Talk:List of convicted or indicted religious leaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Bold textAm I loopy from getting too little sleep today? Yup. Thinking on it 1900 is a better date to go with. Sorry all. User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 08:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I did decide to push it back a bit after all to allow for more historic leaders arrested or convicted of serious, preferrably violent, crimes. Granted 1880 is a bit more arbitrary looking than 1900, but in 1877 New Hampshire got rid of portions of its constitution that forbid Catholics to run for office and religious freedom had expanded greatly in the West by 1880. Also there's no one alive now who was alive in 1880 so it has the advantage of involving the entire period anyone can remember--T. Anthony 02:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm categorizing it to give it a bit of attention so others will take it over from here on. I imagine if it gets more attention some are going to be annoyed though. After all I put it in the cults category as well as crime. Are all these people cult leaders? No, but enough are deemed so it seemed an appropriate category. Isn't 1880 arbitrary? Yeah a little, but go too early and it could be anyone arrested for religious dissent as that was deemed a "serious crime" for much of history.--T. Anthony 02:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I alphabetized the list and moved Alamo due to controversy. I'm surprised this survived so long, but as it's a list that portrays negative religious people I imagine it'll last at Wikipedia near indefinitely.(I created this because I do acknowledge there are religious criminals some of whom are historically important)--T. Anthony 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that only serious offenders should be listed? it's a bit wierd for example that Ken Dyers (who does not seem to have been found guilty of anything) should be in there with mass murderers??MBarry 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Dyers should be included, he is certainly charged with serious crimes. He seems to have form as well. He has been convicted of a similar crime, and has spent time in prison. His conviction was overturned on a technicality, and the judges suggested a retrial. It is stretching it a bit to suggest he was acquited. That seems to be a little more spin than fact.Legalist 11:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if you do some 'legal' research you will find otherwise. From the court decision it seems Mr Dyers was tried on 11 charges and found not guilty on 10. One of the 5 High court judges then declared him not guilty; the other 4 judges quashed the conviction on an implied understanding that the charges would not be retried. the suggested retrial was a formality. the DPP was not able to retry it. The judges decision to convict Mr Dyers was illegal, so the overturning of the conviction was based on an important foundation of the criminal justice system. and since when does being accused of similar things give you form? or make you guilty? that would automatically make every Soapie star an annorexic, cheating, pregnant, alcoholic, engaged wacko with a lot of form! MBarry 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's convicted or indicted. I could change it to just convicted though. Also I'm a bit disappointed no one tried to AfD this. When I created a list on an actual religion or religious phenomenon people were often ready to pounce on trying to AfD it, like with List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination). I create one devoted to showing religious leaders who are real or alleged crooks and there's never even been concern. I wonder if I started a List of clergy who eat puppies there'd be any effort to Afd it "g"--T. Anthony 11:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well i would AfD it if I knew how... actually how do I do that? unless someone would ike to do it for me? since Im new n' all...

Cooldude7 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No sweat. I created it (what have I unleashed!:) ) I feel a certain symmetry in trying to destroy it.--T. Anthony 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)