csda7 is invalid because the article asserted significance -- for example, its scanners out-performed four other notable companies.--RZuo (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD if desired. There's a CCS in one of the references that's even more explicit than those in the text of the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and send to AfD. If someone wants a discussion, let them have the discussion. Don’t make this wait a week here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD if nominated. This was a plausible A7 when it was tagged for A7. The originator/appellant then expanded the article and improved it. They should have contested the A7 on the article talk page rather than using DRV after the fact, but we are here now and the article should be here also now until a deletion discussion is held. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree; I think it was not a reasonable A7 when nominated, assuming a reasonable interpretation of WP:CCS. "CRUSE produces high-end scanners which are sold to institutions such as museums and archives. Their scanners are large and specialised." was present in the article as nominated for A7. Do you disagree that that is a CCS? Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Political prisoners – Overturn to no consensus. At the end of the day, the result of this discussion hinges on whether this topic unambiguously meets WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or whether that is a matter of subjective opinion. I find a slim consensus here that it is the latter, so the CfD closer was improper to disregard the numerical majority when the interpretation of the guideline itself was subject to differences of opinion. I recommend an RfC to clarify this guideline in the context of labels which are sometimes subjective but generally well-documented in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was closed as "convert to container category" with the rationale "Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." This is very subjective - with the disclaimer that I was the category's creator and voted keep, I nonetheless find the keep arguments well-articulated, and the opposing one much less so. In particular, I note that I and others have replied to several voters who suggested containerization, but said voters never replied to us. It's disappointing that silent refusal to participate in the discussion is treated as "convincing". I could see this being closed as no consensus, or relisted, but I don't think closing this as de facto delete (containerize isn't much better) is the right action. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — the “keep” voters were, on the whole, every bit as thoughtful, engaged, logical and policy-grounded as the other side. Ignoring our arguments is arbitrary and, frankly, insulting. — BiruitorulTalk13:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep At the very, very, least the closing statement is poor. "...on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." is a fine reason to go against the majority, but you have to actually cite what policies are involved. Beyond that, BHG made a strong argument, but A) it was well refuted and B) most people didn't agree with it. And yes, we are capable of using sources to figure out category membership. Bad close that cannot be allowed to stand. Hobit (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I'm a bit shocked that, despite so many of us voting to Keep this important category it was unilaterally deleted anyways. Please, there are so many important historical topics about political imprisonment that predate modern NGO designations. --Dan Carkner (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTVOTE. The closer's job is not to count heads, but to weigh policy-based reasoned argument.
The closer's decision was not made unilaterally. It was explicitly based on weighing the arguments made in the discussion: the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers.
Closer's response: Forgive me not going into more detail in the close. I will remedy that. As for the to-and-fro about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I was satisfied by the arguments that categories can be justified by text within the article, and if need be can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. However, I found that the justifications for the category did not satisfy WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: an inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. What about adding sub-cats by prison? Category:Boven-Digoel internees was made a sub-cat during the discussion – probably justifiable in my opinion, but POV. Category:Detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was repeatedly brought up as a controversial case, to which the only answer given was WP:FRINGE, but that hardly avoids POV. Category:Prisoners in the Tower of London might perhaps also be put forward to be a sub-cat, because a lot of the members could be called political even if some were regular criminals, and WP:SUBCAT says When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also. I concluded that recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation. – FayenaticLondon16:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic, with respect, "political prisoner" has 6.8 million hits on google books, it's a very important topic, ranging across almost all modern nations and empires, not something that should be deleted because you find it murky to sort out one case study from another. It's a defining attribute of many important historical figures, especially victims of Soviet regimes and other totalitarian systems that predate modern NGOs; not something that is equivalent to the mere status of being someone who has been imprisoned for any reason. