Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Toa Payoh ritual murders up at FAC

Hi, a heads up that the case of the Toa Payoh ritual murders, a 1981 case in Singapore, is nominated for Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toa Payoh ritual murders. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Jappalang (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Project banners

There is a ongoing discussion at Template talk:WP Criminal about your two different project banners. Any input would be appreciated. Martin 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Two separate banners are needed for the reasons outlined by Wildhartlivie at Template talk:WP Criminal and User_talk:Pinkadelica#WP Crime/Criminal. I am in favor of removing "and Criminal Biography" from the {{WP Crime}} template. momoricks (make my day) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

Mr. M has been placed under the aegis of this wiki project. While I can't see him suing over that, to be completely faithful to BLP shouldn't this project be reserved for convicted criminals only? Guidance requested. Thank you, JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no prerequisite for conviction for an article to fall under this project, although without a conviction, it should only be under WP Crime and not Criminal. I've changed that in the WP Banners. Hope that helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that introduces a shade of meaning that is important under the circumstances. Thanks. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the FBI, Madoff confessed to running a Ponzi scheme. Some editors object to using the word "alleged" in the article because of this. I figure until the case is proved in court by a conviction that "alleged" always applies. After all "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the basics of US criminal law. Any guidance would be appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I can give you a definitive answer to this. In general, one cannot simply state a person is guilty of anything until found guilty, or pleads guilty, in a court of law. For purposes of WP:BLP, a careful line must be walked not to create a libel situation. That is why the article was put under the provenance of WP Crime, and not WP Criminal. I do note that the word alleged does appear quite a few times in the article. At this point, this is a twofold issue. One is the potential WP:BLP issue, which should be broached at the WP:BLPN page, and the other is that it essential amounts to a content dispute, which has some options, including opening a request for comments, dispute mediation, or simply engaging in discussion with the persons who hold another view. My personal view is that "On December 10, 2008 Madoff allegedly told his sons, Andrew and Mark, that his investments were "one big lie", a Ponzi scheme" is correct. There's nothing to support that it is fact, but that his sons said he confessed. The source for this statement reads "Madoff was charged with securities fraud after confessing to his sons that his business was a Ponzi scheme, according to a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission." According to a complaint does not say it is verified fact and in that regard, the use of "alleged" is correct. To state he did this in the absence of conviction still provides the presumption of innocence according to the Constitution of the United States and according to libel law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I think we are in agreement on the substance. I went back and counted the "alleged"s; there are a lot of them 10 in the article, 1 in the info box and 2 in the titles of references. I hadn't thought that people would get sick of all of them, but actually I don't think they do - once you get the point, it is easy enough just to read over them quickly. The one "alleged" I re-inserted is quite important, as it is the first in the article.

I was hoping that there would be a general rule or guideline around here, something like "whenever a person is accused, but not convicted, of criminal behavior, then the words "alleged" or "accused" should be included where the reader might otherwise conclude that the behavior is a matter of fact. After conviction the words "alleged" or "accused" are generally not used." Or perhaps just "In criminal matters, the presumption of innocence must be maintained until a conviction is obtained in court." Maybe this belongs in WP:BLP, but Ida thunk it comes up quite often here.

