Category talk:Murderers of children

Renaming
The name "Murderers of children" seems ripe for some nut to start including the names of abortion doctors. Maybe renaming the category is in order. Treybien 19:56 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Child-murders do tend to be different
In fact, I think we may need to further sub-divide into murders by parents, infanticide, and stranger murders.ChristinaDunigan 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition
It should either be renamed or the definition clarified so that it is clear that this is about people whose targets were children, not about people whose targets simply included chldren but only incidentally. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by paraphrasing your suggested definition, please reword as desired. -84user (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Undone. Clearly, Dougweller proposed this change of definition because he doen't want Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to fall into this category.  That is not a valid reason to change the definition of a category.  The previous definition was clear, simple, and consistent with the name of the category.   The new definition is very problematic:
 * If a person murdered a group that includes both children and adults, and even knew a priori that he was going to murder children, the new definition can nonetheless exclude him from this category, because it can be argued that children were not specifically targeted.
 * In some cases, the new definition requires Wikipedia editors to make subjective judgments about the intent of the murderer, rather than to merely report the objective results of the crime.  71.219.226.125 (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's the other way round. The IP was trying to use the category in a way it hadn't been used before as part of a series of pov edits (yes, technically a different IP address but clearly the same person). I agree that we should not be using subjective judgements, so entries here should have reliable sources calling them child murderers. Generalising it to the extent this IP wants makes the category so broad as not to be useful for our readers, and the purpose of categories is to be useful in selecting articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Weller accuses me of making "pov edits." To the contrary, it's an objective fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi murdered children [ Source 1, Source 2 ].   To admit that a man murdered children, and at the same time insist that he is not a murderer of children, is POV game-playing at its worst.  Let's stick to reporting the objective results of a crime, rather than attempting to divine who the intended target was (which, in some cases, is impossible). 71.219.247.5 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you've made that clear. Your sole purpose in this is to stick a label on one person, not to make this a more useful category. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently Dougweller thinks he can divine not only the intent of all murderers, but "my sole purpose." Well, he's wrong.  There is not just "one person" excluded from the category by the change he proposed... there are quite a few. 71.219.247.5 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, you wrote that the category should guide "readers to articles specifically focussing on the targeting of children." Well if that's what you're after, why not create a new category called "Murderers who targeted children"? Why do you feel the need to hijack this category for that purpose? 71.219.247.5 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the way the category has been used, my clarification is in line with the way it's been used. I'm not hijacking this at all, you are trying to add someone who doesn't fit in with the current use of the category. Quite a difference. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Murderers of children" category has been used to list -- gasp! -- murderers of children. Just because that's not how you would like it to be used, does not give you the right to replace its traditional, serviceable definition with a very problematic definition.
 * After I explicitly pointed out that the change you proposed excludes quite a few people from the category, you ignored that fact, and brazenly continued to push your fiction that I changed the definition of the category for the sake of "one person." How obnoxious!
 * For those who aren't familiar with this debate, let us review the facts:
 * On 28 July 2010, while attempting to justify a revert to the Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi article, Dougweller wrote that this category "is for those who targeted children." Perhaps he imagined that to be the case, but the fact is, as of 28 July the original definition of the category was still in force, namely "This category contains articles about people who have murdered children."  (A definition that Megrahi clearly meets, as he was convicted by a High Court of Justiciary of murdering children.)
 * After I pointed out that Dougweller was mistaken, he came here on 4 August 2010 and proposed a change to the definition of this category. A change that would exclude Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
 * Since then, he has lied about me, and has accused my factual edits of being "pov edits." For whatever reason, he seems desperate to change the definition of this category, such that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi will be excluded.  But that is not a valid reason to change the definition of a category.  I have been fighting to preserve the integrity of this category. 71.219.238.90 (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood you but I haven't lied about you. If you look at the edits above, one says 'child-murders do tend to be different'. You also are ignoring - why? - the fact that I did not change the definition of this category. I suggested that there was a problem and another editor changed the definition. Two other editors besides me have reinstated that change after you removed it. I count 5 people (including the editor who made the change) who disagree with you. 3RR is not a right, so I suggest that you recognise that you don't have consensus. And I still maintain that the change in the definition is simply a clarification of the original intent, and that your change would not make it easier for readers. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)