Wikipedia:Crime labels

A biography of a living person (BLP) often begins by applying a label to the person, single words or brief phrases used to identify that person. The choice of such labels should be made thoughtfully and based on support for the common use of that label in reliable sources (RS) and the nature of biographies in encyclopedias. In the case of living persons convicted of, or notable for, crimes, in particular, labels should be employed with caution.

The fact the label could accurately be used is not the crucial issue here. The crucial issue is Wikipedia policy surrounding original research, synthesis, undue weight, and particularly the interpretation of these policies when they interact with policy surrounding BLPs.

Much of the discussion here pertains to the use of labels in the lead of an article.

Definition
There are many definitions for the word label. Here are two to think about:
 * Label (noun) A word or a phrase that is used to describe the characteristics or qualities of people, activities, or things, often in a way that is unfair:  He seems to be stuck with the label of "troublemaker".  - Cambridge Dictionary: label


 * Label (verb) If you say that someone or something is labelled as a particular thing, you mean that people generally describe them that way and you think that this is unfair: Too often the press are labelled as bad boys. - Collins Dictionary: label

NB: To dispute the use of a label is not at all to dispute the facts of the crime. The issue here is the use of the label.

Crucial policy
Wikipedia policy surrounding original research, synthesis, and particularly the interpretation of these policies when they interact with policy surrounding BLPs are the primary considerations.


 * 1) Wikipedia describes what has happened according to RS. It doesn’t draw conclusions not drawn by the sources, even when those conclusions seem obvious.
 * 2) Wikipedia follows the RS. Therefore we wait for RS to use the term as a label before we use the term as a label.
 * 3) In the case of a BLP, it is better to err in the direction of conservative interpretation of policy. Arguments that a person convicted of a crime is a criminal are not strong enough to represent BLUE in the case of a BLP.
 * 4) Inasmuch as the lead should reflect the content of the article, if a label is used in the lead, the article contents should support the use of that label for the person.

Reliable sources
If reliable sources are reporting that a living person was convicted of a crime, it is preferable for Wikipedia to state just those facts, rather than employing a label. Unless the majority of the best sources are labeling the person, Wikipedia should not be creatively labeling the person. Instead Wikipedia should simply summarize what reliable sources say. Bear in mind that in the case of persons who have committed a crime, however, contemporary sources can sometimes reflect the sensationalism of "breaking news" and societal excitement, and, hence, may not be the the best sources.

Quoting with attribution
Unless reliable sources are widely using the label, consider quoting with attribution.

Biographies of living persons
Wikipedia's BLP policy covers living and recently deceased people.

From several discussions, it is apparent that many of the concerns described in this essay fall away when the person is no longer living. There are several reasons why the sensibilities change once a person is no longer living.


 * If a person is long deceased, there is no longer the greater sensitivity that an encyclopedia must give to a living or recently deceased person.
 * Once a person dies, their life history becomes established. There is no longer opportunity for additional developments in the person's life that could perhaps overshadow an earlier criminal incident.
 * With time, historians may have established with greater thoroughness the nature of a person and their life. The citations editors can draw on may become more staid.
 * With a person of the past, it is far easier to be dispassionate about the subject. The immediate, emotional response to a criminal that may be provoked by their scandalous or outrageous present-day crimes, and the reporting on them, does not exist.

Additional policy concerns
To many readers, a negative label in a BLP reads very close to name calling, which is inherently not encyclopedic language. Viewed as name calling, it can be argued that using negative labels in a BLP damages the encyclopedia by degrading the discussion, even when the names are accurate descriptors. That the actress Winona Ryder was famously convicted of shoplifting does not mean that Wikipedia should label her a "shoplifter".

Being essentially shorthand, standing in for a lengthier description, a label is inherently imprecise, hence potentially misleading. Labels can be interpreted by readers in any number of different ways, conveying unintended meanings to them. While use of a label is intended to quickly convey the nature of a person to the reader, it may be preferable to use a longer, but more precise, description. To illustrate the possible ambiguities, consider that a person's occupation is often used as a label, e.g., an author, a politician, a general. If a person is labeled by a crime, could it not be readily understood that that crime is their occupation? Bonnie and Clyde were bank robbers, sure, but if someone commits a single fraud, however it occurred, does that make their occupation "fraudster"?

People read Wikipedia articles knowing they are written by anonymous amateur writers. Nevertheless, they expect encyclopedic articles in the proper tone and without bias. Newspaper and other sources may have editorial positions, and they have more freedom to use labels. Articles from reliable sources are written by professionals doing original research, and it's OK for them to use more opinionated language. Objectively speaking, a person may be a murderer, yes, but such a label may fail to consider the genre we are writing in and the important tone requirements of a BLP.

Verifiability and opinion vs. fact
Verifiability is of course the minimum standard for even discussing a criminal conviction, regardless of the language used. In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily appropriate for a Wikipedia Biography of a Living Person.


 * Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: the choice of a word like "fraudster", which is vague and contains innuendo, is an opinionated way of writing. It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice.


