Category talk:American criminals/Archive 2

Request for comment - Category criteria
What should be the criteria for American criminals, specifically taking into account WP:BLP?


 * I like David's formulation above. I think it spells it out well. I do not think proposed criterion E should be added to that. Aleta  Sing 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem with the previosu consensus version, now posted above?   Will Beback    talk    14:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I'll have to think some more about whether I prefer one or the other. Aleta  Sing 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may recall that you participated in the discussion which created that criteria.   Will Beback    talk    19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I really do not have any problem with them that way. I guess I'm uncertain what practical effect there would be in a change from them now to David's proposal above (to which I also have no objection). Aleta  Sing 01:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Literally every second comment in the RfC so far references "David's formulation", "one [my proposal] or the other [Will's box above]", or "David's proposal" But an editor keeps moving it out of the RfC. Fine. Please don't remove this link to my proposal. It belongs here. And no one has appointed anyone the threading and refactoring maven. So please, let's all defer to one another about where we place our comments. One wears too many hats when one acts as advocate and moderator both. It's unseemly. David in DC (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RfCs are "requests for comment". Let's see what others have to say.   Will Beback    talk    06:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What would you all think a fair time frame to wait for others to comment? Four days seems too short. Forever seems too long. Somewhere in between four days and forever seems just right. Any ideas about what the Goldilocks number is? David in DC (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough time to where someone on a weeklong WikiBreak can comment at least. :) One thing I found from February is that since this is a less traversed area, perhaps we should allow for more time to comment.  I support "David's proposal" and I'm OK if part E is not included.  We can deal with the ramifications and implications of "who's in" and "who's out" later.  I suggest that participants take some time and read each proposal carefully (word by word).  They are not the same and have much different meanings. If any of you follow law (I'm not a lawyer and do not intend to be, but I am still fascinated by the subject), a one word or one phrase change can have major implications on what the law really says. JustGettingItRight (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus for any of these new proposals, and so I'm going to restore the last version that had a significant consensus. We can certainly keep discussing and perhaps a new consensus will develop. However I suggest that it be kept simple. The recent proposals are extraordinarily complex.   Will Beback    talk    05:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One person consenting over a year ago to a statement that currently has major BLP concerns and was subsequently changed is not significant consensus. Let the talk page process play out.  I personally doubt we will complete our work on this before the end of the month, but discussing category criteria is not sexy enough as editing high visibility articles, I guess. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine for continuing the discussion, but I disagree strongly with the choice of deleting the criteria that includes people solely notable for criminal acts. That'd be like creating a criteria that excludes people solely known as actors because they don't belong to an actor's guild, for example. There was significant discussion a year ago to include it, and no significnat discussion of its deletion. Will you continue to revert its restortion? If so, why? P{Lease give a specific, policy-based reason.   Will Beback    talk    02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. We are not going to label those acquitted of crimes as American criminals.  JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Who proposed that? The criteria you deleted with little discussion had the principle effect of including those whose notability solely derives from crimes that were not felonies. An excellent example of that is Henry Earl. But a more general problem is that there is often no way of telling whehter a notable crime was prosecuted as a mfelony or a misdemeanor.   Will Beback    talk    23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. It had the effect of classifying people like John Hinckley Jr. as American criminals, people who had been acquitted in a court of law.  No criterion that does not have "a final conviction" as a qualifier should be approved.  JustGettingItRight (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So then what is the status of Henry Earl, under your version of the criteria? As for Hinckley, there is no reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of an attempted assasination. That category category:Failed assassins of U.S. presidents, is not a subcategory of this one, and as you say he was not convicted so I'm not sure why he would have been included.   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Under David's version, which I believe is a better worded version of the current version, he would not be considered an American criminal. Additionally, no one petty offense of Mr. Earl's is notable per your proposed criterion, so he's not even an American criminal under your proposed version. JustGettingItRight (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Earl is notable as a criminal, so let's make sure we craft the criteria to include him. As for Hinckley, he's already excluded by the previous criteria so we don't need to worry about that one.   Will Beback    talk    05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This RFC is clear as mud. I've previously commented on this topic (elsewhere and some way above) and yet I don't know what exactly people are being asked to comment on. Can someone clarify? Rd232 talk 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The criteria for this category is disputed. Last year, after considerable discussion, editors agreed on this criteria:
 * Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), or 
 * Can claim notability solely because of the crime, or 
 * Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.
 * With little discussion, the second criterion was deleted. When I raised the change in discussion (see above) some editors came up with new proposals to entirely replace the existing criteria with more complicated criteria. See  above. My view is that the previously agreed upon criteria is logical and practical. As for the specific deleted criteria, it makes sense to include people who are solely notable for being criminals in this category, even if their crimes were not felonies. I see no reason for making this more complicated than it has to be. So, the requested comment would concern which is better: the old criteria, the current criteria, or one of the proposals above.    Will Beback    talk    22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that helps a bit. I would say it is getting a bit complicated, and that much of that complication arises from a category name which is trying to do too much. Rename as Category:Americans convicted of felonies, and the vast majority of these problems go away. If that isn't amenable, I would tend to support JustGettingItRight's line of thought, including something in the direction of Criterion E. For the category "American Criminals", the person should be substantially defined by their crimes. Rd232 talk 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which problems are you talking about? Why would we set the criteria as only incluidng people who are "defined" by their crimes? That's not the standard for any other category that I'm aware of. Anyone convicted of a serious crime pretty much becomes defined by that crime, even if it's not their main claim to notability, but it's hard to prove that anyone is defined by this or that crime. Objective criteria are the best - and conviction is a very objective standard.   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add, having looked over dozens of the articles in this category and researched many of those further, that it can be very hard to tell whether a particular conviction is a felony or not.   Will Beback    talk    23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) we're talking about this category; if you're going to bring other categories in as comparisons, at least be specific. (b) the problems, obviously (?) are the definitional ones under discussion. (c) "serious crime" is, as far as I can see, very substantially different from the "notable crime" referred to in the proposals. Changing it to "serious crime" (assuming one could agree on a reasonable definition) would go a long way to my remark about "substantially defined by". (d) you didn't address the category renaming suggestion, which is odd given your closing sentence emphasising objective criteria: why not focus exactly on a single objective criterion? In which case, what argument is there for the category name not accurately reflecting that single criterion? Other categories can be created for the borderline cases which are causing much of the definitional hooha - and making those more specific will make that easier too. Rd232 talk 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "it can be very hard to tell whether a particular conviction is a felony or not" - fine, so make it Category:Americans convicted of serious crimes. Rd232 talk 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A) Take any other category: Category:Eastern Arizona College alumni, for example. Do we only add that to people who are defined by their college? No, we add it to everyone who attended, even if they slept through all teir classes. B) I don't see a problem with the previous criteria, so that's why I ask what problems you see. C) "Serious crimes" is a term with no clear definition, so I don't see how that would work. "Notable crimes" are those that are noted in mainstream sources. I'm not sure what felony would be non-notable, so that may be an unnecessary tautology. D) I'd be fine with renaming it to "Americans convicted of crime", though I should point out that that was rejected last year. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_21. At the time my objection was that it was a partial renaming, and that it didn't cover people who had never been convicted, like Lee Harvey Oswald.   Will Beback    talk    00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A) Well, to be blunt, alumnus is a silly comparison with criminal for definitional issues. Criminal has (despite some people's protestations to the contrary, a mystery to me) a sense that the person is a criminal by profession; that crime is the normal way in which they sustain themselves. The technical sense of "someone convicted of a crime" is not what most people think of; and WP heeds common usage. Alumnus doesn't have the BLP issues arising when these senses conflict (or even when they don't, the general "labelling people" issue can apply). B) Beyond these general issues, the problem is not with the detail of any individual set of criteria (though over-complication isn't great even for that), so much as that it leads to this sort of endless to-ing and fro-ing and general definitional muddle underlying that. C) "serious crimes" might be agreed upon; "notable" is kind of redundant, certainly in the category name. D) Looking at your deletion discussion above, and the earlier related one from 2006 (Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 21), I think a general rename of these types of category is worth exploring; quite a bit of the opposition is on consistency grounds. Much of the rest is from the fact that some non-convicts who people think belong in the general category (like Oswald) would have to be split off into other subcats. I have no problem with that; if anything that's much better than the status quo, even if we