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Carkner, that argument is based on a classic straw man: the notion that this CFD is to "delete" en.wp's coherent of political prisoners. No article has been deleted by this CFD, and no article's text has been altered. This CFD was solely about the use of categories to group en.wp's articles on people who have been labelled as political prisoners, and as the closer explicitly notes above recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation. The claim that this amounts to "delete" political prisoners is nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories serve a useful purpose for someone who wants to navigate a topic, and can be be managed by editors much more easily than maintaining a manually edited list related to a topic-- and such lists are often incomplete and poorly sourced. Not to mention the sub categories by nationality offer a way to group articles related to the larger topic. The main article about political prisoners, and of course all the individual biographical articles about prisoners or prisons are not deleted, but the functional ability to navigate them for users is reduced. I feel OK with using the word delete on this deletion review, it's what we're talking about and not a straw man. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...and such lists are often incomplete and poorly sourced" - Categories are not an end-run around needing references. period, full stop. If you cannot create a referenced list article on the topic, that topic has no business being a category on Wikipedia. This is per long established policy, not just WP:CAT, but WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and so on. - jc3719:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they have to be sourced, and can be. I've written my share of political prisoner biographies for people who were interned for membership in parties and which is reflected both in the contemporary journalistic coverage and secondary academic literature. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to describe them as a political prisoner in a category if the literature reflects it overwhelmingly. It strikes me as downgrading the validity of the topic to prevent people from using the term in categories.--Dan Carkner (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can have reliable sources saying someone thinks that, in their subjective opinion, someone qualifies for the subjective term of "political prisoner" and that is absolutely appropriate for the article space. But this category is making a radically different assertion: in the official opinion of Wikipedia, that subjective claim is objectively true. Good luck finding a reliable source for that! - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a problem, we wouldn't have any mildly controversial category, for rapists, scandals, conspiracy theories, etc. You can find reliable sources that are obsolete or just a bit fringe supporting many minority viewpoints, and we don't categorize them. Categories, after all, are for defining qualities, not minority viewpoints (which may or may not be reliable but are generally fringe and not defining, thus not categorizable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is thoroughly disingenuous. The issue here is not fringe or obsolete or minority viewpoints. The problem is that contested definitions often frame the two sides of a major political dispute, and in the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strike. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, there is no straw man at all. On the contrary, the 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear example of a nation divided over the question to whether a set of people were criminals or political prisoners. Far from being an objective fact discernible from reliable sources, it was the core issue of a violent political dispute. Your choice to label it as a straw man displays a deep contempt for facts which do not suit your agenda. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about you start making your case by adding a section to that article about how it still divides those countries? You have cited the 1981 case several times, but despite my request failed to offer any citations backing your POV that the classification of prisoners from that time as political prisoners remains controversial (and for the sake of argument, let's say it is - you have also failed to show it would be a problem for Wikipedia - if it would be, please show us a single edit war or even a polite disagreement about whether such and such person or group, related to this incident, should be called a political prisoner). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, you are trying to evade by reframing. The question is no longer live, because the prisoners were released over 20 years ago, under the Good Friday Agreement. The issue at stake here is how to present the historical dispute. If you read the article Bobby Sands you can see the dispute very clearly: Margaret Thatcher and the British government labelled him as a criminal, while the irish Republican movement and its supporters labelled him as a political prisoner. The article does a very good job of implementing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but you want to create a situation where that must be set aside to either include him in a Category:Political priosners or exclude him. Either option amounts to Wikipedia asserting as fact one POV or the other. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, Piotrus. The labelling at the time is the single defining attribute of the whole epsisode. The whole crisis was about whether or not they were to be treated as political prisoners by the British govt.
That point has been made to you several times in discussion, and it is very clearly set out in the relevant articles: the 1981 Irish hunger strike was a dispute about two opposing views on political status, and the Irish government was not a party to the dispute. That is set out in the second sentence of the wikipedia article on the topic; it could not be clearer.
