Category talk:Israeli criminals

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

text: The World Court:   --Joodoo 03:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "independent court of justice." 

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

text: Why is Vanunu's case special? Why is Pollard, also convicted of espionage, not included? --Joodoo 04:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't appear special to me; he was an Israeli convicted of a crime. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanunu 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Right. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have all the criminals been deleted? 

message: I propose to move the category title to more accurately reflect the definition given. Suggestions welcomed.
Lapsed Pacifist 20:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of this category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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).  --Zerotalk 15:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Zerotalk 04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No criteria for crime or sentence ?