Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26

3115:"Fraudster" seems to me to say something of the person not merely the convictions, and carries the implication of career criminality. We've not found any dictionary sources that discuss the nuances of the term at all - that means all we have is opinions of Wikipedians, which is less than ideal. However, my concerns about the term are not less important (or impressionistic) than your lack of them. And on a BLP we err on the cautious side anyway. I'm not suggesting we can define "career criminality" objectively, I was merely suggesting it did not apply in the specific case of politicians who fiddled expenses. What evidence do you have to say that the semantic range of all "crime foo makes one a foo-er" are identical? If someone stole from their parents 40 years ago do we term them a "thief". We have to consider what each term implies separately, language is not an objective formula where each criminal noun carries the same sorts of meaning. Someone who murders once may be described always as a "murder-er", someone who smoked once cannot always be described as a "smok-er".-- 3314:

However, stating that someone indeed did commit fraud, based on a conviction, could mean stating an untruth about a living subject that can never be fully verified. Why err on the side that may not be correct, even if it is just a fraction of the time? Regarding the other issue, "fraudster" is not a legal term. It is not a term used in any official capacity to label a person "convicted of fraud". It is a term used in an unofficial colloquial sense to label a swindler, or person who, by whatever criteria someone might subjectively hold, has committed fraud. Since the legal system does not tag you a fraudster it would indeed be up to common perceptions of what fraud is, or what makes one a swindler. That's why I brought "most people might really not consider fraud". As to point #1, I see no counter argument at all, besides your suggestion that my point was "poor". Fraudster is not a common term in the United States. If I saw it prior to seeing this discussion I would have guessed at the meaning but inevitably would have to look it up.

947:: As the cat creator, I have no objection to spelling out the name. I used the acronym to avoid the frequent renames of the article between the spelling of "employees" versus "employes" and because I didn't think the common name was clear. Employes (1 E) seems to be the technical name, but Employees (2 Es) is widely used including on the website. The common name this organization is refered to in the industry is neither IATSE nor the spelled out name (however you spell it!) but "The IA". 3269:

them to fit the social role of a person who acts fraudulently. With BLPs we need to be concerned about the fact that the convicted person might actually not have committed fraud, or that the person was convicted for something that most people might really not consider fraud despite what the law says. The latter part is important since Fraudster is not a legal term, but a slang term. The NPOV way to describe the situation is "conviction of fraud".

3335:: The former is has no ambiguity, whereas "Fraudsters" could more easily include people simply accused of fraud, or those generally perceived to be deceitful. I realize the latter category has a note specifying the people must have been convicted, but simply incorporating that into the category name is more effective. I also agree with Griswaldo that this is not a common term in North America. My only concerns are a) it should be 3012:. For some crimes, it does seem from common usage that we distinguish "people who do X once" from "people who do X habitually". A different societal view may hang over these. When it comes to negative statements, dicdef may have to be secondary to the ordinary meaning readers will understand by our words. We should be conservative in use of terms that may well be understood more negatively than we intend. 88: 2285: 2522:

consensus. For example, the reasoning that "fraudster" and "person convicted of fraud" are identical in meaning is convincing due to the fact that it is supported by reliable sources; the opposite reasoning—that there is a difference in meaning—is largely assertion-based, although the fact that so many editors were convinced of this lends credence to the notion that there is at least a

483:-- This is a legitimate parent category, which still has three members. I suspect that there ought to further subcategories, for example splitting stationery steam engines from locomotives. I do not think HMS Warrior or SS Great Britain are "preserved in museums": they are much too big to get inside a building with anything else. Alternatively 270:. Most notable database people are primarily researchers, but a few don't seem to fit the description "researcher." The term "data management" is uncommon. The usual term is "database," so the category should use that instead. It's easy to see this by looking at the individual articles. There's the category 2695:. This category was recently created as part of that, for particular articles of concern. That discussion may end up concluding that a CFD is appropriate, but at this stage all this does is fork the discussion. Not really helpful. And to complain of a lack of evidence in a two-hour discussion is silly.-- 2521:

Considering the logic of the offered arguments, certain arguments seem to be more sound or convincing than others (when considered in the context of existing policies and guidelines pertaining to categorization), but not to the extent that any one option can be said to unambiguously reflect community

3313:

Please focus on the substance of an argument and not on your subjective evaluation of how "poor" or grand you think it is. People are wrongfully convicted all the time. Is that really a shock to you? Stating that someone was convicted for fraud is a fact that we can verify with reliable sources.