 * It is important not to cherry-pick quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately, and undue weight should be avoided.

Arguments not based in policy
How much the person deserves to be labelled due to the egregiousness of their actions is not a policy-based argument.

"But it's the truth" is not a policy-based argument. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources are saying. We do not publish original thought.

Citing the bare definition of the label as anyone "convicted of the label crime" is not a policy-based argument for the use of the label. The fact the definition of the label "fraudster" is "someone convicted of fraud" is, on its own, not a policy-based argument for its use. On the one hand, one cannot assume the reader understands the label by the same definition that the editor assumes (e.g., a "fraudster" could also be "someone whose principle occupation is fraud"), while on the other hand, the bare definition has no bearing on whether the label is appropriate in any particular case.

That a biographical subject is notable for a crime does not necessarily mean that the use of a crime label is the best way to describe that person in the lead. It is often better to briefly state the crime and its circumstances than to employ a simple label. Avoiding a crime label does not diminish the seriousness of the crime.

Do not assume a dispute over using a label is caused by a desire for political correctness or because an editor personally favors the article subject. If other editors are raising objections to a label for BLP reasons, it may be best to back off and let it go.

Convicted
It is common to see cliche phrases like "convicted felon". This is a value-laden statement ie. there is no such thing as an un-convicted felon. All felons are convicted, it is required to become a felon. The word "convicted" is added to emphasize. Not only is this POV, the sort of thing a trial lawyer or reporter might do, it obscures the true nature of the crime and instead labels the person. For alternatives see the section "#Suggested alternatives". Further discussed at BLP Talk on Use of "convicted felon" in lead.

Suggested alternatives
In the extensive discussions and Requests for Comment (RfCs) listed in References below, generally the use of a crime label in the lead has been found to be inappropriate. One reason is that vague or misleading labels can usually be avoided in a straightforward manner by a simple statement of the facts:


 * Instead of “is a fraudster”: “was convicted of fraud”
 * Instead of “is a convicted felon”: “was convicted of felony X”
 * Instead of “is a criminal” or "is a convict": “was convicted of X”

True, the cost of this change is that the text is more verbose. However, greater accuracy and precision in writing are preferable to the ambiguities and implicit name calling that can be associated with a label.

Examples from actual articles include:

A notable person, then a notable crime
A perplexing situation arises when a famous, accomplished person commits a crime, such as Harvey Weinstein, Martha Stewart, Roman Polanski, or Bill Cosby. Inevitably, arguments over the form of the lead in that case involve a clash of labels, between those representing the subject's earlier notability and those representing the crime. It may be that combining labels in this way is not the best writing, whether or not a crime label is justified, for example, the lead sentence: "Roman Polanski is a Polish and French film director, producer, screenwriter, actor, and convicted sex offender." The listing of the crime in this way is jarring, even distracting to the reader, while serving to obscure the crime to the reader by "hiding" it among other labels of the list.

One suggested solution to this writing dilemma was formed for the Roman Polanski and Martha Stewart articles. The first paragraph of the lead focuses on the subject's primary notability, while the second paragraph focuses on the crime, thus forming more coherent, fluid descriptions. In many cases without the subject's prior non-criminal notability, the subsequent crimes would not raise the subject's notability; the criminal notability is therefore often secondary.

When crime labels are appropriate to use
Crime labels may be appropriate when widely used by higher-quality sources; in some cases a discussion may be appropriate to determine consensus in a particular article. If the label is being used by only a few higher-quality sources, it may be more appropriate to quote with attribution rather than state it in Wikivoice.

In addition to the use of a crime label in reliable sources, a secondary requirement is that the article text substantiates that crime label as a notable identity of the subject. The lead is required to represent the article text, hence the text should substantially establish the long-standing criminal "essence, nature, or occupation" of the person such that the use of a crime label is justified. If the reliable sources are employing the label, then it would be a straightforward matter to develop supporting article text. The description of Winona Ryder's single shoplifting incident does not rise to the level of supporting a criminal label for her in a Wikipedia article.

Examples of articles that use crime labels in a biography without contention include those for Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, or Jeffrey Epstein (recently deceased), labeled as "sex offender"s. In these cases the crimes were long-standing patterns, as documented by those articles.

If Wikipedia was available in 1934 in the midst of Bonnie and Clyde's crime spree, it would have been entirely appropriate to label them "bank robbers and murderers" - at that time, that was their well-reported, ongoing occupation.

Discussions of whether, based on reliable sources using it, a label is appropriate can be held at the article talk, but a neutral announcement with a link to the discussion can be made at the WP:BLP Noticeboard to ensure broader opinion.

Epilogue
From the experiences of the past discussions above, it is apparent that, even after the considerations summarized here, there will be those that will still maintain the view: "Why not call them what they are: murderers, bank robbers, and con men?" We welcome the contribution of an opposing essay, laying out the justifications and rationales for that view.

Link to be added when essay appears