Apologies if I came here too quickly. It's just that this is about the fourth time this has come up, WP:BLPN might be getting a sick of hearing about Madoff (including on anti-semetic material), and sometimes I get a bit tired of "talk therapy." Smallbones (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was directed over here from Talk:Bernard Madoff where I have a longer list of points than I will enter here, and do not wish to fork the discussion. Madoff's December 10, 2008 admission is not "alleged". It has been widely reported by reliable news sources as having taken place without a qualifying alleged. The fact that it also appears in the SEC complaint does not trigger a downgrade to an alleged admission. patsw (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the info on "the confession" come from? As far as I can tell it comes exclusively from the criminal complaint, which got it from the FBI. Perhaps the WSJ gets sick of saying "alleged" more than a couple times in an article, but the "confession" does not come from their own reporters talking to Madoff - it comes from the FBI. You've said that Madoff hasn't denied that he confessed - but the time for that is at the trial (if at all). Smallbones (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on Talk:Bernard Madoff, the December 11 admission is not solely sourced by the SEC complaint. Other people likely to have been at that meeting have been contacted by the media and they confirm it. Readers may see that the admission is labeled "alleged" on media articles dated December 12, however subsequent interviews and reporting confirmed it and later articles discussing the admission drop the "alleged". patsw (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely to have been, as you put it, is very suspect and looks like WP:OR on your part. If the press confirmed the confession from another source, they would certainly have mentioned the other source - it would be a great scoop for them. Please note that WP:BLP goes above and beyond simple Verifiability and Reliable Sources, in particular BLPs are suppose to be written conservatively. Unless you have a direct statement that the press confirmed a confession from a second source, we can't let ourselves imagine that that's what they meant, i.e. "alleged" still belongs. Smallbones (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to this project's editors. My interest here was asking whether there is a general statement or guideline that the presumption of innocence must be respected. There is and has been lots of discussion on this on the Madoff talk page, and previous discussion on Madoff (about anti-semitism and releasing addresses) at WP:BLPN. Do you think it appropriate to continue this discussion here? Smallbones (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Madoff's lawyer refers to the December 10 admission to his sons in a filing to the court. This was reported by the New York Times. See the cite and quote in the article. patsw (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC) This is not a content dispute over the presumption of innocence but a content dispute over whether the media accounts which report the December 11 admission as fact get an automatic downgrade to alleged in the Wikipedia because it appears in the SEC complaint. 17:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok you've now got a real reference (from 10 days ago!). Sorry I don't read minds or every single news report on Madoff. Still there are questions that remain on it, like why other very reliable sources are still using "alleged confession" today. Let's move the discussion back to the talk page [[1]] since this is not a general principle we are discussing now. But I do think this has to be handled delicately, conservatively. It's possible the NYTimes overstepped or misinterpreted, since it hasn't been followed up on, and is "allegedly" in a public document. Smallbones (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to answer the question Smallbones asked, but I see you've moved the discussion back. You likely wouldn't get a lot of discussion here on this issue, there aren't a lot of editors who actively participate on this talk page. I gave my response on the general issue, and no, there really isn't a guideline here to address presumption of innocence, although I do think that it is a general understanding under WP:BLP. If you can't make headway from discussion, you might open a request for comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper: The FInal Solution

I have nominated Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Alert Subscription

I'd like to subscribe this WikiProject and the Serial Killer Task Force to Article Alerts; see WP:AAlerts for the low down. I wanted to mention it here before messing with the main page. Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to giving it a trial and see what assistance it provides. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the alert subscriptions. momoricks (make my day) 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor removing references/external links

Don't know if anyone's noticed but User:Evenmoremotor has been removing a lot of references and external links under the Wikipedia:External links policy. It seems like he's removing any and all websites regardless of the content as well as links to GanglandNews.com and other "fan sites". What caught my eye was his removing published books from reference sections and moving them under further reading or removing them altogether ("no in-line refs"). As a writer, I think this is particularly dishonest but I'll let others judge for themselves. Hope someone can look into this. 71.184.32.168 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kjell Inge Røkke

Is this person a criminal? Should the article carry this project's banner and categories for criminals be applied? An editor has made recent edits that may conflict with consensus. __meco (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the infobox that is used on an article is geared toward what the person is predominantly known for and what brought him notability. Whether a person is known as criminal depends a lot on the level of legal conflict a person has had. Frankly, looking at what the crime was, the length of time in jail, and the relative importance of the legal problem, I'm inclined to say he wouldn't qualify for a criminal infobox. If Donald Trump went to jail for 24 days for something like getting an illegal license, he would not have a criminal infobox slapped on his article as a result. Having said that, I would have to point out that I see nothing that even approaches consensus about anything on that page. There has never been a discussion on the article page at anytime. Someone came onto the article, made the only edit ever made by the account and put a criminal infobox on the article. Three months later, someone takes it out, saying he's not a criminal. In the three months between, two people edited the article. There's nothing regular on that page, much less consensus. Lack of objection because of little interest from other editors doesn't constitute consensus. However, there are some WP:BLP issues on the page, such as the unreferenced statement that he had no secondary or higher education and what reads to me as a bit of a skewing of the actual offense and conviction toward making it sound a lot more serious than the actual source indicates. I would think editors might try to flesh out the main parts of the article, it is very scarce. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to consensus on that page but to what threshholds the Wikipedia community in general is practicing. However, you have provide a thorough discussion and I am less queasy about the state of this article than I was prior to making my inquiry here. Much appreciated. __meco (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Røkke is a respected businessman in Norway, that he has a well known but rather minor sentence on him does not change that. I have not argued for removing information regarding the sentence as the media attention to the case was heavy, so it should definitely be mentioned in the article. But that does not make him a criminal, just as a trip on a ferryboat does not make one a seaman. So the infobox for criminal and the category criminal should be removed. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to continue the discussion about whether this person should have a criminal infobox or categories. Please keep it on the article talk page. momoricks (make my day) 23:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I came here for expert opinions, i.e. to solicit the opinions of people who might have been involved in similar discussions in the past. As long as a link exists between these two discussion loci (and it does) this should pose no problem. __meco (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Porrello/Porello family

