Category talk:American criminals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category:American criminals page.

Contents

[edit] A reasonable request

Why don't we have a sub-category for elected officials? God knows there are enough of them and it's a relatively clear delineation. Ich (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Add every elected official who was a criminal? The list would become so long it would become unusable! As said below, anybody who is not primarily known for their criminal activity should be removed from the list. No reader should have to say, "What is that person doing there?... Oh yeah, I see now." In other words, this list should include Al Capone but not Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton (all of whom broke laws). Mdmcginn 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lohan

Is it just me, or does Lohan's inclusion in this category stretch its credibility? Were it not for his daughter's celebrity, here is a person who would be of no note whatsoever. I've met the man, and I assume he hopes to change that (preferably for the better) someday; for now, however, notability is (literally) relative... RadioKirk talk to me 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria

We do need to set up some criteria for this category. Do we include those guilty of misdemenors, such as DWI, minor drug offenses and domestic violence? How about someone like O. J. Simpson? Jonny Cash? Anyone else who shows up at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/ ? -- Pinktulip 10:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Randal L. Schwartz? Convicted felon, but served no jail time. -- Pinktulip 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Randal just today got his felonies expunged; is he exempt now? Ysth 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criminal by occupation? That is ridiculous.

Folks: Many Americans have criminal records but very few Americans can fairly be characterized as having an occupation of "criminal". We need much more clear criteria in this category. If we want to drag in the many more Americans who have misdemenors on the records (and then get into issues such as criminal record expungement, since misdemenor punishment is usually not intended to ruin someone's legal occupation as a felony conviction might), perhaps a new category of "American petty criminal" would be appropriate. -- AWM 68.164.245.60 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Certain criminals can. However, after a year and a half, we will accept your suggestion :). WatchingYouLikeAHawk 15:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggested criteria

A category like this simply must have a limiting criteria on inclusion, since "criminal" can be highly pejorative or controversial. A proposal:

  • All people in this category must have been convicted of a crime or in a situation where their having committed crime is otherwise totally unambiguous, and the crime must be one which is not today considered to be a crime of conscience or something like that (i.e. not just an abuse of the legal system).
  • All people in this category must be primarily known for their criminal activities. That is, their inclusion in Wikipedia at all must be primarily because of their criminal acts.

That would keep the category fairly trim and fairly useful, weeding out everyone who had minor offenses or questionable crimes and keeping mostly the hard-core "criminals" or people whose notability is defined by their criminality. Thoughts? --Fastfission 00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    • OK, here's what I'm posting, obviously feel free to edit if you have a reason to improve it:

For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly and lawfully convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts, or else the person must have committed distinct, infamous, verifiable criminal acts but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof. --M@rēino 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What's "infamous"? Eugene Hasenfus is apparently in the category for exposing himself in a parking lot. Phr (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we badly need the second part of Fastfission's criteria. The category becomes useless (and unwieldly) if every bad American needs to be added to it. This lists need to include only Americans who are primarily known for their criminal activities. Right now it becomes a great tool for political and personal vendettas: we could add several US Presidents and staff members simply because they were indicted, convicted, or should have been convicted. But that's not what they were known for. Mdmcginn 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category name

With the word "American" in the the title, casual readers can only assume that it pertains to the nationality of the criminals, not the locale of the crime or context of any conviction. I think that the current definition is too expansive and misleading. Including foreign nationals who committed crimes in the US (i.e. 9/11 hijackers) contradicts the usage of all other Wikipedia category names starting with "American". --Hooperbloob 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a further problem with the title being "American" because the U.S. is not the entirety of America. I understand that it is common usage, but doesn't this inheirently include Mexico, Canada, and even Brazil? I suggest the U.S. be referred to as the U.S. & not America. Then there's the aforementioned issue about what is included. Those of that national origin, those who committed crimes in that area, or some combination of both? If I do not hear any further discussion on this topic after 1 week I will take it upon myself to rename the article & add defining criteria. --Duemellon 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that the category name is that "American Criminals" implies that the person is an active criminal. A better name would be "Americans with a Criminal Record" Cigraphix (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Abrams

