Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Are Murder/Killing of articles supposed to use infobox person or the civilian attack infobox?

I've seen both. With mass attack type crimes it obviously makes no sense using the person infobox but when there's only one victim it makes enough sense. And calling one person's murder a "civilian attack" seems weird. That hypothetical style guide we were working on should probably address this. There's also Infobox event, which is sometimes used, which in most ways is worse for crime articles in that it isn't very well adapted to it, but is better for crime articles in the singular way of having a sentence parameter, which means we can only add the sentence parameter to like 1% of articles that are applicable to them. This is stupid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

And also, some articles contain multiple infoboxes, typically with crime they will have one event one and one for the perp. I tried this my first few edits and was quickly taught not to do it, but was never certain if it was against the rules since I see it in many pages. Multiple infoboxes turns into an eyesore and isn't really fulfilling of the infobox purpose, so now I am against it, but thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that using the civilian attack infobox on the article of the murder of a singlular person makes sense, since they are a civilian who was attacked, therefore it is an attack on a civilian thus being a "civilian attack". Articles on individual murders aren't solely written about the victim either, they write of the background events, perpetrator and legacy of the murder. So, using the person infobox wouldn't make sense since the article isn't actually centred around the person, it's centred around their murder. For example, Murder of George Floyd uses infobox civilian attack since it's about the murder, whilst George Floyd uses infobox person since it's about the victim.

I'd also like to mention that there are instances where Infobox event should be used in crime articles, for example: Kenosha unrest shooting uses Infobox event, as the killings were classed as self-defense and not murder, so Kyle Rittenhouse did not attack those who died, nor did he murder them, he simply killed them. Killing and murder are different since "killing" is merely the act of killing, whilst murder is unlawful killing. The same is used for Killing of Trayvon Martin since Trayvon Martin, as decided in court, was not "murdered", he was "killed" as the ordeal was classified as self-defense.

This how I feel it should be:

• Murder of a person(s) = Infobox civilian attack, for example: Murder of James Bulger
• Victim of a murder = Infobox person, for example: George Floyd
• Lawful killing of a person = Infobox event, for example: Kenosha unrest shooting

Atamanashi (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I may be looking too deeply definitions and terminology, but I'd like to ask whether Infobox civilian attack should be used on articles regarding the murders of police officers or military personnel, as police and military by definition are not civilians. So the murder of one of these cannot actually be a "civilian attack". For example, 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers uses Infobox civilian attack despite the fact none of the victims were civilians. I'm unsure if every article about the murder of a police officer or military personnel should use Infobox event or if it would even be a good idea, I just think it would just make sense logically. Atamanashi (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think the distinction between civilian and non civilian for the purpose of the infobox is that important except for excluding most wartime actions, so if it's a "mass attack" type crime I would say that it should use that template and not event as it is the closest to its purpose. So I would say the police ones should use civilian attack as they aren't wartime actions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, like I said I was looking into it too deeply. The actual purpose of the infobox coincides better with the articles, even if no civilian were attacked, the name wouldn't dictate it so specifically. Atamanashi (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think lawful/unlawfulness should impact it, as there isn't really any parameter-type difference. An attack is not unlawful per se, it is merely aggressive, there can be lawful attacks, such as in war. Will think more on the rest. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand an attack isn't always inherently inlawful, however, the crime articles centred around a "killing" are usually always self-defense, so the defender did not attack anyone, they defended themself. So, in my opinion, these articles should use the event infobox as opposed to the civilian attack one since it was not an attack, even if the parameters are similar.

BTW, my question about article about murders of police/military, I'd just like to clarify, that was a hypothetical question rather than a genuine proposal. Atamanashi (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

An attack does not have to be unlawful though, an attack can be in self defense. And yes the hypotheticals are important here to figure out what the purpose of everything is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason I disagree with this is that the purpose of the infobox was originally, AFAIK, for terror attacks and mass shootings, and then I think for labeling and overlap reasons those got combined. I do not think that a crime or non-crime attack that targets several people (or is attempting to) has the same considerations as the killing of one person, other than generalist crime parameters (which event also has), so you tend to get some very off labeling. And yes, the George Floyd case is one thing, but that one was so astronomically high profile that we have three articles, one for the crime one for the victim one for the perpetrator, instead of just choosing one (I still don't get why we have an article for Chauvin, compared to other BLP1E cases, but oh well). From what I've seen it's pretty random whether an article uses the person one or attack/event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pablo Escobar, The Drug Lord#Requested move 1 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pablo Escobar, The Drug Lord#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Disappearance of Hannah Kobayashi

I recently created a page for the Disappearance of Hannah Kobayashi which is currently receiving widespread coverage. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC on amending WP:SUSPECT

There is currently an RfC regarding proposed changes to WP:SUSPECT which may be of interest to members of this project. Editors are invited to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2024)#Requested move 30 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2024)#Requested move 30 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 11:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Quinn brothers' killings#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quinn brothers' killings#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