I've just added an image to the Porello family article and clearly there is a spelling conflict. Rick Porrello, author of references cited in the article and said to be a direct descendant of the family, spells his name with a double r on his own website and that is the way it is spelled in the article, yet the family name is spelled with one r. The photo I have just added, of the family grave marker, has two r's. The name is also spelled with two r's on Joe Porrello's death certificate. I'm not a Mafia expert, is there any reason for the single r in the article title and in the text? Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea here. That question might better be answered at the article's talk page by editors who work on the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had thought about putting it there, but since no one but myself and a bot has made any edit to the article since last July I thought the chances of it being addressed were greater here. I can move the discussion there if it is considered out of place here. Dan D. Ric (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't out of place here at all. However, not a lot of discussion about articles in the mob category happens here. However, it does appear to be a misspelling and I note the original author, who doesn't appear to be around anymore, had a lot of spelling errors corrected. If you really feel the name is not spelled correctly, the article can be moved to the correct spelling and the names corrected throughout the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start changing the spelling within the article then, in preparation for moving it. There aren't a lot of links to the article so the move shouldn't be too big a deal. Dan D. Ric (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't really have to worry about the links to the article, when you do the move, the links should redirect to the new page, unless you feel the need to check the spelling there too. Good luck. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the spellings on the links that I'll change. Dan D. Ric (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suitable categories for new articles? And BLP issues

I'm not familiar with the parameters of this wikiproject or its associated categories; just wanting to advise that I just added this WP's template and also WP:Canada/BC to Red Scorpions, Bacon Brothers (gangsters), and United Nations (gang), which are an interlinked series of stories/individuals relating to a recent gang war and "civilian casualty killings" in BC's Lower Mainland; I had a quick look at the subcats of Category:Crime and realized I was out of my depth in knowing how many and which ones to add to each of these articles; I placed "mid" on the the importance for all of them because of the immediacy of the arrests and the associated string of killings; these stories are still in progress despite a number of arrests being made some are still at large. NB Talk:Red Scorpions had apparently been previously deleted for the reason "attempt to communicate", but I re-instated it in order to place the WP templates....just thinking, I'd better go back and place WP:BLP on them too.....or maybe not, though they do constitute biographies of living persons....but not as individuals....maybe there's a guideline for that? My gut feeling tells me, at least in the case of the Bacon Brothers, that it's as much a biography as a crime article; but if that's the case then tthat would apply to the other two gangs ,as well, since living persons are who the article is about....Skookum1 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the templates to these articles. I'll take a look at what categories we have that might apply here. Regarding BLP, if an article is about specific persons, even multiple ones, or contains information about living persons, BLP tags should be added. I added the BLP to the Bacon Brothers - although I'm thinking that article may need to be moved to Bacon brothers per naming conventions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot

Please see Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#RfC:_High-ranking_followers. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Please see Talk:Rajneesh_movement#Merge_discussion. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Article alerts

This page appears to only have alerts for Criminal Biography articles, despite the title suggesting Crime articles are also included. Possibly this should be corrected, or is there a reason for this? Шизомби (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be generating two pages, or one combined page. The project page has requests under both banners, so I'll post a question to see if there is some problem with the post. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In the "about this page" it just says "It contains all articles in workflows which are tagged with {{WP Criminal}}." It doesn't say anything about the {{WikiProject Crime}} tag, could that be part of the problem? Шизомби (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It indicates the problem, which is why I posted to the alerts talk page to have someone involved there to straighten it out. Perhaps someone thought it was a double request, when it was supposed to cover both banners. Not a lot of projects use more than one banner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing A-class review

Hello, I have worked on Oklahoma City bombing to help it attain GA status in the past. After cleaning up the references and adding additional sources, I am now nominating Oklahoma City bombing for A-class review. Since this project doesn't have a formal A-class review, I've looked to the guidelines of the A-class criteria. For the article to reach A-class, two uninvolved editors need to support the nomination. I'm welcoming all comments on how to improve the article further, with the future goal of making the article a FA at some point. I'd be happy to take as many reviews as possible as each one could help to improve the article further. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A little over a month later, and this is still open if anyone is interested in taking a look at the article. The article needs two supports to attain A-class status. I would appreciate any assistance in reviewing the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Internet homicide

Some input here may be useful. Current topics of dispute include how much is original research and where (or whether) the sources suffice, whether the page ought to be an article, a list, or a disambig. Whether the article should be renamed and/or the scope of the article changed. Шизомби (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre - nominated for deletion

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Criminal NEW

Someone needs to have a look at this template and it may need to be looked at. The text starts from under the infobox and I want that to change. This template needs to be discussed. Aussieman92 (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "The text starts from under the infobox". Are you referring to layout? Is that an issue you are having with the infobox that is currently being used or this new one you've made? If there is a layout problem, that's entirely different from the infobox and wouldn't be addressed by making a infobox when there is no consensus that there is a problem with the old one. Problems with the infobox you've created would be discussed at another board, or could even be related to the browser you use.