2947:

Your distinction between the convicted and unconvicted applies to arsonists, murderers, kidnappers, perjurors, etc. If we are going to split the categories between those convicted and those not convicted, then let's do it systematically for all crimes. It will add a whole extra layer to the category

2427:

was that "person convicted of fraud" is a more encyclopedic label than "fraudster" because it refers explicitly to one or more verifiable events in the past as opposed to being a general qualifier; an example was given that a person who is wrongfully convicted of fraud could correctly be labelled as

2741:

has been specified for years as being "Articles about fraudsters, or people who commit civil or criminal fraud". These people discussed at BLPN have all been convicted of fraud, and you do not appear to be disputing that: your repeatedly-expressed concern has been that it is wrong to label them as

3021:

If you want to split the crimes category between "people who do X once" from "people who do X habitually", that would create a massive duplication of categories. In any case, framing the split as you propose would placed the politicians concerned in "people who do X habitually", becuase all were

3287:

I'm also puzzled by the concern that someone might not have committed fraud, despite having been convicted of it. That's a very odd approach, which seems to suggest that wikipedia editors should substitute their own definitions over those of RSs ... and the concerns over these being crimes which

3268:

for two reasons. 1) Fraudsters is a term virtually unknown outside of British English and this encyclopedia seeks to use the most widely understood English terminology. 2) Fraudsters implies that someone has actually committed fraud, and/or has done something that would make most people consider

1670:

non-US categories. For United States articles the parenthetical form is generally used, but elsewhere the comma form is generally used. The categories should reflect this. I would personally be in favour of getting rid of the parenthetical form altogether, but there seems to be considerable

3202:

Should a conviction be overturned, but no one were to update the Knowledge (XXG) article, we may be harming that person by still telling everyone he's a "fraudster"; however, he will always be a person who had been convicted of fraud - even should that conviction be overturned.

3179:

Any conviction can be overturned by the courts, but I have never heard of anyone claiming that they were libelled by being described as a "fooer" when they had been convicted of "foo". Whatever the relative merits of the two terms, this seems to me to be a very poor rationale.

3408:. Having two categories allows us to also categorise 1) those who have been wrongly convicted (and are not therefore actually "fraudsters") and 2) historical and long dead personages who are known to have committed fraud but were never actually convicted of the crime. -- 2531:

In summary, there is no clear consensus on any major point. So, in the absence of a consensus that it is desirable to have both categories or that "fraudster" and "person convicted of fraud" are not synonymous, and considering the precedent of previous discussions

2515:

Considering only the distribution of !votes, no option is supported by a majority of participants. Four editors supported Option #1, seven favored Option #2, and five argued for Option #3. (A few editors expressed more than one preference, so these numbers are

430:

that started as a rename and ended with no consensus after the nominator change to a delete. After cleaning this up and removing some categories that are included from other categories we are left with 3 members. Two of these are already listed in the parent

2704:

If you have some evidence, then please present it here; a CFD remains open for at least 7 days. As noted at the outset of this on your talk page, your concern appears to be about the name of the category, and CFD is the place to discuss category names.

1652:

and see if there is opposition to the current standard. If not, then it should be safe to rename other articles and then the categories to follow. The question remaining, if the articles are renamed without a discussion would they be speedies here?

1648:. Cemeteries are classified as building and structures. These are generally disambiguated with parentheses. So changing these to comma disambiguation would be going against the norm. Maybe what needs to be done is close this, list one or two at 3085:

How do you define "admitted career criminality"? If the distinction is useable in categorisation, it must be capable of some objective definition. Does it include people who plead guilty to having committed the crime repeatedly over a period of

2778:

Scott, I can only go by what you actually write, not by what you mean to write. You dispute the meaning of the word, but refuse to offer any evidence to support your claim of a distinction, and in the absence of any evidence your objection is

3283:

Point 2 seems irrelevant to a choice between these category names. Unless we have very clear evidence in reliable sources that a person has committed fraud, they should not be categorised as either a "fraudster" or a "person convicted of

3373:

This category name is objective. "Fraudster" is pejorative and pov labeling. This is more encyclopedic. This is a welcome chance to correct a serious blight on our attempt to be an encyclopedia and not a tabloid name-caller/labeler.

