This category is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
In light of the NPOV, wouldn't it be more precise to say that these people are convicted of committing murder? I'm just new here, but that seems to be a better and more proper way of describing this category. RevDave 19:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's not a very well-thought-out categorization. Some people convicted of manslaughter are currently classified as murderers. No distinction is made between being accused of murder, committing murder, or being convicted of murder. (It also doesn't make much sense classifying murderers by nationality, but Wikipedia's classification system is (irrationally) obsessed with nationality, probably beyond repairing.) - Nunh-huh 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a discussion on this issue on the Maxwell Stuart article. (Mumia Abu-Jamal is another person whose conviction is widely disputed.) But people convicted in Stalin's show trials are not so labelled. The response I got was:
(a)that the conviction was sound,
(b)that "murderer" means "a person convicted of murder"
(c)that this is Wikipedia's policy (that old fallback).
But nothing about NPOV which is supposedly strenuously upheld by Wikipedia.--Jack Upland 07:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the discussion raised at Talk:Maxwell Stuart, I have suggested that given Stuart was convicted, had unsuccessfully appealed, the verdict had been reviewed by a Royal Commission and upheld, to fail to categorise him as a murderer seemed to be POV, rather than the other way around. It is not the Wikipedia's role to unconvict someone - the issue is to report the facts. To categorise someone as a murderer, Wikipedia:Verifiability is met by reference to court decisions and, in the Stuart case, the report of the Royal Commission. As the issue perhaps was with the category label, the discussion has been referred to category discussion pages and a discussion has been initiated here. The label descriptor for Category:Australian murderers states: "Australian who have been convicted of murder." - in Australia the legal system is the arbiter.--A Y Arktos 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with that suggestion, and it really should be applied to all the categories in Category:Criminals (which should itself be Category:Convicted criminals). If someone has not been convicted, they might go in a category for people who have been charged and awaiting trial. All the others should be dropped from the category. --bainer (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