This is the place to bring a template that you feel is correct to offer for consideration and discussion about actually using it. You won't find coders or anyone similar at the project, we are concerned with the facets pertaining to articles and the tools to work on those. At present, the project has three infoboxes to use, depending on whether it is about a criminal organization (read that mob), criminal biographies and other crime-related articles. There has been no discussion of which I'm aware that there are problems or issues with the tools we already have. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have managed to fix the infobox a bit. The reason why the text would start under the infobox was because of this text (<div style="clear:both;"></div>). Aussieman92 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Misc. Importance, BLP, possible GA/FA

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP_policy_applies_to_people_doing_life_in_prison_too_I_guess discusses convictions and BLP policy - it really doesn't say much of anything new IMHO.

I came here originally to let you know that the importance ranking for your project for Bernard Madoff has been changed to "TOP" I couldn't figure out how the importance ranking is given (or whether it is of any importance) but I'd thought I'd let you know, also I agree with this ranking.

I noticed in the stats on the project page that you have few GAs and no FAs. The Madoff articles are prime candidates for one of these, or at least will be in a few months when all the furor has died down. There are lots and lots of documentation/sources - too much in fact, although of course not all the info that you really want.

Let me know in mid summer if anybody is interested in jumping through the required hoops.

Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing new in that discussion. We should be mindful of WP:BLP even in criminal articles and things should be validly sourced. I think that at this point, Madoff would qualify as a top priority as well. In a lot of cases, the priority rating is essentially a matter of prominence of the person/situation, the news coverage it received, the impact and ... assessor opinion. Thanks for letting us know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Strip search prank call scam

Requesting a reassessment of the current "Start" rating. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing FAC

I have nominated Oklahoma City bombing at WP:FAC which can be found here. Please consider leaving comments at the nomination to determine if the article meets the featured article criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

West Memphis 3

Anyone feeling particularly masochistic? If so, consider heading over to this page. It's got it all—POV, OR, lack of reliable sources/proper citations, a beefy trivia section—and I haven't looked at the biographical articles. I'm trying to clean up the citations, which will take me awhile. momoricks 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite that masochistic tonight, but I may be in a day or two. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shalom Weiss

If you think that's an invitation to masochism, try this one: Shalom Weiss. That's about a guy who is serving 845 years in prison (yes, six times longer than Madoff), for a big insurance fraud. The article was hijacked by some pals of this guy a couple of years ago, and they made him look more like Nelson Mandela than a fraudster who went on the lam during his trial. I've cut it to the bone but would appreciate more input on this mess, as it remains confusing.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There aren't that many active members currently, but maybe one of us will get the chance to take a look at it. momoricks 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please contribute to Murder of Huang Na's peer review

Greetings, members of this WikiProject! Six years ago, an eight-year-old Mainland Chinese girl, named Huang Na, came to Singapore with her mother, a peidu mama. She had a bright future ahead of her, until she disappeared one day, sparking a nationwide search that lasted three weeks. Turns out that she was brutally murdered by a family friend.

Now I humbly present an article about the murder case: Murder of Huang Na! The story is tragic yet fascinating - I believe you will enjoy reading it and learn more about Singaporean culture too. But besides reading it, could you please contribute to its ongoing peer review, so I can improve it into this WikiProject's next GA? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Category question

Folks, there is a minor debate going on over at Talk:Patrick Tracy Burris#Category: Murder in 2009 as to whether the newly created Category:Murder in 2009 is a useful or necessary category. The creator of that category intends to create similar ones for earlier years? Thoughts please. – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/GA1. Consequently I have de-listed the article. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Ponzi schemes

