Category talk:Israeli criminals

Should Menachem Begin be included in this category? His actions in the Irgun were certainly a serious offence according to the British authorities, who were both the de facto and internationally generally recognised govt. of Palestine at that time. Or is it impossible to be objective about this category? PatGallacher 15:49, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

What crime was he convicted of? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

He may never have been convicted, but e.g. membership of the Irgun and involvement in the attack on the King David Hotel was surely illegal under British mandate law. I would argue that it is somewhat POV to extend this category only to people who were actually convicted and exclude those who surely would have been convicted if tried. PatGallacher 17:53, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

The category is for Israelis who were convicted of crimes. Begin doesn't fit, not only because he wasn't convicted of a crime, but because there wasn't even an Israel (nor was he Israeli) when he was accused of them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that can predict who would have been convicted of what. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and nice try on changing the definition to an entirely subjective one so that you can include Begin. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This libelous category should be deleted. It serves no purpose. And Meir Kahane is not a criminal like his article says which links it to this.

"independent court of justice."

What does that mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In a civilian court located in a country that maintains real seperation between the branches of government, e.g. not in Egypt. gidonb 20:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The World Court: [1] [2] --Joodoo 03:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly not. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu

Why is this "criminal" noted here? --Joodoo 03:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Joodoo, Mordechai Vanunu was convicted of treason by a regular Israeli court. This is considered a crime in most if not all countries. Thank you, by the way, for trying to help in finding more candidates for this category. Please read the definition, as this will help you decide who can be classified in this category and who cannot. I scanned candidates thourougly when I made the category, but perhaps you will find someone I missed. gidonb 04:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is Vanunu's case special? Why is Pollard, also convicted of espionage, not included? --Joodoo 04:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear special to me; he was an Israeli convicted of a crime. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why have all the criminals been deleted?

Yitzhak Shamir was convicted and imprisoned by the British. He is a criminal. He is Israeli. Why deleted? The Mossad spies captured and convicted in new Zealand. Israeli. Criminals. Why deleted? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. --Joodoo 05:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Who says Vanunu's case is special? Other convicted criminals were included in the category. Pollard was not an Israeli citizen or resident when he committed his crimes or at any time beforehand. He is an American criminal and should be included in that category. gidonb 05:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shamir was not trialed by an independent court of justice. Also, he was a Palestinian at the time of the crimes. gidonb 05:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the purpose of the category. Its purpose is to allow Wikipedia-users to find convicted criminals who at the time of their conviction in an independent court were Israelis, not to make a value judgement about their behavior. gidonb 05:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Name of this category

I propose to move the category title to more accurately reflect the definition given. Suggestions welcomed.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why the category title does not accurately reflect the definition given, can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I also cannot see where the category does not accurately reflect the definition given, or vice versa. It seems a very valid member of Category:Criminals by nationality. gidonb 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

See Crime; [Category: Israeli criminals (narrow definition)] would be compatible with the second definition. As I've said before on Talk:Mordechai Vanunu, while most people convicted of a crime are indisputably criminals, and many criminals have been convicted of a crime, the two things are not the same.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

We have to use the narrow definition, since any broader definition inevitably involves personal judgement and original research on the part of the editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Done.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I undid the name change as there is no consensus on such as a move. gidonb 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nor is there any discernible consensus against, as far as I can see. What exactly is the problem?

Lapsed Pacifist 11:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The current category name is eminently reasonable, and the name you moved it to seems more like an example of WP:POINT than anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The current name is a perfect example of WP:POINT.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The current name is according to our policies and runs parallel to all other criminals by country categories. If you wish to add in all cases the criteria in brackets to the definition, this should be raised for all categories. I will oppose such a proposal, as this undermines the efficiency of the Wikipedia categorization system. Right now, however, I get the impression that for some odd reason you want to add additional specifications only to the category Israeli criminals. That would be discriminatory. Please correct if I am wrong and you run similar proposals elsewhere, that will make our entire categorization non-workable. gidonb 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The current name is according to your policies, as you created the category and imposed the definition that entries should have been convicted by an independent judiciary, which is not the same thing as being a criminal. I looked at the other categories for criminals by nationality, and only Poland had the same definition. If the definition is to remain, then yes, that category will also have to be renamed. I don't see why that would make categorisation unworkable. Your impressions are your business.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well did you or did you not run proposals to add to each single one of these categories in brackets (broad definition) and (narrow definition)? By the way, the fact that similar definitions are not included beyond the two categories that you name, does not necessarily mean that in all cases you can include persons that are by your personal POV criminals, without them being removed after a while. Only there is no such warning. A conviction is an NPOV criterion by which one can make this category manageable, no more but especially no less. As you may have noticed, all information that relates to Israel is extremely exposed to politically motivated POV-pushers (with one agenda or another) who are sometimes totally fixated on this area and will never address similar issues across the board. Regards, gidonb 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to go by convictions, then that must be reflected in the category name. If you have a better suggestion, run with it.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You do not answer my questions. I will lay them out, since some were explicit, but others implicit. Do you believe all criteria for all categories should be included in the names of categories? In which cases have you made similar demands, for criminals by country categories, or for any categories? Are there any similar category names to the cumbersome one you are suggesting for criminals by country or any other category? Do you believe it is wise to open the discussion on including selection criteria INSIDE the category name on this page or is this a policy question that effects the entire Wikipedia categorization system that should be discussed elsewhere? gidonb 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Do you believe all criteria for all categories should be included in the names of categories?"

