Talk:List of con artists

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This list must comply with the biographies of living persons (lists) policy and the lists of people guideline, because it contains material about living persons. Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list. In addition, note that a reliable source that justifies inclusion in this list must be provided for any new entry.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the list and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard

If you are a subject of this list, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Sources required

Actually per WP:BLP sources would be needed for these claims even on talk page and so I have removed them. --Active Banana | Talk 16:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of this article was just part of my proposal

I had flagged with banners that this article be created (although i would have called it "real-life con artists" which would be more consistent).

The other part of my proposal was to merge list of confidence tricks into confidence tricks which seems logical to me to have all the confidence trick info in one place.

Another thing that needs doing is making the articles tie up with the corresponding templates so Real-life confidence men ties up with {{Con artists}} and confidence tricks (or list of confidence tricks) ties up with {{Scams and confidence tricks}}.

I was partway into sorting this out in sandboxes see:

I am not itching to carry on getting involved with this but if somebody wants to pick this up feel free. --Penbat (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The List of con artists would require more specific criteria regarding who is to be included on the list and how they are identified. --Active Banana | Talk 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me completely. Anyway going back to what i said earlier, there is no reason to have the "Real-life" bit in this article title as there is no separate "Fictional con artists" article. Category:Fictional con artists is just a category list which could be linked to so i therefore propose that this article be renamed "Con artists".--Penbat (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." "Con artists" is really vague and subject to interpretation and so some type of objective criteria need to be laid out so that its obvious whether or not an item/entry belongs on the list. --Active Banana | Talk 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved

The title has been changed because the article is a list and includes both genders. KimChee (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael de Guzman

Michael de Guzman (from page Bre-X) was the largest mining fraud. Though he has no page on him. Not sure if his name should be added to the list of real-life con. Unless a single fraud is not a con. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Real-Life"

Uh ... wouldn't inclusion in an encyclopedia qualify someone for "real life," already? I'm thinking about citing this article/list for promotional language. Note: Non-real-life personalities are called "fictional" in their respective articles because ... well, it's a deviation from what is normal! In short: Is "real life" necessary? 76.205.172.225 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of bringing up this same point. We don't do this for any other topic that I am aware of and I can't see any good reason to do so here. List of fictional con artists is a redlink, so there's no need to disambiguate anyway. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just move it and the associated template. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Bourdin

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bourdin should also be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.225.121 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly incomplete

I came to this list looking for famous con artists that "got away with it" like Joseph Smith and Anita Sarkeesian, only not to find them here. That grave issue should be addressed. 80.30.183.55 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No "grave issue" exists. People who "got away with it" are just your personal opinion, and do not belong on this list. Plazak (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing centuries

For con artists who were active in two different centuries, should we list them under both headings? If just one, what's most important, year of birth, year of start of illicit activity, or bulk of illicit activity. My vote is to use bulk of activity, and if significantly active in both centiuries, to list in both. Dovid (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of con artists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313140656/http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/latest-press-releases/press-releases-2010/kf-concept-%C2%A334-million-ponzi-scheme-organiser-convicted.aspx to http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/latest-press-releases/press-releases-2010/kf-concept-%C2%A334-million-ponzi-scheme-organiser-convicted.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely

Mike Lindell

I was the one that added him, but it was removed by an anonymous user that has no Wikipedia history. Their reasoning "There is no evidence whatsoever that Mike Lindell is or has ever been involved in the activities of a con-artist. His political views do not qualify him to be on this list."

The language used seems like it came from a lawyer
I never mentioned anything about his political views. Unless believing that "Donald Trump will be reinstated" is a political view.
I gave two citations from the Independent UK (which is rated close to center.
Upon re-reading the section I added, I feel that it was written with a neutral-POV (but I am open for fixing any biases).
Oxford Dictionary of "con": persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception.
Finally:
- Mike Lindell conned people into believing that Donald Trump will be reinstated as President.
- Mike Lindell conned people into believing that votes in the 2020 election were flipped by foreign actors/nations.

I will re-add the Lindell section in a few days and monitor any edits or deletions. Asherkobin (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Mitchell

Buckle up! I hope to get around to this one soon.

Dubious

Inclusion of Donald Trump

While it is true that Donald Trump has been accused of defrauding clients of his Trump University, as well as various other contractual fraud claims made against him, I do not believe any of his legal issues fall into the category of con jobs. Confidence tricks involve a process of establishing trust between the con artist and the "mark" in order to allow the fraud to occur. In Trump's case, such elaborate processes were not employed; instead he merely failed to deliver promised results or failed to pay contracted fees. His actions may or may not be criminal (he has never been successfully tried in a criminal court, having settled most cases before they get to that point), but they do not fall under the "con artist" category. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that several other names on this list also do not belong. For example, Calisto Tanzi was legitimately the head of Parmalat; he did not engage in any elaborate ruse to persuade his victims he was someone other than who he was. He did embezzle funds from the company, but that's not the same as being a con artist. Similarly for many others on this page: the mere fact of acting in bad faith does not make one a con artist; the term "con artist" has a much more specific meaning. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt the Knife

The entry for Matt the Knife doesn't seem to line up with the linked page (different date of birth, and the information about being a con artist isn't on the linked page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Barista (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]