Ponzi schemes are being exposed all over the world thanks to the recession, whose only real positive is that it keeps crushing Ponzi schemes and other frauds. Since so many are coming out recently, I realized that we need to figure out how to determine which ones are notable enough for an article, and which ones should only get mentioned at List of Ponzi schemes. Has that been decided yet, or do we need to decide which Ponzi schemes go where? If not, could we figure that out here? Thanks. Jesse Viviano (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that nothing new needs to be decided here WP:Notability (criminal acts), WP:Notability (people), and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) might all be used as a benchmark, but all seem to agree on the basics. I'd say a quick and dirty rule of thumb would be "If the Ponzi scheme has had coverage in 2 or 3 independent stories in the national media, then it is notable." That might be a bit more restrictive than the notability guidelines mentioned above, but I doubt we really want to have 10,000 articles on Ponzi schemes. Smallbones (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims

I am new here so i don't know how to edit pages properly. I noticed on the List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims #181 you have the name listed as Everet Conway. That is not the correct name for that person. His name was Ernest Conway. I still have a copy of the May 24, 1901 article from the Tri-County Chronicle regarding this incident. I will check back to see what I should do to correct this information. Thank You. Mrs royal pain (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page. momoricks 03:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Project's scope ambiguous

This project should have a Scope section put up. Right now there's both talk of criminology as well as this rather confusing statement in the Goals section: "The purpose of this project is to organize and improve articles that are biographies of notable criminals." __meco (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The project addresses both crime related articles and criminal biographies. The goals section really isn't that ambiguous, a couple of subheadings clears that up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC started to discuss replacing Criminal Org Infobox with Org Infobox

Please comment on an RfC to replace Template:Infobox Criminal organization with Template:Infobox Organization for active motorcycle clubs. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Criminal organization#Proposal: Guidelines on Template Use

Should probably have started the discussion here, but oh well... If anyone is interested, please join the discussion here. Singularity42 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Valachi Hearings vs. McClellan Hearings (1950s-60s era)

I just was doing some research on the McClellan Hearings, which took place in the late 1950s. They were the hearings involving Jimmy Hoffa and other union leaders accused of corruption and which led to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. For some reason, someone has redirected the McClellan Hearings entry on Wiki to the Valachi Hearings. I have never even heard of them, but according to the article, the Valachi Hearings appear to have taken place in 1962, so they are not the same as the McClellan Hearings. I am not sure if this project is updating articles like that or not, but I thought I would make it known. I'm not a contributor so I don't know how to change something like this, but I do know that the current redirection appears to be totally incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.4.123 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article was moved because it was almost solely about the Valachi hearings. I find nothing separate about the other hearings, which is probably why it was redirected. If a wider scoped article about the rest of the hearings is written, it can and should go under the title McClellan hearings. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I would think that eventually someone should write about the McClellan Hearings, as they are really not the same as the Valachi Hearings. Moreover, the McClellan Hearings probably the most significant (or certainly one of them) developments in 20th Century labor, as they revealed widespread corruption in labor unions and were very widely publicized at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.4.123 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help recreating “Race and crime”

I’ve been working on recreating the article “Race and crime”, and would like some help with it. This article was merged into Anthropological criminology in April, but the merge did not involve the latter article being altered at all, so what it resulted in was all of Race and crime’s content being deleted. The admin who enacted this merge, and protected the redirect, has said that he would be willing to allow Race and crime to be recreated if someone can create a draft of this article that’s substantially better than the earlier version.

The draft is here. Any help with it would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that a merge did not take place, the articles already had significant overlap with material having been moved between them in the past. There are major problems with the current draft, but if these are resolved then I see no problem with restoring the article, although a rename may also be in order. Verbal chat 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best solution would be to find WP:RS that discuss the stats, write a summary section using those, and add that to Anthropological criminology. Problem solved. Verbal chat 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Help requested on Race and crime in the United States

I would like to request that the article Race and crime in the United States be taken up into the catalog of articles covered under this WikiProject. It needs more contributors willing to build the article and make constructive criticism. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Any input or comments on this? Does one need official project approval to add the project template? Or would this article be better placed under a different project? Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [2]. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on non-convicted

I wanted to ask in general about how people who have not been convicted should be treated. I recently created articles on the mafiosos Sam Maceo and Rosario Maceo (splitting out the old Sam and Rosario Maceo article). Sam and Rosario were never convicted of anything but their criminal activities are widely documented. I used the "infobox criminal" template but obviously have to leave out anything about what they were convicted for.