don't rename. I mean it makes a complete nonsense of the category definition to say it's basically technical (people convicted of crimes) and then shoehorn in people not convicted because it's pretty clear that they carried out particular crimes. Rd232 talk 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A) Again, I don't know of any category that requirs it be a "definitional" characterization. Being convicted of a felony, or other notable crimes, is definitional anyway - it means a loss of civil liberties and just about every job application inquires about it, just like they ask gender and age. B) Except for occasional grumbles on this talk page and the argument over a particular pardoned singer, I'm not aware of any controveries over this category. The proposals above certainly won't quite the grumblings. C) There are crimes we're all familiar with, like robbery and assault, but then they are numerous other crimes like "depriving an individual of his civil rights". It's a felony, but is it a "serious crime"? Nobody can say for sure because there's no definition for "serious crime". D) So long as unconvicted criminals are accounted for somehow that's fine. E) We should also take into account how criminal categories are handled for other countries, as there's no reason for Amercians to be treated differently. See Category:Criminals by nationality for an overview of the category tree.   Will Beback    talk    01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unconvicted criminals are not criminals. If they're alive, it's a BLP violation to say they are. If they're dead, it's just a violation of ettiquette, human decency and fair play. The exceptions to this must be very narrowly drawn. "Died in the commission of an act where the act was undisputably criminal" is narrowly drawn and includes Oswald. That's o.k. But beyond that, this eagerness to label people as criminals, rather than to label acts as criminal, is perplexing. The blithe indiference to the guidelines about categorization of people is troubling. And the insistence that I refrain from comment in this RfC: "RfCs are "requests for comment". Let's see what others have to say..." followed by the insistor's subsequently ubiquitous replies to every single comment by any other editor seems unbalanced at best and, at worst, undermines the assumption of good faith upon which collaborative editing relies. David in DC (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a semantic and philosophical issue of whether one becomes a criminal upon committing a crime, or not until being convicted by a court. To the extent possible we should avoid making such decisions. We're just here to talk about the criteria for this category. There's no eagerness "to label people as criminals, rather than to label acts as criminal". Regarding Oswald, if we rename this category to "Americans convicted of...", then we'd have to find a way of accomodating him in that new category, or in a parallel category joined under a common parent. I'm not going to apologize for commenting here. RD232, the only previously uninvolved editor to comment, and I were having a discussion. Please assume good faith.    Will Beback    talk    05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for an apology for your replies. An apology for or retraction of  this nonsense tho, given every 2nd comment thereafter, might make some sense.  I do assume good faith.  But assumptions are rebuttable. Requests for forebearance of comment, without even a token effort at reciprocal forebearance, are just the kind of thing that undermines the assumption.  It's corrosive.  It's tendentious.  It's unhelpful. David in DC (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Focussing on the issue, ignoring the sniping... Willbeback writes "There's no eagerness "to label people as criminals, rather than to label acts as criminal".". But (eagerness aside) this is precisely the nub of the issue: labelling people as criminal on the basis of criminal acts is what the category currently does. The rationale for this (as opposed to labelling the acts themselves) seems to be primarily based on the desire to include people as "criminal" who have committed acts generally recognised as criminal but not (for a variety of reasons) leading to conviction in a court of law. This seems quite unsatisfactory, and I return again to my most basic question: why is "Criminals" better than "People convicted of X" (crimes/notable crimes/serious crimes/whatever we decide) + "People acquitted of X on basis of temporary insanity" + "People dying in the commission of X", etc? Rd232 talk 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. But when we tried, we ran into this, pointed out to us here. David in DC (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking (looking at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_3) that the problem was mostly not making the switch generally. This renaming approach needs to be done consistently throughout the Criminals category and its subcats. If people here think that might fly, we should think about how to proceed for that larger scale. Rd232 talk 17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Elements of "American Criminal" as a category
I am adding this as a consequence of the RFC. I don't want to rewrite the definition but I think it could be reworked. First, let's stipulate that the "American" part of the category is not in dispute.
 * Stating that a notable criminal commits a notable crime is not a definition, it is a tautology. The criteria of inclusion of a crime in a newspaper is going to be different from its inclusion of a crime in a encyclopedia.  It needs work.
 * There needs to be a distinction between a living person and a dead person with respect to this category. We need it to be verifiable and accurate:
 * Only the living can be libeled and only the living can be adjudicated for a personal act, and hence convicted.
 * The dead cannot be convicted, but in the absence of a conviction, a posthumous judgment is often made (i.e. John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald) Reliable sources can be used to establish a certainty or a controversy around their guilt.


