User talk:FormerIP/Crime

Comments on article
I have an issue with the section Renown. I can't agree because the renown of an individual, if extensively reported and know in the media or other books, would normally be a reason to justify a separate article on that individual. People will read or hear about a criminal somewhere and then go to wikipedia to see who he actually is or for some background information, so a biographical article would be appropriate in my opinion. Also some articles, like the Curtis Allgier article, show that sometimes a standalone biography article works better for a criminal of some 'renown' than one on the crime or the event. Also I think "renown of an individual" and "very high renown" are almost the same terms and somewhat impossible to separate given that the dictionary meaning of 'renown' is "widespread and high repute; fame". For example Seung-Hui Cho is probably less well know or have less 'renown' than Lyle Menendez although the former case is more recent.

So in my opinion the section should be varied to say something like "Renown": a person who is widely know may meet the standards for a spin off article according to the section "Criteria for spinning-out" Wombat24 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment Wombat. I think what I'm trying to reflect what the actual practice is. If you look across different articles, it seems clear to me that there is no such rule (at least not one in actual operation) that says "when a criminal gets to a certain level of renown they automatically get their own article". Although the renown of the person is clearly part of the story, it isn't all there is to it and it isn't necessarily even the main thing. So as you say, Lyle Menendez has greater renown than Seung-Hui Cho, so you might think that Menendez would be the one with his own article. Except that's not actually how it appears to work. I think that the rule that actually applies is "is a spinoff justified?", which takes into account not only the renown, but also the amount of source material available and what other articles already exist about the crime.
 * Curtis Allgier is a good example of someone who has their own article and indeed he should do, if WP:CFORK is mainly what we are looking at. However, if we were to go by renown alone, he probably wouldn't get an article and his crime wouldn't, therefore, be covered on Wikipedia at all (because there is nowhere else to put it). That's why I think the guidance needs clarifying to stress that the thing to do is not just to look at the renown of the individual. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "is a spinoff justified?"...Well we actually agree mostly. I expressed myself poorly here. For example Lyle Menedez AND Sueng-Hui Cho should both have a separate biography article in my opinion so that we can also continue to add information to the page as more becomes available, ie a spinoff article would be justified for both men. I disagree with placing both their bio's inside the article on the crime, as is done in the Fritzl case. Adding Josef Fritzl's bio to the bottom of that page makes the page look amateurish and the entire page becomes not-user friendly. Nidal Malik Hasan is a good example of why we need separate bio articles in cases that have extensive media coverage although the person is known for only one crime. But the problem is that currently the 'actual practice' in wikipedia varies too much between those who believe in adding a separate article and those who don't, so we really need to look into developing the actual rules set too. Notice the current discussion going on over at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner. But maybe here, using a rule worded as "does the renown of the individual justify a spinoff article" or similar would suffice.Wombat24 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a key thing IMO is that current policy in this area does not draw attention to WP:CFORK, although that seems to be the main thing in operation here. A comment about spinning off would be useful here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people).
 * I'm not saying, BTW that it is impossible to disagree with any of the historic decisions made. I also think the Menendez articles would could be split differently and I also find it surprising that there isn't a Myra Hindley article. But I can also appreciate why things have happened that way. If editors come to a consensus about whether to spinoff in any given case and I disagree with the decision, at least the right discussion has taken place. --FormerIP (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another problem I see is with the phrase "focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity" because that may not always be possible because sometime people are know for their entire life or their biography covers their entire lifespan and there is more information available of their pre-crime days than their 'notable criminal activity'. So I don't believe that "focusing primarily on their notable criminal activity" should be included here, ie end the line at "that person". Biographical articles should be biographical.Wombat24 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you may have a point here. What I was trying to get across is that in most cases we should not give undue attention to the biography of a criminal, since their school record or whatever is not what they are notable for. But you are right that Phil Spector, for example, is an entirely different case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So when is this baby going LIVE?
--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, btw, once it DOES go live, the shortcuts wp:CRIME and wp:CRIMINAL could perhaps be appended--?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno (!). I'm focussing more on this for the time being: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). Thanks for your support. --FormerIP (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)