No.

"In which cases have you made similar demands, for criminals by country categories, or for any categories?"

Nowhere.

"Are there any similar category names to the cumbersome one you are suggesting for criminals by country or any other category?"

I wouldn't suggest anything cumbersome.

"Do you believe it is wise to open the discussion on including selection criteria INSIDE the category name on this page or is this a policy question that effects the entire Wikipedia categorization system that should be discussed elsewhere?"

I don't know.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb, you seem determined to enforce your understanding of the word "criminal" (i.e., a person convicted of a crime in a democratic country). You know I'm not happy with this, but if you will be consistent with it, I will let it drop. So, here's what I want you to do:

• Go to the articles on Eamon de Valera and Ian Paisley, and insist that they be included in the Irish criminals category. Both were convicted by an independent judiciary of the United Kingdom, the former for illegally entering that state in the '20s, and the latter for illegal assembly in the '60s.

• Get thee to the George W. Bush article. Obviously, his conviction for drink-driving in the '70s necessitates his inclusion in the American criminals category.

If you succeed in this, I promise you I will let the matter rest.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the definition of a criminal, not what happens on the George W. Bush page. Have you come up with a more objective set of criteria? I mean, other than "whoever Lapsed Pacifist thinks is a criminal". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a definition for a criminal from gidonb and yourself, that a person convicted of a crime is automatically a criminal, and anyone not convicted of a crime cannot be a criminal. I don't like it, but I'm prepared to accept it if you and gidonb are consistent in its application (see above). Given your definition, the Bush page is probably the most glaring example of a criminal (by your definition) whose page does not include them in a criminals category. Which is why I write of it.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't defined what a criminal is; rather, legal systems have done so. You have yet to suggest a more objective definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor will I, for the word cannot shake its subjectiveness. As I wrote before, the whole thing reeks of WP:POINT. It has already attracted people with a "Whoopee, someone I don't like has a criminal conviction, so I can call them a criminal" mentality. The futility of attempting the tests above must be obvious to you. Supporters or admirers of Bush, de Valera or Paisley would quickly revert should anyone attempt to brand them criminals. Where do you stand on Wikipedia being unable to label people with criminal convictions (from an independent judiciary) as criminals? Up to now, you've been pretty consistent.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all "criminals" categories be done away with, since (in your view) they are inherently subjective? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no alternative. While most people (including myself) wouldn't have a problem with most entries, many political and historical figures have convictions for one thing or another, sometimes minor offenses. In my view, it's a potential nightmare.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, you should probably take this to WP:CFD, and suggest there that the entire "Criminals by nationality" category (and its sub-categories) be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with changing the general category of criminals by nationality, I agree the category is consistent, I agree the Israeli criminals section is consistent with the general criminals by nationality categorization, and I disagree that the meaning is subjective. I would also disagree that the idea that political and historical figures having convictions is a challenge to the category's effectively. To the extent it's felt that those criminal convictions do not impugn their character, this tells us something useful about criminal laws, the people judging character, or both. To the extent that the issue is whether or not the crimes are minor, I would only add that criminal law is generally considered a serious matter, which is why its burden of proof is so high compared to, for instance, civil law, and that consideration of this point should probably proceed through specific examples, if at all. AnotherBDA 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Before I take it to CFD, Jay, I'd welcome your thoughts. AnotherBDA, as you disagree, would you like to try the tests I've set above?

