Category talk:Politicians convicted of crimes

Definition

It may be wise to define exactly which types of politicians can be included in the category and exactly which types of crime are to be included. I've widened the definition of the former so that we do not exclude politicians who are election candidates.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the definition also enables the inclusion of incumbent MPs in the UK, as technically they stand down for a time before being re-elected.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Originally from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Politicians_convicted_of_crimes:

I'm currently involved in a couple of debates about whether or not politicans who received criminal convictions before their political careers ought to be included in the politicians-convicted-of-crimes categories. I've no strong opinion on the matter but amn't happy with the disparity I've seen. A list of US politicians with criminal convictions stipulates they committed their crimes while in office. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the old terrorist v freedom fighter debate. One side (the establishment) saw certain acts as crimes, and the other (the paramilitariesand their related political parties) saw them as political acts. Certainly, as regards The Troubles, there was a convention seven or eight years ago that they were not treated as either. The acts would be described as killings or robberies, and if a person was convicted and jailed for the act, they would be categorised as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Northern Ireland or a sub-cat of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. This applied equally to republicans, loyalists and members of the security forces. I agree that Category:Politicians convicted of crimes should be only for people who committed their crimes while in office. The sub-cats for politicians convicted of corruption, embezzlement and fraud make it clear that that was what was in the minds of the people who created it. There has been a tendency, and I don't know when it started, to start adding people imprisoned as part of a conflict. Nelson Mandela, for instance, is in Category:South African politicians convicted of crimes. I think this is wrong. Quite apart from the question of POV, there is the problem that in some cats but not in others, corrupt politicians or ones who murdered a political opponent – which is what the reader is probably looking for – will be swamped by politicians who were previously convicted of "terrorist" offences, thus severely diminishing the usefulness of those cats. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria "Politicians who were convicted of a crime while in office, or while as an election candidate seeking office." (which hasn't changed significantly in 5 years) looks ok to me. If anyone thinks there's a good reason to change it then please explain clearly. DexDor ^(talk) 20:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Never spotted it, as it's not repeated in the subcategories. Thanks, DexDor. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Now added to Irish and NI subcats. Scolaire (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote for Scope Change

Options:

1. "Politicians who were convicted of a crime while in office, or while as an election candidate seeking office."
2. "Politicians who were convicted of a crime."
3. "Politicians who were convicted of a crime even if that crime was committed while the politician was not in office or seeking office."

Please vote 1, 2 or 3 by adding your signature to the appropriate option..

• Vote 1
• Vote 2

Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Vote 3

Discussion below. Pinging @Good Olfactory:, @DanceHallCrasher:, @Mabuska:, @DexDor:, @Murry1975:, @Scolaire: I was about to ping User:Gob Lofa when I saw that he was banned for sockpuppetry. Also under investigation as a possible sock of Gob Lofa is DanceHallCrasher. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose change to title (from "Politicians convicted of crimes) and oppose change to text from "Politicians who were convicted of a crime while in office, or while as an election candidate seeking office.". That's how it's been for many years and afaics there's no good reason to change it. DexDor ^(talk) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification no change in the category's title is proposed. The title is fine. The proposal is a bring the scope definition into line with the title. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of text, which would significantly change the scope of the category. "Politicians convicted of crimes" is not the same as "Politicians with a criminal record", which is what people are attempting to use it as.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any change in scope. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for Scope change

• Vote 2 rationale The category title is unambiguous. It places no time limits on the crime. I see no reason to impose a time time. Wiki does not have its own statute of limitations. A crime is a crime; for the purposes of this category, it is irrelevant when the crime was committed (pre vs. post office). It could, if wished, become the parent of categories such as Category:Politicians convicted of crimes prior to the assumption of office and Category:Politicians convicted of crimes during office and Category:Politicians convicted of crimes after leaving office. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Vote 2 - the simplest titles often work best. A politician that has been convicted unless it is overturned by a judicial review is forevermore a convicted criminal regardless of time frame, and is not dependent on them being a politician at the time of the crime. On that basis people such as Gerry Adams and Peter Robinson should both be tagged. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@DexDor: "no good reason" is entirely a matter of personal viewpoint, and the reasoning given by myself and Laurel to me are good reasons that supersedes keeping it because you disagree and because it has been that way for ages. The principle of consensus can change applies. A more exact argument that doesn't focus on those two things would be helpful for your view. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not even clear whether the proposal is to change the category name, its text or both. That needs to be sorted out before the detailed pros/cons can be usefully discussed. DexDor ^(talk) 06:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Per my comments in the previous section, the real issue in this cat is not its time range, but the inclusion of people convicted for "political" offences. The subcats demonstrate what this cat was created for: politicians convicted of corruption, embezzlement, fraud, murder (e.g. of a political opponent) and sex offences. It was not meant for dumping people convicted as part of a political conflict, such as Irish republican or loyalist politicians. It should be kept as what it is, and has been since 2008. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The scope makes no definition of type of croime, "political" or otherwise. This introduces an element that si not pertinant to the current discussion. If somebody is wrongly included in this category due to a bad classification for "political" offences, then it doesn't matter what the time period is - a bad classification decision is a bad classification decision. If that was your only objection, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your vote? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No. I voted against changing the scope because I think that the scope is what it should be. All that I am saying here is that this RfC is asking the wrong question. Scolaire (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sticking to the question that has actually been asked, and not the one that you might like to ask at a later date, you have not actually said anywhere why you want to retain the time limit. Could you expand on that rationale please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I could, but I don't choose to. I have said all I want to say. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's OK Scolaire, I was just yanking your chain. I already knew the reason why you wouldn't expand on the rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)