Since I have not tried to do a bio on a criminal before I thought I should just ask here if there is anything in particular that is recommended given the circumstances of these figures.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, we should use the criminal infobox for persons convicted of crimes. In this case, I'd suggest trying the organized crime infobox, since it's clear they were involved in that, to see if it better fits. In regard to the talk page template, we use the WP:Crime template for non-convicted persons involved in crime, and the WP:Criminal one for persons who were convicted. They are all on the front page of WP:CRIME. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! --Mcorazao (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on Curley v. NAMBLA please

Could a few folks have a look at Curley v. NAMBLA please? It seems the case was dismissed yet we are accusing 6-8 people of being pedophiles and accused of wrongful death. It would be nice to find the sourcing to confirm what if any legal actions occurred and remove the names of likely living people who have not been convicted of anything. It seems the article is also a bit of a WP:Coatrack against NAMBLA which likely is colouring the issues. -- Banjeboi 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the names, added sections and sourcing tags (actually, quite a few). I'm not entirely convinced that the article should remain as it is. I'm thinking that it should either be merged to the NAMBLA article or moved to Death of Jeffrey Curley and the article be expanded to cover that aspect much more heavily. But I'm torn on which way to handle it. Hopefully, others will comment on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:xxx (country) sex offenders

Hi there, I was just wondering what this project's opinions were on these types of categories, and the criteria for inclusion in them. I spoke to the creator of Category: Jamaican sex offenders, incidentally created hours after the conviction of Marlon King. I basically have three questions:

1. Whether we should have these categories at all. 2. (if yes) Whether living people should be included in these categories. 3. (if yes) what the criteria for inclusion should be.

Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think these categories are entirely germane and yes, living persons should be included, when and if they are convicted for sex crimes that would normally result in the person being subject to reporting themselves to authorities in such instances where such is required by law. Whether an individual article is included in such categories is an issue for the editors of whatever page in question to determine, based on reliable sourcing and consensus. If there is a question or dispute over whether a specific individual should be included, there is the biography of living persons noticeboard that can be consulted regarding the issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

help on new article

hi guys

i have been working on a new article recently, now someone is trying to delete it.

could you take a look and see if its appropriate and how to expand it? it has been a huge deal in northern california, nto sure how big outside of the area. a young girl was raped by 10 teens and adults at her homecoming dance, while at least 10 watched, some taking videos: 2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape

Richmondian (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the AfD discussion and left a comment in response to one of your postings. To be kept, the article needs to assert that the event is notable beyond the local area and at present, it does not. If it doesn't show that, the AfD is likely to succeed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Cato merge to Crown Heights Riot

Seeking input on my proposed merge of Gavin Cato to Crown Heights Riot. It seems like a pretty obvious move to me, but I didn't want to do it without at least some discussion for a consensus... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Split from Rape

An editor recently created a new article, Rape in the United States of America, which essentially copies bites from Rape, in what appears to be a nationalistic or NPOV split. There doesn't seem to be any valid reason that I can see for such a split, however considering my past with this particular editor, I may not be looking at it from a fully neutrally perspective. So thought I'd call it to what would appear to be the most appropriate project's attention to see what others think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic accusations already in discussion at WP:WQA and WP:ANI