 * For the living, a conviction ought to required. There are hard cases here as well:
 * The criminal act is videotaped, the identity is not in dispute, etc. (i.e.Karla Homolka)
 * There is a widely reported confession and an implicit acknowledgment of it by both the prosecution and defense (i.e. Bernard Madoff).
 * Both cases above are not "criminals" until their conviction.


 * In the definition in the above section, it's not clear which fugitive status is being referred to: sought for questioning, outstanding arrest warrant, awaiting trial, post-conviction awaiting sentencing, post-sentencing awaiting imprisonment, escaped from prison or work-release, etc. I think here again, conviction is the decisive criterion -- the fugitive status is secondary.
 * The definition should be explicit on the distinction among pardons which remove the imputed guilt for a crime, and other executive actions which retain guilt but reduce or remove the fines, imprisonment, or the death penalty -- at the federal level this is called commutation (i.e. Scooter Libby). patsw (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly non-existent problem
Please see here, and here, and here, here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. No, this category doesn't need extra-special care. No more than nitroglycerine, anyway. David in DC (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any category can be mis-applied. Those articles wouldn't have been properly included in the category under any of the criteria that've been proposed, though if we're looking at reviewing the criteria we might want to check with legal sources as to whether a pardon really has the effect of wiping the crime off the record, which is the oissue with Samuel Loring Morison.   Will Beback    talk    17:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Any category can be mis-applied, but the stakes are different (and higher) when categorizing people.

(A) Igneous or sedimentary? Critters that hibernate or critters that estivate? Animal, mineral or vegetable?

(B) Convicted or acquitted? Knave or fool? Crook or mensch? Tendentious or diligent?

Perhaps one can see why the categories hypothesized in (B) require more delicate, adult, nuanced editorial judgment than using a binary toggle-switch.

Of course, perhaps one can't.

Happily, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Here's what editors before us have beqeathed to us for guidance in this matter:

Categorization of people

Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics.


 * Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal".

Furthermore,


 * Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignation can be marked as such). See also Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding robotized operations.


 * Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Categories, lists, and series boxes.


 * Double check: Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The Wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. In order to avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point and inoffensive. Create a new category that better serves what you want to communicate, rather than using an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article....

The notion that this can be dismissed by simply arguing that calling something controversial doesn't mean it's forbidden is sophistry. Of course it's not forbidden. But it should be approached cautiously, with the examples above serving as a guidepost. David in DC (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people: see Biographies of living persons....


 * Those issues concern the application of the category to individual articles. Other than putting a notice (which few will read) on the category page warning editors to use caution I don't see what we can do to ensure that the category is only applied properly. I doubt that a CfD would succeed.   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot we can do. We can write a better category.  The current one sucks. (Harry Chapin had a schtick in concert where he used to explain that "sucks" was originally a technical musical term, used primarily to describe ... The Osmonds. Harry's comic timing was better than my elipses.)