I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london I appreciate your rationale, but you present a novel argument. Only one person brought up the SUBJECTIVECAT argument, which I attempted to refute. Nobody else as far as I can tell saw it as particularly valid (or not). As for the sub-cats by prison, I don't think this was discussed either. I think your explanation above reads like a valid VOTE but is not a proper summary for close - it seems, to me, like you found one voters argument persuasive and ignored everything else. Thus you turned your personal vote into a close. That I find not appropriate - you acted not as a neutral closer, but as a participant in the discussion. You should have voted and presented your arguments, some of which are quite novel, and given others the opportunity to comment on your vote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging that you "attempted to refute". I don't believe other participants found your refutation convincing, and neither did I.
As I read the discussion, the "subjective" argument was gaining weight, and was endorsed e.g. in its last words "per Marcocapelle". By way of example, I mentioned above two actual/potential sub-cats which were added during the discussion or mentioned in it, and suggested a third which (as a Brit) struck me as a third possibility. I had two reasons in mind for mentioning these here: (i) to illustrate the weight of the "subjective" problem; and (ii) to explain why the close would containerise only by designating organisation, not also by prison. – FayenaticLondon08:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging that you did not find my "refutation" convincing, but I don't think you should make a claim about other participants. Some certainly did not find my arguments convincing, but judging by the similarity of arguments, clearly, some others did. Let's ping those who I think more or less echoed my viewpoint, and let them have their own say: @Dimadick, Biruitorul, My very best wishes, Dan Carkner, GizzyCatBella, Alansohn, Nihil novi, Volunteer Marek, and Darwinek: what do you say? Did any of you found my arguments at the previous discussion convincing, or is Fayenatic London right that no-one else found them of use? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with Dan Carkner above. Piotrus, your arguments in the original discussion and here as well, were very clear. I am in line with your arguments.--Darwinek (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "Political prisoner" is an inherently POV term, and the closer's rationale about needing more context for this seems a reasonable approach. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through and read the comments, I find BrownHairedGirl's argument persuasive and sufficiently aligned with NPOV policy that the keep !voters simply don't have a policy-based leg to stand on. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a further question to those advocating that this exist as a category, if he 1) actually had an article (he doesn't, we have articles on others of the same name) and 2) if his jailing was longer, should Canadian Pastor Tim Stephens [1] be included in a category of political prisoners? That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because the answer really depends on what one believes with respect to the legitimacy of Covid-19 restrictions affecting religious observances. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problem" this term has is that it is occasionally abused as some folks try to claim they are political prisoners despite no support for these outside tiny minorities. But as I said, it is not a problem for us; fringe claims do not get categorized. Just like 99% of sources agree that Mandela or Ghandi were political prisoners, hardly anybody in reliable sources would support Stephens. As I said, we can have a category hatnote noting that inclusion in this category requires in-text citation to a reliable source that is not challenged or fringe. Usually, it's quite easy to find plenty of academic or respected NGO / journalists saying someone is a political prisoner. Fringe cases should not be allowed. Problem solved. (And again, this is not a new rule, this is normal - categories are not for fringe claims, which is why despite, let's say, the existence of Holocaust denials or evolution denials groups and like, we don't categorize The Holocaust or evolution theory as false or conspiracies or whatever). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not presented any sources for your assertions. You may be right, or not, but each case like this should be discussed on the relevant article's talk page. In either case, and more to a point I am not aware any of the cases you cite have been included in our category, not to mention edit warred on. You are suggesting controversy time and again where none exists (certainly not on Wikipedia). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources in the articles, which could read if you were interested in the facts. It is wholly irrelevant whether or not those examples have previosuly been included in Category:Political prisoners, because if the category is to exist it must be possible to make an NPOV decision on whether to include them. Instead, you are using a series of evasion tactics to avoid answering the question of hpow that decision can be made in a NPOV way when opinion is clearly divided between major camps, and you have repeatedly misreprsented the balance of opinion on such cases as one of mainstream views versus fringe. You are pushing a POV, and denying reality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer correctly applied the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Deciding inclusion on a case-by-case basis is not a viable option when the definition of political prisoner is so heavily dependent on POV. It is deeply depressing to see how some editors in the CFD argued to disregard that core policy POV issue in favour of a