I disagreed with your attempt to delete a manga, so now your history shows you stalking me, voting delete in two unrelated AFD I voted keep in, and even coming here to argue about my article, without bothering to read or comment anything on the talk page. The article has plenty of content not found in the main article, which wouldn't fit over there. Discuss on the talk page though, I welcome as much input as possible. Dream Focus 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Says thee who immediately deprodded an article that I had just prodded? Do not accuse others of "stalking" unless you accuse yourself, and kindly remember to WP:AGF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I have the Anime and Manga deletion page [3] on my watchlist, and do monitor it, and often comment in the AFDs there. You on the other hand, then go to two AFD about things you never showed any interest in before, and it therefore can't just be random coincidence, and then come here to complain about my recent article I created. Very immature, and bitter of you. Now that I am aware of this Wikipedia project's existence, I would like some feedback from those who are sincerely interested in this topic. Dream Focus 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Here is the history today: Salad Days (manga): 19:55, 10 November 2009 Collectonian (2,754 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. using TW)[4] 20:08, 10 November 2009 Dream Focus (1,957 bytes) (deproded. Spend years in a magazine read by millions, so its common sense notable)[5] Stalking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics) Collectonian commented. 20:41, 10 November 2009.[6] After Dream Focus commented. 16:15, 10 November 2009. [7] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company Collectonian commented. 20:40, 10 November 2009.[8] After Dream Focus commented. 16:20, 10 November 2009.[9] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography Collectonian brings up Rape in the United States of America that Dream created Rape in the United States of America here at 20:45, 10 November 2009. The comment above: "Says thee who immediately deprodded an article that I had just prodded?" makes this sound like retribution for deprodding the article Salad Days (manga). Deproding an article in one isolated incident is not stalking, posting complaints about a completly different article that you have never contributed too, and commenting in two AFDs which is at the top of Dream's contribution list, immediately after Dream deproded an article in my opinion is classic stalking. STOP. Ikip (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) My comment is in response to his, nothing more. Take the personal attacks elsewhere please and allow neutral people to answer my actual legitimate question because god forbid a woman actually have some interest in the topic of rape, and questions the creation of a new article for just the US when no other country has an individual article that I could see. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC) You are stalking Dream, your gender is irrelevant. Criticism of your stalking is not a personal attack. Looking over your first ANI about user:Abtract, this is at the same level of stalking which you yourself complained about. Ikip (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Bullshit. You wouldn't have found it without stalking. You comments indicate you were just trying to get even with me, a pattern I've seen all too often. You found your way to two other places you would've have found otherwise, one for a Batman villain article, and another for an organization that works with the Girl Scouts. Dream Focus 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The main article already seems somewhat USA-centric to me, so I can't see the rationale for a split that duplicates much of the same content. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has plenty of content not found in the main article, which wouldn't fit over there. Please see the talk page for discussion on how the article can grow. There is so much more to be added here. I'd appreciate feedback on the issues raised on the talk page there please. Dream Focus 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't drag other things onto this talk page that have nothing to do with a good faith question that in fact does not mention those issues. Not appreciated. Secondly, I too have concerns about what is being done with this splitting off of a portion of another article. Essentially, you've taken content written by other editors and spun it over into another article that eliminates the history of the evolution of that material, and thus the attribution. You even admit to "cop[ying a chunk of the article from the main rape article"], although you made no proposal to spin out an article related to only one country prior to doing so, nor for that matter, mentioning it all. This just isn't how to do things. Dream Focus, looking at the history of the article Rape, you've made only 5 edits in total, all within the last 4 weeks, all on 3 days. The first three minor edits were here where you added a dab and removed a cite and a book link, here where you reverted an addition, and here where you added a "See also" to the new article. In essence, you added no substantial content to the original article, but did take a chunk of it to make a new article that effectively adds nothing except two minor additions, here and here. That doesn't qualify as "plenty of content not found in the main article". I suggest if you want to write an article that deals specifically with rape in the United States, you formulate it in your userspace until it is ready to be made into a separate, unique article and not just add a couple blurbs to content taken from somewhere else. You're not adding much of anything in the way of new content to the encyclopedia. I do not think this would survive an AfD as it stands, nor that it is necessary unless vastly expanded and changed from non-original content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not have ownership. Information gets copied around all the time. No one cares about the history of who did what, or will even notice or bother to check who did what parts exactly. And how much work I did on the rape article is not relevant in any way. Mostly I just talked with people on the talk page. I am reading through news articles, and finding ways to word things properly and adding things to it. Please check the talk page for discussions about that. Dream Focus 08:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Splitting an article is only desirable after sufficient material is available to make the split look vaguely encyclopedic. It is extremely undesirable that the only significant material in the split is a copy of text from the main article, and there is no reason to create a stub by copying part of a main article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is enough valid information, such as the rape kits not being used because of cost, and only 1/4 of rapes ending in a request because of it. And I referenced that to the frightening CBS news story that convinced me we need an article to focus on the plight of rape victims in America. Dream Focus 08:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• To both who mention the amount of content, be aware I created the article with some content, copied over a chunk, and then added more to it. The article is now sized at 4333. 2868 of that is copied over, and 1465 is original. I don't see a problem here. As I said on the talk page, there is plenty of room to grow, I hoping to get some input on what to add, and how to word it properly. Dream Focus 08:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have ownership." Hmm. Actually, you're wrong, Wikipedia does, in practice, have ownership, but not copyright. The more important point, and one which you apparently have no idea about is something that is discussed at Wikipedia:Move#Before moving a page: Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) Before you say you didn't move an entire page, you did move an entire section, one on which you did not work and in doing so, you've destroyed the edit history and thus, rights of attribution. Wikipedia does pay attention to things like that. Regarding the amount of content, the only countable content for size is the "usable" content. In that regard, there was, at the time of my posting, 3670 bytes of usable content, and what you added is only 805 bytes, or only slightly over 20% of the content and as Johnuniq noted, the only significant content is what you took from the main article, written by others and unattributable. As I noted, you moved an entire section to start a new article without benefit of first broaching the subject to other editors, and to which, now, several editors have posted concerns with that action. We see a problem here or otherwise, comment would not have been made. As I noted, consider moving all of the content to a subpage in your userspace until you've actually had time to write it. And as I noted, at present, it would qualify for deletion based on content substantially identical to already existing material. That's a fair warning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone who cares enough about the subject to work on it, isn't likely to care if their work is copied over like that. I'll contact them and ask specifically though, if I can find who contributed to that section. And no, I don't think if you sent it to AFD it'd be deleted, this obviously a notable topic, with plenty of room to grow. Dream Focus 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to somehow find who contributed, and copy over the edit history? Do administrators have something for that? I looked through the last thousand edits on that page, but didn't see where it had been edited in that section to any reasonable degree when looking over the edit summaries searching for the words "United States". Dream Focus 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't sufficient to go ask X number of persons if they care, it has to exist in situ for attribution. The only way I know to discover who wrote what is to go through the edits. However, that is the basis of the copy and paste issue. The evolution of an article, a section, is done gradually so you're not likely to find that one or two editors wrote an entire section, although that is current what is implied for that section at Rape in the United States of America. I notice that twice now, you've simply ignored the very real suggestion that you copy the page over to your userspace so that you can formulate a proper separate article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is now. It gets more attention this way, and more will help contribute to it. It already has some very important information which wasn't in the main article. Dream Focus 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What I do not understand about your posts here is the complete and total disregard for the very legitimate issues with how you have removed attribution from the content by copy and pasting it and the total disregard for the concerns being raised and your dismissal of them. I will nominate it for deletion based on the way in which you have essentially cut the legitimate contributors for that content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at this content? Its mostly a copy of information from a government site on statistics made into a nice looking chart. The rest is basic information you could find anywhere. Actually take the time to read it, and its sources, and tell me how much work was done with it. And information is copied all the time, articles split and merged. I asked if there was a way to find out who did what, and copy the history over. But if there isn't, too bad. I do not consider it a legitimate issue, nor do I believe most people would ever even notice, or even care. I don't believe any Wikipedia policies have been broken either. Dream Focus 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And your dismissal of the issue is irrelevant. The work was done by editors other than yourself, the admonition regarding GDFL licensing and retaining the attribution isn't there for you to decide you don't care and blow off. It has been brought up, therefore 1) it is a legitimate issue, 2) someone did notice and 3) some people do care. What you are actually doing is dismissing the provenance of GDFL licensing and that, whether you like it, care, or consider it an issue, is one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As instructed by WP:Copying within Wikipedia, I provided the missing link to the original article using a dummy edit. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