What's Elliot Abrams doing on this list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

He's off the the list as he was pardoned. Thank you. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incarcerated Celebrities

This category has apparently been deleted. Can someone tell me how and why this was done? John celona (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it was in bad taste and did not further the aims of the project? David in DC (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad. [redacted] John celona (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be a shame. And tendentious. David in DC (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

How was the decision made to include only those who are "solely" notable for their criminal convictions? Sure, Christian Brando and the former Mayor of Atlanta don't fall under that, and others as well. If this is for people only notable for their criminal convictions perhaps the title ought to be changed as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

This category has recently been inflated with a number of subjects whose main claim to notability IS NOT their crime. I urge that this wholesale change in the nature of the list be reviewed by fair-minded editors and administrators. Where the subject does not belong in the category, I urge that the subject be speedily deleted. Bullies don't get to change policy wholesale by calling edits to their additions censorship. David in DC (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This category has LONG contained the names of literally scores of political, musical, sports and other figures who have been convicted of crimes, without the slightest protest by you. For instance Tonya Harding and Joey Buttafuoco, to name just 2 out of untold dozens long placed in this category, were famous in their own right well before being convicted. Another would be Denny McLain, one of the most famed athletes in America, the last 30 game winner baseball will likely ever see. His subsequent criminal conviction has properly placed him in this category for over 2 years without a murmur. Just because their fame preceded their well-sourced convictions surely doesn't mean they must be censored from this category. Such a result would be absurd. If there is a question as to the source that is a different matter. However, if a musician, athlete, etc. has a subsequent criminal conviction well sourced in the national media, that person is quite properly placed in this category and any speedy deletion from the category without following Wikipedia dispute process should be treated as vandalism. John celona (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it that strongly. For example, most people given the name of Billy Preston would think of his association with The Beatles rather than his convictions. The problem with the category definition, as currently set out, is that it is unnecessarily vague. To avoid disruption to the project, I will take some time working on an appropriate definition, not least to avoid WP:POINT and WP:BLP considerations, and put it before the community for consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody object if I open an RFC on this one? John, I appreciate that you're trying to do this outside of the Yarrow dispute, but right now the only participants in this discussion seem to be those of us from Yarrow. I think getting other opinions in here as quickly as possible would be beneficial. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only don't I mind, SI, I think you would be doing the project a service.David in DC (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, per above.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see that the vast majority of this talk page is concerned with scoping this category. If it cannot be plausibly scoped by consensus, it should go as lacking certainty. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think about half the articles in this category are on persons who are, at least arguably, notable for both their crimes and something else such as politics, sports, music, acting, etc. These articles have been up for years. In the interest of fairness I will refrain from adding any more articles to this category for the time being. Hopefully others will not delete articles which have been on this category for years as one user has already done-AFTER stating he wouldn't! It seems commonplace to me that if someone is famous for both a criminal conviction and say a sport-that they are properly placed in both categoriesJohn celona (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think rodhullandemu is right. Given the recent demonstration of this category's potential for tendentious mischief, deleting the cat may prove necessary. That would be a shame though. Reasonable people should be able to come to consensus. Unreasonable people should go play on blacklisted sites like Free Republic.David in DC (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category should be deleted. It is too ripe for BLP violations and mischief. There is no purpose to be served by it. If another user would like to nominate for deletion, I would vote in favor. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a fine category which has been up for years. The above user is a fan of child molestor/one hit wonder pop star Peter Yarrow and does not want to see his hero in this category-ergo he attempts to delete over 400 people's work! Amazing. John celona (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Warning re WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That really doesn't help one jot. What we are here to do is build an encyclopedia, if you remember. If we can't do that with ALL policies in mind, we are wasting our time. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:john_celona --Jkp212 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed jkp's link. David in DC (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have agreed not to add any more names to this category while the RFC is pending. Can we at least stop wholesale removals from the category while the RFC is pending? For instance, Jpk212 has unilateraly deleted over 3 dozen articles from this category, some of which users had put in the category years ago. To name just 2, W. George Bowdon was put in this category by user Billy Hathorn on September 2, 2006; the Ray Blanton article was categorized on August 16, 2006 by user Blueboy96. John celona (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If a person is convicted and serves time, does that NOT make him eligible for "American criminals"? So Preston Bynum, W. George Bowdon, Jr., and Ray Blanton all qualify. Richard Nixon does not qualify as an "unindicted co-conspirator"? Spiro Agnew may qualify because of nolo contendere. Maybe there should be a separate category "Criminal politicians"?Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of couse you're 100% right Billy. This is rather silly. These names have been in the category for years in many cases. John celona (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should be the threshold for inclusion of this category?

Should be simple enough: If a person is notable for a well-sourced criminal conviction they should be eligible for the category-just like any other category. If there is not a good source showing they have not been convicted they are ineligible for the category. If they are notable for some other reason, they can be in that category also John celona (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a good compromise would be to change the category to "Americans convicted of crimes". This would clarify any claimed ambiguity concerning people like Martha Stewart, Michael Vick, and scores of others in this category who are clearly notable both for their internationally reported convictions and in other fields like sports, business, music, politics, acting, directing, etc. John celona (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting idea, John. My main reservation is would it be potentially too broad? I'm not certain. Has Wikipedia:WikiProject Law been informed of this RFC? I would think they would have comments to make. Aleta Sing 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with John. I am unaware of any category that requires that the subject of the article be primarily known for that activity. For example, it makes perfect sense that Benjamin Franklin is in both Category:American diplomats and Category:American inventors. The threshold for inclusion in the various criminals categories should be cut and dried: If the person was convicted, they belong; if they weren't, they don't. — Dulcem (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, there are some people who have come up with one minor invention, or have engaged in one minor act of diplomacy, but would not properly be categorized as criminals. I agree with the above proposal to change this to Category:Americans convicted of crimes, perhaps with a subcategory for those convicted of multiple, unrelated crimes, or for those convicted of particular crimes (don't we have, e.g., Category:American murderers? bd2412 T 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see we have a panoply of subcategories already. Good. Also, thinks for posting on WikiProject Law. bd2412 T 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the Category description says: "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted 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), can claim notability solely because of the crime [emphasis added], or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable 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." The part I bolded is dispositive. Why is this such a hard concept? If their principal notability is for being the "5th Beatle" or being a member of a folk trio, then they do not belong in this category.David in DC (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about this wording. Most categories do not require that notability of subjects rest solely on that one criterion. Why should this one be different? It doesn't make sense to me that a person's notability should have to be only due to criminal activity for inclusion. Aleta Sing 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As the history shows, you are correct; unfortunately, the author of that wording is unavailable for comment because he is indefinitely blocked. My own take is that this is overly restrictive wording. A "criminal", per Merriam-Webster's, is "a person who has been convicted of a crime". (By the way, what's a "crime" in this instance? Shall we restrict it to felonies?)
To those who argue criminals should be notable only because of their crime to merit inclusion: why? How many of the American vegetarians or the American Episcopalians (other than clergy) are notable solely or primarily because of their dietary habits or creed? Similarly, if one is convicted of a crime, whether he is Al Capone or Bob Taft, Jeffrey Dahmer or Tom Finneran, he belongs in the category.
Finally, to address BLP concerns: BLP says that "material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." Of course. No one says we should stick people in this category without ample, reliable citation. But once we have the citations that demonstrate a criminal conviction, I don't see what the issue is. Biruitorul (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
BLP is more complicated and nuanced than simply having a source. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds rather occult - would you perhaps be able to reveal some of these "complications" and "nuances" to those of us who take the policy at face value? Biruitorul (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
sure: blp policy states that somtimes "including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced" -- this is especially true if the details are "off topic", as is relevant here, where some users are including material that is off topic. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also add to the category those individuals whose criminal trials led to substantial changes in the law in their jurisdiction. Robert A. Berkowitz's rape conviction in Pennsylvania was overturned while he was found guilty of indecent assault, a misdemeanor. Berkowitz is notable because his case led to the passage of PA's sexual assault statute in 1995. I think the criteria should be based on notability for the crime that is independent of any other notability that the person might have. Some of the crimes of celebrities are only notable because the celebrity was notable before the crime. In other cases, the crime overshadows any previous notability the individual may have had. A criminal is regarded for their commission and conviction of a crime. One can be convicted of a crime and cease to be regarded as criminal. One may also be acquitted of a crime, and yet be regarded as a criminal by significant numbers. It may be easier if you insert the person's name in the sentence "X is a criminal." "Al Capone is a criminal" gathers less controversy than "Martha Stewart is a criminal." Some may disagree with the later statement, whereas "X is an American Episcopalian" would gather little or no disagreement for those it includes. I think it is a factor of both notability for the crime independent of anything else, and whether there is a greater consensus of the person as a criminal. The more controversial or disputed the status, the less likely the individual should be included in a category of criminals rather than a category of persons having committed crimes. At arraignment, we refer to all individuals as criminals, but convictions over 7 years old are not taken into consideration for bail arguments. Of course, we have a certain bias on the side of the State. Just my 2 cents. Legis Nuntius (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct. If someone is convicted of a crime and is American they should be in the category. Changing the name of the category to "Americans convicted of crimes" would end this debate as the pro-censorship contingent would lose the little bit of "leg" they are trying to stand on. John celona (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to go on record and say that I don't think every person who has been convicted of a crime needs to be labeled as a criminal and thus put into this category. I think the category is intended for guys like Al Capone who's whole claim to fame was their criminal activity, not some guy like Billy Cannon who was known as a football star, but later in life was caught in a counterfeiting scandal. Sf46 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Otherwise, this category becomes more of a game of "gotcha" -- we do not need to hold a scarlet letter to everyone who was ever arrested or convicted of any crime, without considering the circumstances. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is especially salient because this category is actually a subcategory of people by occupation. I'm not making that up. It's right on the page. How on earth can it be right to be putting in people who make/made their living by doing something else? It's inconvenient as hell for anyone wanting to expand the scope of the category, but it's a fact nonetheless. David in DC (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Either it should not be a subcategory of people by occupation, or the description should specify that the category is for people who make their living through criminal activity (in which case that wording should replace the "solely notable for..." wording). Aleta Sing 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds eminently reasonable.David in DC (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me to. Either way, individuals who are not well known as a result of their crime do not belong in this category. Can we please conclude this with consensus so that the ridiculous additions to this category will stop? --Jkp212 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I do object to the "solely notable" wording. Whether or not it's the person's occupation, I think "solely notable" is too restrictive. The person should, however, have at least a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity. We of course always have to heed Wp:BLP where it applies. Aleta Sing 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if someone was convicted of a crime, or there is no reasonable doubt that they did not commit a crime, they should be included in this category. I have to agree with the rationale given above with Benjamin Franklin as an example. J.delanoygabsadds 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a working consensus is that as Aleta says, the person should "have at least a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity. We of course always have to heed Wp:BLP where it applies." There is no black and white here, but we have to use discretion. Is that generally agreed, and can we move on? --Jkp212 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm closer to Aleta's or Jkp's wording, which calls for editorial discretion, than to J.delanoy's on/off, black/white switch. Calling someone (dead or alive) a criminal is qualitatively different from calling them an inventor or a diplomat (or an Episcopalian or a vegetarian as someone else posits above).
Look at poor Eugene Hasenfus. His sole notability is for his role in the Contra part of IranContra. Later in life, after he was by no stretch of the imagination notable, he had embarrassing criminal trouble entirely unrelated to his notability. BLP and Undue Weight tell me his later convictions don't belong in his article at all. But J.delanoy's formulation would put the material I've deleted back in the article and then lump him in with Al Capone.
Now look at poor Billy Preston. He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply, but how the heck do his drug problems, even if they're in the article, rise to the level that he should share a list with Jeffrey Dahmer? David in DC (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I support a renaming to Category:Americans convicted of crimes. While some would argue being convicted of a crime makes one a criminal, the term "criminal" has certain connotations that would be best avoided by rewording. Moreover, such a change makes inclusion easier to ascertain and takes away concerns over the "scale" of criminal one needs to be to be categorized. Rockpocket 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anew, I was struck by how horribly this category lends itself to mischeif. Read Kendra James. If the categorization I removed here doesn't make your blood boil, you're not paying attention. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to the proper board where I can request that this category be changed to Category:Americans convicted of crimes? There should be a standard set. The category has been used (as common sense dictates) for anyone who has been covicted of a crime if there is a verified source. Recently, a tiny pro-censorship contingent has embarked on a campaign that would immunize politicians, actors, musicians, sports figures and other celebrities from being included in this category. Not veryone though. They make no effort to remove conservative or Reublican figures. Any attempts to remedy this situation result in a self-admitted COMMUNIST administrator blocking the user. The changing of the name would unambigously put those (administrators included) who would censor convicted criminals (pedophiles included! [1]]) on notice that this is vandalism. John celona (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussing it in mediation, to which we all agreed, is most certainly not vandalism, John. Aleta Sing 15:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review this ANI and chime in as appropriate. [2] David in DC (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I strongly object to the language, can claim notability solely because of the crime. Is John Ehrlichman solely notable for his crime? No, but his crime was notable. More generally, I think that "notable" is too hard to define. Categories should be clearly defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Above, Aleta suggested this: "I think "solely notable" is too restrictive. The person should, however, have at least a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity. We of course always have to heed Wp:BLP where it applies." JkP endorsed it a couple of comments later. I think it makes sense too. David in DC (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What's the definition of "a significant amount of notability derived from the criminal activity"? How would this be determined? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good faith editors using editorial discretion and mindful of BLP? David in DC (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not sufficient, obviously. Criteria for inclusion in categories should not require discretion. If a clear standard for notability can't be found I think the only alternative is to drop it and set a different standard, such as felony conviction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Rosa Parks an American criminal? The article on her doesn't say anything about being pardoned, and most of her notability clearly stems from a single act which was criminal at the time. (It's not clear from the article whether Parks appealed at the state level, so if not, she would at least be exempt on the grounds that the category only applies to state or federal convictions.) For that matter, is Leo Frank an American criminal? Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say "yes" to both Parks and Franks under the existing criteria. However I'd guess that Parks was charged with a misdemeanor. I suggest that the category be limited to felons. Unfortunately, we don't have a neutral way of dealing with "unjustly" convicted or exonerated people. Either they were convicted or they weren't. It isn't our place to second guess the court system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the limitation to felons only. As for Frank, he was issued a pardon in 1986; that excludes him from the category. Hmmm... rereading, I see they didn't actually clear him. However, there has been so much doubt of his guilt published, that I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to include him in the category. Aleta Sing 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with a limitation only to felons. But I don't agree that it is "obvious" that a category must be an on/off, black/white determination. Editors exercise editorial discretion. Exactly the kind of discretion Aleta posits in the case of Leo Frank.
Wholeheartedly endorse: "...it would be absolutely ridiculous to include him in the category." David in DC (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will_Beback (talk · contribs), Aleta (talk · contribs), and David in DC (talk · contribs) that the category should be limited to felons. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tightened inclusion criteria to felony [3], per talk page consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be contradictory to say that the category isn't for people who have been pardoned, yet still have a subcategory "American Pardon recipients". Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

True, American pardon recipients should not be a subcategory of this one (imo). Aleta Sing 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A related proposal

FYI: there is a proposal that deals with related and overlapping issues to those we're discussing here. You can read the proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and comment on the talk page thereof. Aleta Sing 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)