve him of the conviction, just a retrial. I'm of the opinion that he should not be categorized that way because the first conviction was overturned and he was not subsequently convicted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed category rename

FYI, I have proposed that Category:People convicted of murder by England and Wales be renamed to Category:People convicted of murder by the United Kingdom, for consistency with Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by the United Kingdom, Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the United Kingdom and Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom. Please add any comments you may have to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick Note

Hi! I was looking for an appropriate banner for Reed Waddell when I came across this page. I don't know if it's just me, but the project page appears to be blank except for a "related projects" infobox on the right hand side. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Cheers! TNX-Man 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up. DH85868993 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Toa Payoh Ritual Murders peer review

Hi, I have created an article on one of Singapore's most sensation criminal cases, the Toa Payoh Ritual Murders, and would like to invite the project to review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Toa Payoh Ritual Murders/archive1. The aim is to get the article ready for FAC. For this case, a man and two women were convicted for killing two children (although he sexually abused the girl, he was not charged for it). The revelations of their lifestyles and acts were sensational (rituals, sex, drugs, and violence). Please take a look. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

American domination of the Top-importance articles

Nineteen of the twenty criminals chosen as top-importance pages for this Wikiproject are American. Only Jack the Ripper has been chosen from another country. I don't want to step on any toes here, but as an outsider looking in this cannot be labeled anything other than narcissistic. Surely there have been serious crimes perpetrated elsewhere in the world over the years. Wouldn't Pablo Escobar, for one, be more appropriate than, say, Aileen Wuornos? Please have a think about it - just some food for thought from a non-contributor's point of view. Thanks (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few comments I have on this. The importance assessment has no meaning beyond purposes of this project. It isn't an issue of assigning what crimes are of the most importance in terms of world view, only as it pertains to improvements within the project, so the terms of using such classification has no bearing on the relevance, impact or outcome of these crimes/criminals in terms of how they relate to society. Another factor would then be the viewpoint of who is assessing the article. This project isn't highly active and membership isn't large. It isn't probable that there is going to be a complete worldview in assigning importance, which essentially indicates what articles top the list of priority for improvement. Please don't misinterpret what this means. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)