 * As it is, the category is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It invites mischeif. Almost anything would be better.  Aleta agrees with either formulation, at least at last sounding. JGIG, RD, and I all seem to agree that something new and different is needed. I find that encouraging. You're making a zillion very good edits marked "sharpen cat" that replace "American Criminal" with more specific, more narrowly-drawn, cats, focused on the criminal act instead of the actor. They help address the BLP (and even BDP) concerns that JGIG and I are trying to address with a better category. A well-drawn standard would sure be better than trying to guess which places a sole editor thinks American Criminal needs replacing. David in DC (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that anyone who added the category to ineligible articles read the criteria. The criteria isn't the problem and changing it won't result in article editors being more careful when applying the category. The issue only comes up in a few hard cases where a decision has to be made of how to categorize an article. Itd be better to deal with those specific issues.   Will Beback    talk    18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That totally ignores at least half the preceding discussion. Clearly, you simply don't share the concern that labelling people rather than acts, and conflating different usages of a key term ("criminal") is problematic. Why? Rd232 talk 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How will changing the criteria affect whether we're labelling the person or the crime? Making that change would require renaming probably a couple of hundred categories. I don't see a discussion of that here. I'm not opposed to it, but I also think that there is nothing wrong in principle with using a category like "Serial killers" rather than a more convoluted category like "People who have killed serially", or "Rapists" rather than "People convicted of rape".    Will Beback    talk    19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't see a discussion of mass-renaming here? I thought it was understood; maybe not. Maybe I'm wrong! As to your examples, there may be isolated category cases where renaming in the way proposed is too troublesome; but this is no reason to avoid addressing the general issue. Rd232 talk 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a suggestion for renaming this category, but not for renaming all of the parallel and child categories. As I said, I have no general objection to doing that as long as the solution is comprehensive and covers all applicable categories, and so long as people like Lee Harvey Oswald and Henry Earl are accounted for.    Will Beback    talk    21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrast Will Beback's current (and wonderful) editing blitz --- depopulating the American Criminal category almost by half in the past few days, and replacing the cat with various iterations of "Americans convicted of ...", --- with his arguments here. They don't fit together easily. One might think he was convinced of the problem but unable to back off of the limb he occupies all alone in this discussion. Will: It's OK to be wrong occasionally. It's even ok, not to get the last word. The blitz is kind of a strange approach to collaboration, but so be it. The result is a good one. It makes fixing this category slightly less urgent. The cat still badly needs fixing, but between our pointing out obvious BLP (and BDP) problems, and Will curing them, one-at-a-time, we've stumbled onto a peculiar process that improves Wikipedia. Stranger things have happened. Anyone who wonders what I'm talking about, just read the last 53 examples of WB edits with an edit summary of (sharpen cat) or some similar phrase. David in DC (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stick to discussing the category. Insults and complaints go on my user tak page. Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If somehow in practice we seem to be in agreement, perhaps we could get on with that. Rd232 talk 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We are surely not in consensus about how (or whether) to reword the category. We do seem to be in consensus only about striking the category and replacing it with a subcat that focuses on the act rather than the actor, page by page. That's why the list of articles in this cat has shrunk from three pages to two, and now to a single page.
 * So I'm following another editor's lead and doing that. This other, unnamed, editor is doing it to a much greater degree than I am. I invite others to do so as well. David in DC (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only articles left in Category:American criminals are those that don't have an good subcategory in which to place them. There are several reasons why some article are still here: we don't have subcategories for some crimes, like "conflict of interest" or "bomb threats"; some people were convicted of so many different crimes that it may be overload to list them all; and in some cases it's not clear what crime the person committed (those are all dead people, so there's no pressing BLP issue). But that hardly matters - every article in a subcategory is still within this category. While there may be a general agreement that a renaming would be helpful, we haven't been discussing how that would be done so it's still up in the air, as is the criteria for this category.   Will Beback    talk    18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I stumble on a rerun of something that's actually one of the few things I commented on after mostly leaving Wikipedia. Anyway... Last time (2008) I brought up the issue of whether Rosa Parks and Leo Frank are criminals. Rosa Parks got left out by limiting it to felonies, but that still leaves Frank. Of course Frank is widely believed to be innocent, and his conviction a miscarriage of justice. So should he be left out? It's easy to say he should, but when I think of it I'm not convinced. The reason is that the category is trying to avoid making a value judgment by limiting it to convictions, which can be verified, as opposed to actual guilt or innocence, which often can't. But if the category is about convicted people, and we're trying to avoid claiming that it's about guilty people, then we should have convicted-but-not-guilty people in there. In fact, we should have as many as we can find, because the more we have, the less the reader will assume that the page is about guilt. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that this category should be kept as objective as possible. Even those who were, in the opinion of history, wrongfully convicted should be included (unless their convictions were overturned, of course). There are two exceptions. First, inclusion of people known or assumed to be guilty, but never convicted. That includes folks like Lee Harvey Oswald, Kelvin Martin, or Frank James. The only folks in that circumstance are dead, so it's not a BLP issue but those are still judgment calls which get us away from the objective standard. The more controversial exception is for people whose sole notability comes from committing misdemeanors. The best example of that is Henry Earl. If someone is only notable as a (petty) criminal, then it seems (to me, at least) to be logical to include them in this category or a subcategory. Any thoughts on those two issues?   Will Beback    talk    01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just consider that Rosa Parks' sole notability comes from committing a misdemeanor. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Henry Earl and Rosa Parks are very different cases. From reading the biography, it appears that Parks was fined a total of $14 for disorderly conduct. The article is unclear about the appeal. It says, Parks appealed her conviction and formally challenged the legality of racial segregation. OTOH, Browder v. Gayle says:  Durr believed that an appeal of Mrs. Rosa Parks' case would just get tied up in the Alabama state courts. So I'm not sure if the conviction was ever actually appealled. In any case, it shows that it can be honorable to defy unjust laws.     Will Beback    talk    04:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is surely honorable for a person to defy unjust laws. And it is just as surely dishonorable to label such a person an "American Criminal". Wikipedia should not behave dishonorably.
 * Filling a Wikipedia category page with the name of every righteous civil disobedient in America's long, glorious history of civil disobedience (such as it is) would not whitewash the derogatory stigma from the word "criminal". The word is inherently derogatory. The hubris it would take to imagine that Wikipedia editors have the power to change that is breath-taking.
 * Any category definition of "American Criminal" that really does include Rosa Parks is fatally flawed. David in DC (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Leo Frank was pardoned in 1986 and that fact is included his Wikipedia article. If the point is that there are people who have been convicted of a felony in the United States since 1900, and are now deceased, and their innocence in the act for which they were convicted is not a matter of controversy among historians, then one needs other examples for which hypothetical exceptions need to be described. patsw (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It says that he was pardoned without clearing him of the crime. Does that count?
 * As for Rosa Parks, the issue is that this isn't a list of justly convicted people, it's only a list of convicted people. You've defined the category so as to include her (assuming you decide to allow misdemeanors).  If you really want it to be a list of justly convicted people, define the category that way. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded the relevant section of the Leo Frank article. It seems odd to me that the board used the term "pardon" here for a what amounts to merely a statement of regret.  To get to the point of this topic, I am persuaded that there needs to be a "Leo Frank" exception -- where the conclusion that deceased person did not commit the crime for which they were convicted is a non-controversial consensus among historians. patsw (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is an important point. I don't think there is anyone who seriously thinks Frank committed the murder of which he was convicted and for which he was murdered. He most definitely does not belong in this category, and we should forumalate the criteria to exempt cases such as his. I feel strongly that Leo Frank does not belong in this category. Lady  of  Shalott  19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leo Frank was pardoned, though the board of pardons did not say he was pardoned for actual innocence. Neither he, nor Rosa Parks, would fit under the current category. JustGettingItRight (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any people who are only well known for civil disobedience, but this involved a felony?