New category, Category:Crimes adapted into films

Editors may have an interest in further populating this category, which at this point only has 11 entries. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This category sounds like it may conflict with Category:Crime drama films based on actual events, but it comes at it from the other side. The difference should be the new category is populated by the crimes themselves, not the films. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn I think this is a useful category - however, could the distinction you mention be clarified in the description? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And also, your edits confuse me, because you just added it to several pages in the reverse to how you described it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realized I was adding films into the category incorrectly, and either reverted or, interestingly, many of the incorrect films I added were not yet in the correct category and have added those. Of course a descriptor should have been written, thanks for reminding me of the obvious I missed. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA, have written a brief descriptor. I've included crimes adapted into theatrical documentaries, should those be here or a separate 'Crimes which are subjects of documentaries'? Thanks for following up on this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think as is fine for now, but documentary films category could be OK too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will leave it as is before making another productive mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Do you have any thoughts about making similar categories for TV shows? I think that would be useful, though I don't know how that category scheme works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting idea PARAKANYAA, and while 'Crimes adapted into television shows' and 'Crime drama television shows based on actual events' would duplicate many of the entries in the films category (JFK assassination, Lindbergh kidnapping, etc.) some would be new. Did you have specific shows in mind? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn My first thought was the 1995 Vercors massacre case which had Anthracite (TV series) made about it (though it’s a loose adaptation so it might not count…) and also some Netflix series I watched ages ago. Surely more, but the Solar Temple case is my pet project onwiki so that’s what sprung to mind. I’ll tell you if I think of more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PARAKANYAA. The film category has picked up a good number of entries, thanks to everyone here. If you have enough for a television category please go ahead and do that. Many of the promising but "probably-not" television examples may include too much drama and purposely-fictionized events. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Yeah if I find like… 5 or so that have straightforward adaptions I might make it. But not now.

Relatedly, how direct of an adaptation do you think should go in the category? No inspired by just direct? I want to keep this in mind when I tag things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say spot-on direct. Inspired by would include such fictional renditions as The Fugitive and many Law and Order episodes, clearly tangential to the topic. Things like the Richard Jewell series adhered to the facts enough that it would fit the crime (the Atlanta Olympic bombing). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks, I will keep that in mind while tagging. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible rename of Bærum mosque shooting

I have opened up a pre-requested move discussion of the title of this article, since it is not accurately reflective of the coverage on this topic. Please contribute your thoughts here, thank you :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Categorizing criminals whose existence is disputed

I have noticed there are several alleged criminals who are in the category Category:People whose existence is disputed is disputed and it's subcategories. This seems to me to be less than ideal. I do not think we should place people whose even existence is disputed directly in the crime categories. I think we should maybe make a parallel tree, probably much less developed, for criminals whose existence is disputed. What do others think.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How many people can there possibly be that this applies to? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

A good portion are possibly existent pirates. However I think we have about 5 articles on murderers, maybe a few more, and a few motored on bandits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case I agree it's odd. I think it depends. Disputed but viewed as historical by a decent amount I'd say is OK. Purely legendary figures, no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Scope question

Do you think that war-related activities that involve terrorist groups as participants should be in scope generally? For example, battles that involved ISIS and their control of territory. This has always bothered me when it comes to scoping because it feels more like a MILHIST deal, since their status as terrorists is not super relevant as a designation in that context vs them being a fighting force. I would say no, I do not think the war and the battles and stuff are within the purview of WPTERROR or WPCRIMEBIO. However, acts of terror or war crimes would be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't MILHIST mostly inactive anyway? Dimadick (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick No? It is by far the most active wiki project. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You are kidding. I keep finding articles on battles and wars which have never been tagged and never been assessed. I thought it went the way of the dodo years ago. Dimadick (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick With project tagging, the thing is they can be hard to find if they aren’t shortly after they’re created, and the scope is so broad any query would catch a lot of other stuff. This project is pretty active and I tag old articles with it all the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: If one looks at what UNODC classifies as crime, (See ICCS, pp 23-31), it has a high level category for "Unlawful killing associated with armed conflict." (107), it also has categories for "Terrorism" (0906) as well as a range of [criminal] "Acts under universal jurisdiction" (1101), which includes war crimes, genocide, and similar crimes against humanity. What this indicates to me is that the UN does not consider an armed conflict, of itself, to be crime and it is how those authorities dealing with the armed conflict react to the various acts that are perpetrated that counts. A purely military response, therefore, is not a response to crime, but a seeking out of the perpetrators and "bringing them to justice" is. While this may be a grey area, I think war-related activities that involve terrorist (or other armed) groups is outside the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, generally, and should instead be included in WikiProject Military History. However, where a criminal response is involved, then that falls in-scope; so a government declaring an individual or organisation to be a "terrorist" would mean an article about that person or organisation, such as a biography or profile, could be included in this project, but an article about the military battles the organisation has with other military organisations, wouldn't be automatically included. What could be included are acts that involve the indiscriminate targeting of civilians not involved in the conflict where these acts are treated as crimes, rather than the collateral damage of war. Thus, the military battles with ISIS for the control of territory are outside scope, but their destruction of cultural objects and their treatment of non-combatant civilians and women are inside scope, in my opinion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)