|This category is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This category was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This category was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This category was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
Is this a sensible Category? It has one entry. --Wetman 23:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hardly surprising, considering you posted this comment exactly 24 minutes after it was created! Give it a chance - there's plenty of material out there. -- Necrothesp 01:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I feel that this Category is being misapplied somewhat. It is a subcategory of Criminal, so shouldn't people in this category be limited to those convicted of fraud? Or maybe the name should be changed to "Category:People convicted of fraud". As it is currently being applied, to people who have been embroiled in some controversy, but without a conviction, I think borders on slander and libel. H2O 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree there. At the very least, its application to people who haven't been convicted is POV. Jammycakes 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Ali listed as a fraudster?
Name of category
"Fraudster" sounds funny in American. (Maybe great in English?) It sounds amusing. Sorry, but it does. Why not "People convicted of fraud"? That has a ring of authenticity to it.
Reminds me of another category containing "scandal." Just naming it "scandal" sounds pov. "Fraudster" seems like stretching a word to cover somebody you don't like (in American). Sounds a both a bit POV and a bit ridiculous. Recommend changing it.
Just realized why. The problem is labeling. It is one thing to call a politician a liar. It is quite another thing to call him "a person convicted of perjury." Can you see the difference? In the first I have labeled him forever. I am telling everyone that I do not belong to his party = implying that he never tells the truth. Ever. In the second, I have simply and objectively named his conviction only. It is non-pov that way. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just came across the Wikipedia reason that this is a WP:POV category.Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label says that "Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.". The point here is that the convicted party would agree that he has been convicted of fraud (i.e. "A person convicted of fraud") but not a "fraudster" implying a permanent condition ("labeling", in my terms). That is why it should be replaced. Student7 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice this category talk page has been dormant for a while, but wanted to mention this just in case anybody still has it on their watchlist... It looks like several past discussions didn't lead to a consensus on the existence or name of this category, but given the wp:blp ramifications, I've raised this issue at wp:blp/n. user:j (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Black-letter policy: This category cannot be under Category:Criminals as-is
It is black-letter policy that it is inappropriate for this category to be included in Category:Criminals unless all those *not* convicted of a crime are removed. Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy:
Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.
There are many people in this category who have not been convicted of a crime, and it appears to be the intent of this category to include a wide-ranging group of people who may have committed a variety of criminal and non-criminal fraud. That may be so, but if it is so, this category cannot be a subcategory of Criminals, because many of those in it are factually not criminals. There needs to be a decision - if the categorization under Criminals is to be kept, everyone who has not been criminally convicted of fraud must be removed from the category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)