3049:

per FT2. This is a neutral factual category, whereas "fraudster" may imply to some a degree of habitual fraud, or career criminality, which may not always apply. For BLPs we should err against pejorative labels. I've no problem with

1506: 3391:. "People convicted of fraud" is more objective, and less likely to carry unwarranted pejorative meaning (at least for US readers). The fact that some fraudsters die before being convicted seems a small issue in comparison. -- 2727:

You are wrong about my concern. I have no problem with either or both of these categories existing. My problem was with the application of the category to specific articles. I will object to that whether you merge these or

1332: 2428:

a "person convicted of fraud", but not as a "fraudster". The unifying component of the arguments was the position that there is a real or perceived difference in meaning between "fraudster" and "person convicted of fraud".

1213:. This is complicated because the articles aren't all in the same format, with some at parentheses, some at commas, some at nothing at all and some using different amounts of location information. Recommend following 554:, the ship does not. With no power source, most rolling stock is not a machine. Box cars clearly do not fit, but reefers do have a compressor which is a machine but do not make the whole vehicle a machine, right? 2127:. I believe that the first category only has drainage basins. If there are others, I'd say do the rename and then cleanup. If anyone wants to propose up merging either or both of the last two I would not object. 1404: 1634:– I find myself agreeing with cobaltcigs that comma-separated disambiguation (i.e., "Foo, Bar") should be used primarily for formal subdivisions such as "Municipality, County or District, State or Province". -- 2768:

was a fraudster. I dispute the specification you refer to, and thus the application of the category to certain BLPs. I have no problem with both of these categories existing - the names are fine if properly

1535: 1287: 1538:. To change the name of the cemetery between article and category only causes confusion. These should be pursued individually, not as a group nom; I could support some of the individual nominations. 1413: 2506:

non-living people. For example, potentially negative categorization of living people is subject to more restrictions than similar categorization of deceased people. In addition, verifying a formal

1399: 923: 95: 2100: 1570:

to match titles of parent articles where commas are used instead of parentheses. I'm not sue why this parenthesized convention developed, but there appears to be no reason to perpetuate it.

42: 37: 2580:. Therefore, even though the category was created in good faith, the fact that there is no consensus for it means that its continued existence bypasses the 2005, 2008 and 2009 discussions. 2112: 2533: 427: 2785:

If you want both categories to exist, what RSs do you offer to distinguish a "person conmvicted of fraud" from a "fraudster"? How exactly is the distinction to be applied objectively? --

1278: 2882: 2537: 1588:

or similar. I’d argue further that commas should not follow neighborhoods, parks, cemeteries, churches, etc. in ways which suggest a formal (postalese) hierarchy below the city-level.

1217:'s suggestion of getting some requested move test cases on the articles to get consensus for the format and then rename the categories in line with whatever convention is set by that. 2541: 2629: 1453: 1314: 3356:

per nom -- the category was created out of misplaced concerns and we now have a duplicate. Reverse merge does not make sense, given Occuli's point about proper nesting here.

2431:

There were also comments/arguments which did not insist upon a difference in meaning, such as the argument that the word "fraudster" has limited use outside British English or

1456:). I did notice that where the location name itself has a comma, the patern used is always Foo (Bar, Pleg); in these 20 cases, I see no reason to be different from the others. 908: 2385:

were cited as evidence (access to OED appears to require subscription, but the quote is accepted in good faith). Another point was that categories for people by crime (see

2088: 1473: 1368: 3167:, then at that moment we would have a ajor BLP violation here; if we do a reverse merge, then the categorization here would still be correct (they had been convicted). 1296: 2294: 2510:

for fraud for historical people can be particularly difficult, especially when considering the diversity of legal codes and processes over time and across societies.

2944:

Well, you disagree with the objectors at BLPN, who are vehemently opposed to the idea that a person convicted of multiple counts fraud should be called a fraudster.

3291:

I have seen some good arguments in favour of the "people convicted of" formulation, such as TheMightyQuill's comment below, but this pair of reasons looks poor. --

2764:

It is generally best not to tell people what their own view is, especially when they've told you you are wrong. I am happy for the category "fraudster" to exist.

2568:

I realize that this outcome is unconventional ("no consensus" usually equals "no action"), but it is in response to unconventional circumstances. The creation of

2124: 1438: 1510: 1260: 2834:

You are welcome to propose reverse merger if you prefer. But there is no navigational benefit to have two separate categories for people convicted of fraud. --

2918:

it would become clear that there are many fraudsters who were never convicted (fled the country, suicide, death intervened, fraud discovered posthumously, eg

1336: 1531: 1408: 1386: 1390: 21: 3239:"Fraudsters" appeals as a shorter and simpler name but I wonder if the same argument about there being no BLP concerns would be extended to renaming 2632:

that "fraudster" should not be applied to people convicted on only a small number of charges. However, the Merriam Webster defines a fraudster as "

2589:

that an uninvolved editor review my closing rationale and will not object to the outcome being changed if my reasoning is deemed to be off-the-mark.