George Tiller: Assassination or Murder?

I'm asking for some input over at the talk page for the Murder of George Tiller article. The article was originally "Murder of George Tiller", but was changed to "Assassination of George Tiller" a few months ago. Recently, a user changed it back to "Murder", which has led to a debate between that user and myself over which title is most appropriate. The two of us have debated the issue at the talk page, but so far we're the only ones to participate in the discussion, so I'd appreciate it if anybody would like to visit there and provide their own feedback. I'd like to establish some sort of consensus one way or the other... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Redheylin (talk · contribs) has proposed a possible merge of articles North Carolina v. Alford (1970 Supreme Court of the United States case), with the form of guilty plea it spawned, Alford plea. Discussion is at Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tags_at_Alford_articles. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Mr.Z-man. momoricks 23:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Future date of death, and cause for currently living Keith Jesperson?!

Death date of Jan 2010 and that it will be caused by an "inmate" will be the cause?! I take it the writer of this is a psychic as it is currently Dec. 2009! Wln —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.130.237 (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing edits to the related article. In this case, it appears that you are referring to Keith Jesperson. That page's history shows the vandalism (bogus death date and cause) has been removed. In the future, feel free to remove vandalism yourself; see WP:VANDAL momoricks 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Smuggling

Having been a observor of various cigarette smuggling events on a recent world tour - i note that the smuggling and cigarette smuggling and related articles could be considered part of this project rather than sociology say - any objections to adding these into the crime category tree? SatuSuro 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a common sense change. No objections from me. momoricks 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortuantely that might logically include drug smuggling as well - any problems with a rather rapid growing branch of the category tree? SatuSuro 09:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OOps maybe this comment should be at the crime project talk page - it is confusing :( SatuSuro 11:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have sorted it out - the category is there - it just needs expanding by tagging appropriate articles and categories SatuSuro 12:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Template merger proposal

See Template talk:Infobox mass murderer. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed

An extra set of eyes are needed at Ted Bundy for opinions, etc. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Biological warfare at peer review

A new portal Portal:Biological warfare is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Biological warfare/archive1. I put a bit of work into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)