Also, what about cases like Mumia Abu-Jamal? A substantial number of people believe him to be innocent, but of course very many people don't too. 208.65.88.226 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any, but then it's hard to tell sometimes whether a conviction is for a midsemeanor or a felony. I suspect that anyone who has been convicted of a felony is probably known for more than just that one act. For example, Daniel Berrigan. As for Mumia Abu-Jamal, I don't see any logical, objective standard we could use to exclude such a person. He was legally convicted of performing what we'd all agree is a crime, murder. I suppose we could create a subcategory along the lines of "People who claim to have been wrongfully convicted", but I'm not sure of the value of that.   Will Beback    talk    21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is his conviction still under appeal? I'm inclined to believe no based upon the article.  JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Mumia Abu-Jamal? The article says:
 *  On April 6, 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled that his original conviction of 28 years ago would stand.[5] A separate appeal by prosecutors to reinstate the death penalty has not yet been heard.[6] In 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the murder conviction, but ordered a new capital sentencing hearing over concerns that the jury was improperly instructed.
 * It sounds like he lost the appeal on the conviction and the only matter in dispute is the sentence.   Will Beback    talk    01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Jamal because it's a cause celebre among some groups that he's unjustly convicted. (Look at the "Support" section in our article about him. Heck, the first Google hit I get for him is the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition home page.)  Yet obviously he should be included anyway. You want to define a category so as to exclude the unjustly convicted (like civil rights felons and Leo Frank), while still including people who are often claimed to be unjustly convicted (like Jamal). How do you do this? (The best I can think of is something like "or unless widely believed by historians to be unjustly convicted".) Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One way of handling that situation is to leave convicted criminals in the appropriate criminal category, but add a second category along the lines of "disputed convictions". However it'd be hard to develop an objective criteria for what qualifies as a disputed conviction - almost every case in which the accused pleads not-guilty would qualify, plus many in which there was a guilty plea. Perhaps "people considered by historians to have been unjustly convicted"? I'm not so sure...   Will Beback    talk    19:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)