majoritarian view of sources, and come here to continue their opposition to policy. That approach would entrench Wikipedia's systemic bias, because the inevitable prominence given to English-language sources by our English-speaking editors would tilt the population of this category towards the perspective of English-speakers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS In addition to my principled objection per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I have a very specific concern about this category: Ireland. One of the key episodes of The Troubles in Northern Ireland was the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which was about the prisoners' demand for Special Category Status, i.e. being treated as political prisoners. The British Government withdrew that status, and the prisoners' response was the hunger strike which became the major political crisis across the island of Ireland in 1981. Note that the whole dispute was about "who is a political prisoner". If we have a Category:Political prisoners to populated with biographical articles (whether directly or in by-country subcats such as Category:Political prisoners in Northern Ireland), then editors face a binary choice; either the prisoners such as Bobby Sands are categorised as political prisoners, or they are not. That decision comes down to a choice between the Irish republican POV or the British POV. There is no side-stepping this, e.g. by excluding all Irish prisoners from such categories, because any such exclusion would be an endorsement of one POV. In the mid-2000s, The Troubles was a vicious battleground on Wikipedia, with groups of POV-warriors in constant conflict. Restoring this sort of POV category will restart that editorial conflict by forcing Wikipedia to choose a side. Per WP:NPOV, that should not happen. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Bobby Sands, his case was controversial - 40 years ago. My review of modern literature about him suggests he is generally recognized as a political prisoner by scholars, as in, I am seeing him being labelled as such (ex. here), and no challenges to this label, which seems to make it defining. So the process would be to categorize him as such, until sources challenging this status are found, at which point they'd be reviewed on talk, and if the challenges are non-fringe, the category would be removed as no longer defining (since there would be a disagreement). However, since you presented no modern, reliable sources disputing classification of him as a political prisoner, I see no problem with this - the only attribution of such object is your personal POV. You *think* this is a controversial claim that invalidates the category, but this is just your subjective view, not backed up by any sources. In either case, cases like Sands are exception to the rule, most people called political prisoners are hardly challenged. The category is defining and uncontroversial for vast majority of people who'd be in it (the list is at Talk:Political_prisoner#Category_for_political_prisoners_recreated,_challenged and did not contain Sands). I'll end by asking a question I fully expect to be ignored by you (prove me wrong...): do you dispute that Aung San Suu Kyi, Václav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Liu Xiaobo, Adam Michnik and Alexei Navalny - to take a few prominent high profile cases - are recognized as political prisoners by majority of reliable sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, you continue to miss or evade the very simple core point: this is not a matter of restrospective scholarly assessment. The question of political status was a major political dispute at the heart of a low-level civil war. You advocate throwing NPOV out of the window, and asserting as unqualified fact the POV of one side. Thank you for setting out so clearly your disregard for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: no wonder you were so riled by the close of the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations. I am not going to play your game. I don't need to provide sources for the assertion that the 1981 Irish hunger strikers were defined by two opposing views of whether they were political prisoners, because I know of no reliable source which disputes that this was the locus of the crisis. The relevant articles are full of sources which uphold that nature of the dispute, and your demand for sources is nothing more than a transparently bad faith attrition strategy. For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques to deny the well-documented facts that there are many high-profile cases where a dispute over political status was central to their notability. The only Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to draw this review's attention to a crucial statement by @Piotrus, who requested this review. In the CFD discussion, Piotrus wrote at 03:58, 5 July 2021: Some categories may be too politicized, particularly in the US, to work on English Wikipedia. This one is not.. That is an explicit acknowledgement that the topic is a matter of political perspective, and it suggests that these categories not be used wrt to the country most heavily-represented among Wikipedia editors. It implicitly accommodates the highly-partisan notion that "political prisoners" exist only in some "bad countries", and that editors should not trouble themselves trying to apply the same principle regardless of regime. I assume that Piotrus's suggestion was a good faith attempt to avoid controversy; but it amounts to creating a structure which locks in differential standards, and it also provides an excellent illustration of the falsity of Piotrus's claim that the definition of political prisoner is settled. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in that discussion, no definition for any social science term is really settled; you ignored this point there, and you keep hanging into it as if proves anything - except that you are not very familiar, apparently, with how the existence of multiple definitions is a norm in social sciences. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not ignore that point. I chose not to waste time engaging with your disingenuous attempt to conflate the fuzziness of some concepts with cases such as this where various definitions are in open conflict. I assumed that whoever closed the discussion would be smart enough to see through your exercise, and I was right. This is not complicated, Piotus: there are many cases such as the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange where well-reasoned mainstream views supporting labelling someone as a political prisoner, and other well-reasoned mainstream views opposing the label. Your attempts to wave away those deep divides are either disingenuous or woefully ill-informed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "I've seen the term in several decades of political science and history literature" rather than "I've seen it on google"? We're not talking about a fringe concept here, even if it's open to being problematized as being used in a politicized manner at times. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not that it's open to being problematized as being used in a politicized manner at times. The problem is that the term is inherently political. See e.g. Steinert, 2020: "the concept is ambiguously used in academic studies referring to both theoretically and empirically distinct groups of individuals". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out (being the person who found this source), this is normal in social sciences. Most concepts have multiple ambiguous definitions. A study of globalization even got several books and articles dedicated to analyzing the few hundred definitions of it (ex. here: "Many authors have attempted, with relative success, to define globalization in a variety of ways. Some claim that it cannot be done...") ; I am not seeing you trying to CfD Category:Globalization, however. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Piotrus, it is not at all normal in social science to use contested terminology without clarifying which definition(s) are being used. on the contrary, that is a very basic form of bad practice. Furthermore, it is appallingly bad practice in social science to respond to evidence of conflicting definitions as the cause of major political division by falsely accusing the other person of "inventing" uncontested historical fact. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Down below, you wrote that I am inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category. That is is nonsense: it is a matter of historical fact that the 1981 Irish hunger strike was about two radically different views of who is political prisoner. You want to create a situation where Wikipedia must asert as fact the view of one or the other side to that conflict. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as participant) This DRV seems to struggle with the same issue as the CFD: editors talking past each other about the importance of this political concept versus the lack of a non-subjective process of actually picking which articles go in the category. The former is interesting and inspiring while the latter is pretty boring and mechanical. But actual categorization relies on the latter and no formula for escaping WP:SUBJECTIVECAT was ever presented. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I find DRV most helpful with input from non-participants but, since most of !votes here are from the earlier CFD, I'll make my support explicit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: This is very clearly not a supervote. See WP:Supervote#Advice_to_editors_decrying_a_supervote_close: For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. This close was clearly founded in the core policy which to which the minority pointed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think Joe is very much right. This was the case "that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion." Although I am willing to consider that the closer really tried to be neutral, but was still swayed by one side's arguments - but that compromises their neutrality, when, as many other parties point out, neither side had a clear superiority in their arguments (and of course, I lean towards the view that keepers were more persuasive - although I am sure you'd disagree). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a Supervote if the closer makes judgements, including “grounded in policy”, that are not evident in the discussion. The purpose of discussion is not to find the right descison, but to educate the other participants. The close was too heavy handed in making a judgement. The closer should have !voted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question of if a topic is too subjective to be a category is, itself, subjective. I don't understand how a closer can claim that their view is somehow an objectively true. (I !voted above). Hobit (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit Indeed. There are "arguments" which can be dismissed out of hand (per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid) but the closer here did not identify any problematic arguments. Despite the clear no consensus, they chose to side with one side with a justification that I find quite lacking and I concur that it seems subjective. If FL found arguments of one side more compelling than others, but neither clearly disqualifiable due to being "just a votes", "personal attacks", "I like its" and uch, and in rough balance, numerically, they should have either closed as no consensus or simply voted themselves and let the discussion continue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omit Bobby Sands and the other prisoners in the H-blocks from Category:Political prisoners, thereby endorsing the point of view of the British government, which expressly described the prisoners as criminals.
With categories, there is no in-between option, no opportunity to use cautious phrasing to covey nuance or dispute. Either an article is in a category or it is not.
If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please read the article Bobby Sands to see how opinion was polarised into opposing blocks.
So my question is: Please explain how either of those two options is compatible with the policies WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Please note that this is not a theoretical question. It is a practical one about a very high-profile issue which will have to be decided one or the other if this category is undeleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, @Biruitorul, it goes to the heart of the DRV question; whether the closer was correct to accept arguments that this category violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
I apologise if my first statement above is not sufficiently clear. I did not accept arguments that the category violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; on the contrary, I considered that they were successfully rebutted. It was WP:SUBJECTIVECAT that I found decisive. WP:NPOV is also relevant, of course. – FayenaticLondon09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case of Bobby Sands is to be discussed on his talk page first. And the alleged controversy is not even backed up by any sources (we only have your word that there is any modern neutralality problem and a British vs Irish POV in reliable sources). Plus he wasn't ever categorized as a political prisoner on Wikipedia. You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial - but it has never been so on Wikipedia (and on the contrary, it happily exists on dozens of other Wikipedias in various languages too - now that's a fact, unlike speculation on whether in some wiki future we will have a dispute over how to categorize Sands). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense, Piotrus. Of course he wasn't ever categorized as a political prisoner on Wikipedia, because such categories have been deleted promptly after creation.
Similar your claim that we only have your word that there is any modern neutralality problem is based either on a failure to read the article, or on outright deceit. The question of whether Sands was a political prisoner is what the whole dispute was about. I am disgusted by your mailicious smears that I am "inventing" something. It is a matter of undisputed historical fact that the hunger strike was about whether or not the H-block prisoners were political prisoners, and your claim that I am fabricating it is very nasty conduct toward another editor, as well as contemptuous of historical fact.
I am inventing nothing. This is a real, practical issue, which is exceptionally well-documented: a search for "h-blocks" political status" gets over 500 hits on Gbooks and 128 hits on Gbooks. If Category:Political prisoners is re-created, either Sand belongs in the category or he doesn't. Which POV to you uphold, Piotrus: The IRA or the British govt?
Please stop your badgering with logical fallacies. "Which POV to you uphold, Piotrus: The IRA or the British govt?" is a pure and simple loaded question. Since you keep ignoring my questions to you and instead reply with numerous logical fallacies (and personal attacks like "more nonsense", "I am disgusted by your mailicious smears", etc.), I rest my case. The readers of our conversation(s) can judge who was right. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is no a loaded question, and it is not a logical fallacy. The crisis was about whether or not these hundreds of IRA prisoners were political prisoners: one side firmly aid yes, the other side formly said no. You want to create a situation where one of theose opposing views must be aserted by Wikipedia as unqualified fact. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to BHG for asking that question. I don't wish to re-litigate the CfD, but I agree that it is necessary to show that there is a policy-compliant use for the category before it can be restored, so to that extent a certain degree of re-litigation seems inevitable to me.It's certainly true that categories don't permit nuance, and they therefore lead to hard cases. A good analogy is our process of deciding whether a historical figure was gay: some sources might say the person was straight, and other sources say they were gay, so we have to reconcile conflicting sources. But the fact that it can be hard to decide doesn't mean we have to delete, for example, Category:Medieval LGBT people. It merely means we have to use good editorial judgment about how we use the category. It's certainly true that there are people who were obviously political prisoners: the example that springs immediately to mind is Nelson Mandela. And it's certainly true that his political prisoner-hood is a defining characteristic of the man.I do recognise that restoring this category will lead to a lot of disagreement and much soapboxing on the talk pages of articles about the Troubles, and in plenty of other cases too. But on the other hand, I differ from you and from the closer in how I parse that debate. Unlike you, I cannot discern a consensus to delete the category and I therefore conclude that our rules require it to remain.—S MarshallT/C 09:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, the answer is that the question needs to resolved in mainspace, by discussion on the article talk page. Much of what you said in the CfD is agreeable, but as cfd talk it has got ahead of parent article. “Political prisoner” is POV? Cite that from the article please. “Political prisoner” is not well defined? Is that what the parent article says? Or is the parent article incomplete? I read it has presenting a small number of definitions by organisation. Categories should follow articles, not lead. If a person cannot be defined as a political prisoner, that is a conclusion to be stated in mainspace, supported by sources, it is not a decision to be made at CfD. The CfD was doomed by the lack of consensus on the parent article. The categorisation problems have brought the problem to a head, but the resolution needs to be established in mainspace. I recommend an RfC at the talk page of the parent article, at Talk:Political prisoner.