Lapsed Pacifist 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, why don't you try out your challenges? After all you are the one who said he wanted the definitions throughout the categories to be the same or the nuances in the criteria to be reflected, in brackets, in the category names (making them very long). Looks to me that this is your brainchild, you are here supposedly the most concerned with the consistency throughout the criminals by country categories (that do differ, some go by conviction, some do not) and, moreover, the only one who is very knowledgeable on Irish politics. I would not take it away from you. Please report your findings to a CFD since all this has very little to do with Israeli criminals. As things stand now, you remain inconsistent in your search for consistency. A CFD could put an end to this. gidonb 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. It sounds like the tests you've set out above involve (1) agreeing that Eamonn da Valera, Ian Paisley, and George W. Bush were convicted of infringing criminal law; and (2) acting on that agreement to urge others to include them in this classification. If that's what you'd like me to do, then I must decline; I know nothing about the criminal records of any of the individuals involved, and don't see any good reason to begin researching them. If you would like to undertake that research and convince me that they each have criminal records then, of course, I would naturally support their inclusion in the various criminal categories. Is that what you mean by "try the tests", or would you like to have me spend time in some other way? AnotherBDA 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the futility of those exercises should be obvious. They serve to highlight the impossibility of a consistent neutral approach as regards the definition of a criminal, and raise the question as to whether a past conviction suffices to label someone a criminal, without any explanation as to the gravity of the crime or its relevance to their life. "...some go by conviction, some do not..." is just one example of the arbitrariness of these categories. My knowledge of Irish politics is irrelevant here. The two Irishmen I wrote about were convicted by an independent judiciary in the parliamentary democracy of the United Kingdom. Do you believe they should have [Category:Irish criminals] at the bottom of their pages on the strength of that? This question has everything to do with (take your pick):

• Israeli criminals (Wikipedia's narrow definition)
• Israelis convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary
• Naughty Israeli people

and those of every other nationality. I will probably go to CFD. I'm canvassing opinion here before I do. In closing I repeat the question I asked above and put another: do you believe de Valera and Paisley should have [Category:Irish criminals] at the bottom of their pages on the strength of their convictions? Do you believe Bush should have [Category:American criminals] on the bottom of his page on the strength of his drink-driving conviction?

Lapsed Pacifist 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They all have records. You're unclear as to what level of proof you require. You seem to miss the point. Including any of them in a criminals category wouldn't last, as their supporters would not wear it. There's a double standard operating.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, the persons you refer to - if they are criminals - they are definitely not Israeli criminals. I am fine with them being categorized either way. It is of course OK for you to express the same opinions and points time and again, make demands from your colleagues in areas we know little or nothing about and to get the same answers from additional participants, but it does not foster our encyclopedia very much. It would be helpful if you would hold this discussion at the appropriate place. You may get the same answers there as well, or entirely different answers, but the outcome will be much more efficient for everyone. Regards, gidonb 18:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason Wikipedia standards should differ between nationalities. What applies elsewhere should apply here, and vice versa. Going by the definition of a criminal you like so much, it is unnecessary for you to know anything more about the three men I mentioned in order for you to make a judgment on whether or not they are criminals, other than that all were convicted of crimes by independent judiciaries in democratic states. I'm asking you to be consistent in your approach to categorisation.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As you know I would like the categories to be consistent. Knowing Wikipedia, I am unsure however if it is going to work. In an ideal world I think it would. But lets really leave the discussion of non-Israeli criminals for where it ought to be held. gidonb 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No criteria for crime or sentence ?

What if a person was convicted of one of the lesser crimes in the Israeli Chok Haonshin ? There are all differnet kinds of levels for crimes. A person doesn't become a "criminal" simply because he was convicted. He does become an ASIR - that means someonw who spent jail time for instance, but a criminal is something else, it's something to do with constant behviour and the mental state is different. We don't tag living persons as criminals because they were convicted of just any crime in the book, it's wrong. Amoruso 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stealing $10 doesn't make someone a criminal, but stealing $1,000,000 does. Failing to pay a lot of traffic tickets doesn't make one a criminal, but being repeatedly convicted of serious acts of violence does. The boundary is somewhere between these extremes in both cases. The criterion should be based on the sentence rather than time actually served, since neither "good behavior" in prison nor executive remissions lessen the offence. I propose that someone is classed as a criminal if they have received a total sentence of one year or more (adding up all convictions). --Zero^talk 15:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose renaming the category to Category:Israelis who were convicted of a crime. Amoruso 15:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That would give this category a different style of name from over 50 other "XYZian criminals" categories. There is no reason to make the Israeli category different from all the others. If you want to propose that all those categories be renamed in the same way, I'll support that. --Zero^talk 04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'd oppose the rename. I do support, however, the suggestion to discuss any such ideas at the relevant root category. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)