1395: 1291: 1269: 1109: 1417: 1273: 1485: 896: 1548: 2899:

If one actually reads the discussion, it seems hard to see why that was called as n/c. There seems to be a consensus to rename fraudsters: -->

2662:. No evidence has been offered to support the claim made at BLPN that "fraudster" is inaccurate when applied to a person convicted of fraud. 17: 3303: 3192: 3101: 3034: 2968: 2846: 2797: 2754: 2717: 2674: 1817: 1341: 1282: 153: 1345: 1359: 641: 436: 1363: 1350: 1318: 1354: 3240: 1620: 1477: 444: 1377: 1251: 3336: 2577: 2560: 2553: 2483: 2459: 2231: 1902: 1423: 1381: 1255: 1434: 1427: 1372: 1323: 1305: 1300: 3433: 2435:'s comment (02:15, 26 January 2011) that the two titles have essentially the same meaning but the longer one is "more encyclopedic". 2415:; an analogy was made to a person who smokes or steals once not necessarily being a smoker or thief, respectively. A third argument 1327: 1309: 816: 796: 769: 734: 1264: 603:- There are several different proposals in this discussion, for merging, renaming and simply deleting. More discussion is needed. 505:

Your basic assumption that all museums have only indoor spaces is not correct. There are many types of outdoor museums including

1593: 746: 649: 633: 629: 2953: 3164: 2548:. In light of past discussions, consensus should be formed before making a change to the existing category structure (renaming 1118: 637: 625: 488: 440: 432: 366: 2502:

for one action. The situation is further complicated by the fact that any action needs to account for biographies of living

2096: 2983:

The terms are synonymous. The OED says that "fraudster" means "one who commits fraud". If editors wish to propose renaming

2108: 1105: 1585: 533: 271: 259: 255: 3063: 2988: 2923: 2609: 2569: 297:: "Data Management" actually is a broader topic beyond databases but that's not how the category is actually being used. 133:. In reading that article, it appears that an ocean basin is something else, so recreation should be allowed if needed. 2991:

then that'd also make sense. But there's no reason to have two categories covering exactly the same characterization.

3417: 3400: 3383: 3365: 3348: 3323: 3308: 3278: 3256: 3231: 3210: 3197: 3174: 3155: 3138: 3119: 3106: 3070: 3054:

existing for admitted career criminality, but if people are concerned about the overlap/duplication, I'll also support

3039: 3016: 3004: 2973: 2939: 2904: 2894: 2869: 2851: 2829: 2802: 2773: 2759: 2732: 2722: 2699: 2679: 2599: 2499: 2343: 2319: 2300: 2266: 2250: 2219: 2195: 2171: 2155: 2136: 2076: 2052: 2028: 2008: 1991: 1973: 1948: 1894: 1865: 1841: 1825: 1808: 1781: 1744: 1720: 1696: 1680: 1662: 1640: 1624: 1596: 1579: 1560: 1542: 1522: 1497: 1463: 1226: 1198: 1174: 1158: 1125: 1097: 1073: 1049: 1034: 1015: 986: 977: 956: 939: 915: 884: 856: 832: 710: 686: 670: 612: 592: 563: 545: 518: 500: 475: 456: 378: 346: 322: 306: 287: 245: 221: 197: 179: 161: 142: 104: 74: 2659: 2386: 1773: 395: 2636:", and those opposed to the current category name have offered no evidence in support of their interpretation of it. 1906: 3361: 2084: 2004: 1969: 1756: 1222: 952: 471: 302: 170:

and leaving any ocean basins here is an acceptable conclusion. If anyone does that, I'll withdraw the nomination.

3299: 3188: 3116: 3097: 3067: 3030: 2964: 2949: 2901: 2842: 2793: 2770: 2750: 2729: 2713: 2696: 2670: 2243: 1961: 1821: 964:-- This is standard WP practice for categories, except a few very well known ones. The point is that unless you 386: 157: 2265:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2170:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2027:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1840:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1695:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1173:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1048:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

831:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

685:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

403: 321:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

196:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3344: 2742:"fraudsters". That's a concern about the name of the category used to group people who have committed fraud. -- 2318:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2194:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2151: 2051:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1864:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1719:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1197:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1072:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

855:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

709:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

345:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

275: 220:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2780: 2633: 3226: 2215: 2072: 1777: 1740: 1616: 1093: 973: 880: 742: 730: 496: 374: 241: 167: 118: 1960:: I'm not sure the parenthetical is the best but GSM is clearly more well-know per the main article. Would 1608: 114: 2651: 2147: 911:. (According to the article, the last word is spelled incorrectly on purpose as an old-style spelling.) 3357: 3244: 2998: 2890: 2655: 2399:

One reasoning behind this option was that "fraudster" carries possibly "unwarranted pejorative meaning"

2132: 2000: 1979: 1965: 1881: 1658: 1218: 1030: 1011: 948: 935: 792: 645: 621: 608: 588: 559: 514: 467: 452: 362: 298: 175: 138: 2227: 2373:, and definitions of the word "fraudster"—"a person who engages in fraud", "one who commits fraud"—in 628:. Deletion of the category would result in practically no loss of organization or interconnectedness. 3413: 3292: 3207: 3181: 3171: 3151: 3090: 3023: 2957: 2835: 2786: 2743: 2706: 2663: 2410: 1932: 1792: 1676: 1547:

I agree that the names should match - the ones I looked at had a comma, but I see there is a host at

1460: 541: 3089:

What evidence do you have to justify applying this distinction to fraud, but not to other crimes? --

2885:

and a discussion from November 15, 2005 that I'm having a problem finding a link to the discussion.

892: 3340: 3319: 3274: 3252: 3055: 3051: 2984: 2927: 2915: 2738: 2643: 2625: 2613: 2573: 2549: 2479: 2455: 2247: 1804: 1539: 983: 912: 766: 2458:

if they have not been convicted of fraud but reliable sources identify them as fraudsters, and in

1936: 1025:- Consensus appears to be for a rename, but further discussion appears needed as to the spelling. 998: 779: 575: 3379: 3223: 3129:; merge Fraudsters to the longer and more encyclopedic title which essentially means the same. -- 2647: 2211: 2068: 1736: 1612: 1575: 1089: 969: 876: 726: 492: 370: 237: 2692: 2628:. It was created as a good-faith effort by an editor in response to claims by some editors at 2639: 2595: 2339: 1889: 1752: 1636: 1518: 1472:

per nom, or at least to use commas rather than parentheses. Some need a bit more thought - eg

1154: 666: 657: 653: 100: 2441:(3) Continue to use the term "fraudster" and also commence using "person convicted of fraud". 1530:. These should match the WP name of the cemetery, which in many cases use parentheses: e.g., 3396: 2993: 2935: 2886: 2368: 2128: 1654: 1556: 1493: 1480:: so it should be 'St. John Cemetery, Queens' or 'St. John Cemetery, Queens, New York'. The 1214: 1140: 1026: 1007: 931: 812: 788: 758: 661: 604: 584: 555: 510: 448: 171: 134: 2922:, etc). (A 'person convicted of fraud' is certainly a fraudster, but not vice versa; hence 2407:. Another was that "fraudster" implies "a degree of habitual fraud, or career criminality" 2361:(1) Contine to use the term "fraudster", instead of the phrase "person convicted of fraud". 3409: 3204: 3168: 3147: 2865: 2825: 2545: 2418: 2333: 1769: 1672: 1481: 1457: 537: 506: 2586: 1649: 152:

more than half the article is a treatment on "ocean basins" instead of "oceanic basins".

550:

Are ships and rolling stock really machines? While the engine of a ship appears to be a

3315: 3270: 3248: 3134: 2919: 2765: 2422: 2365:

The primary reasoning behind this option was that the two expressions "are synonymous"

1800: 2378: 2123:. To conform to the common naming and format of the other drainage basins by sea like 1604:

We should adopt a standard, and migrate any straggling articles toward that standard.

3427: 3375: 1987: 1944: 1571: 1122: 283: 130: 2395:(2) Deprecate the term "fraudster" and replace it with "person convicted of fraud". 1885: 1514: 1150: 274:. This is the only category with this problem – none of the other subcategories of 3392: 2931: 2498:

The presence of multiple options and assumptions complicates the formation of a

2465: 2402: 1552: 1489: 1136: 808: 2820:

The creation of this category was for BLP reasons and is entirely appropriate.

2482:, whereas those who committed non-habitual (i.e., one-time) fraud should be in 2861: 2821: 1765: 2638:

Note that we also use contracted terms for people convicted of other crimes:

2242:. This series is sometimes just called "Valérian" but the main article is at 1001:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

782:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

578:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

3130: 2432: 1507:

Category:Burials at Beauchamp Chapel, Collegiate Church of St Mary (Warwick)

2312: