Category talk:Convicted felons

I think we have quite a few peeps who could be added to this cat... ħuman 19:05, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

MOSES?

Depends on your definition of convicted, but Moses to me sounds like a prime example. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2602:304:cc7e:ef20:80f:e604:cff1:762e / talk / contribs}

THE RACISM OF RATIONALWIKI

100% of the people that we've bothered to categorize as convicted felons are black men. PFoster 19:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, that's 'cause we haven't dug out all the white guys and added them yet! We needed a cat for a couple of fine gentlemen who happened to run afoul of the law, and I thought this would work well. Surely half the politicians we have written about are felons... ħuman 19:50, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I know. Just funnin' with you. PFoster 19:51, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I know. By the way, absent photographs, the clue I had that they were black was that they were convicted felons... OOPS! ħuman 20:03, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Added some white guys, Kevin Trudeau, Lyndon LaRouche, Jim Bakker, and David Duke. Secret Squirrel 21:30, 28 February 2009 (EST) And some others. More white guys. Secret Squirrel 21:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Awesome, thanks, Squirrel! Now, when we can add GWB and DickC... ħuman 21:57, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I iz not holding my breath mkay? Secret Squirrel 22:08, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, me neither, but still... I hope... this Obama guy is turning a lot of tables upside down, at least as far as ossified murkin politics go. He ain't pardoned them yet! ħuman 22:30, 28 February 2009 (EST)

That would actually be a funny political coup if he did. After all, pardoning someone implies they would have otherwise been on their way to jail. Secret Squirrel 22:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Good point, although there is still movement in Congress to catch those rat bastards and prosecute them. And now that Pelosi isn't in the line of succession due to impeachment... still, I don't know how much traction there is. And, yes, "pardoning" does sort of imply "guilt", especially if he pardoned them for specific things. With evidence. ħuman 22:48, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Rename this: "criminals"?

The parallel category on Wikipedia is called "Criminals" and "Convicted Felon" makes a more bold and specific(and actionable if incorrect) claim. Imagine pleading guilty to a semi-serious misdemeanor, and then finding your name under a list of felons online. You'd be pissed. I'm not sure about the technicalities of renaming a category. Does it require editing all pages in the category?

Secondary questions I'm not sure about: Is "criminals" actually better? Is there a better word? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1. "Does it require editing all pages in the category?" Yup. A bot can do that, though.
2. "Is there a better word?" "People found guilty of breaking the law" maybe? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, "criminals" is not better, replace it in your hypothetical above.Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But it'd be true there, right? If you're guilty of a misdemeanor, you're still a criminal. But... I can see how it still doesn't help much. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

At least "convicted felon" has a clear meaning, though. "A/The justice system found you guilty of committing a felony. Tough luck, fella." It's something we can check for. But "criminals"? Was Ghandi a criminal? "According to some definitions.. maybe?" 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There's a reason I was seeking discussion. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Paralleling WP seems like a good enough reason, and "criminal" might be slightly less actionable. Or we could go for even more vague synonyms, like "lawbreaker" or "hoodlum". I kinda like "hoodlum". FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Naughty People" Super ^{Dude,Where's my car?} 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, keep it as is. It should only be on the pages of individuals who have actually been convicted of a felony (or equivalent) where such conviction is confirmed by a citation within the article (e.g. to a news report covering the conviction). If it appears on any pages where this isn't the case, the category should either be removed or a relevant citation added. Replacing this with vague descriptions such as "criminal" is worse, not better. See talk:con artist. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "hoodlums" is vague enough to avoid both problems. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Convicted felons," applied properly, ie. when we have a reliable citation that a person was convicted of a felony, avoids all problems. Leave it be. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "hoodlums" is vague enough to be stupid. Hoodlums steal cars, mug tourists & commit the odd small scale burglary. This category is mostly wealthy tax dodgers, plus the odd few spree killers or terrorists. Very few of these people would typically be described as hoodlums. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)