My thought here and now is that the list of political prisoners should be a sortable table based on which reputable organisations declare them to be political prisoners, and that categorisation comes later, and that individuals will have to be in subcategories of Category:Political prisoners. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and restore the "Category:Political prisoners".
The question of whether a given individual qualifies as a political prisoner is resolved in the same way as any other question on Wikipedia – on the basis of reliable sources.
Since ancient Rome, it has been a principle of jurisprudence that "Nemo in sua causa judex est" – "No one is the judge in his own case." If Britons and Irishpeople disagree as to whether Bobby Sands was a political prisoner, it may be necessary to ask them to recuse themselves and to remand the case to an impartial court for adjudication.
Differences in judgment occur on Wikipedia all the time – and get resolved, usually satisfactority, without resort to the nullifying of useful, widely accepted concepts.
@Nihil novi, you completely misunderstand the situation, as has SmokeyJoe. This is not a dispute between British and Irish editors. On the contrary, the relevant articles are stable and describe the situation accurately and in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The issue here is that whole topic of the 1981 Irish hunger strike and Special Category Status is about an epoch-defining political crisis which the IRA prisoners adamantly insisted that they were political prisoners, and the British govt insisted that they were not political, just criminal. Both sides had well-reasoned, widely supported justifications for their deeply-held principles. No review by en.wp editors (from whatever nationality) can alter the fact these opposing views define the case, and that endorsing one side or the other is a breach of NPOV. However, the supporters of this category will create a dispute where there us none, because if individuals are to be categorised as political prisoners, then a binary choice must be made between either the Irish Republican perspective (categorise as political prisoners) or the British govt (not political). There is no room for nuance, or in-between compromise, because an article is either in a category or it is not. Having a Category:Political prisoners will require these articles to endorse one view or the other, which is a breach of the policy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The irony here is that en.wp problem is actually the opposite of what you believe. Wikipedia editors from Britain and Ireland and elsewhere have upheld en.wp policy and collaborated to make stable, NPOV articles. But a bunch of partisan POV-pushers led my Piotrus are demontrating an active hostility to actually learning about the topic, and want to detablise the coverage by ignoring WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and instead assert one view as fact. That's not just contemptuous of policy; it's contemptuous of history and of those editors from many diffrent pespectives who actually know the history and are not willing to unbalance en.wp's NPOV coverage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Nicely done. Now we can have Xfd part 2 here, just as DRV was intended for. (grabs some snacks ans sits back to watch the trainwreck). - jc3717:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Far from citing any Wikipedia policies, the closer simply made an arbitrary decision. The decision translates to ignoring what any reliable source is telling us, and ignoring notability policies. Some people are notable because they were imprisoned and executed for their political activities, political affiliations, or their connections (real or imagined) to certain polltical factions. Ignoring this is little more than POV-pushing. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I participated in the original discussion and reviewed all of the responses. The close is entirely dependent on ignoring actual consensus of editors who gave a clear policy basis for their argument. I can't possibly summarize this better than by quoting Biruitorul, who stated above that "the “keep” voters were, on the whole, every bit as thoughtful, engaged, logical and policy-grounded as the other side. Ignoring our arguments is arbitrary and, frankly, insulting." I feel equally offended. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I participated in the original discussion, this is a perfect example of a WP:NOTVOTE closure. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT has existed for a long time and is very applicable here. Also note that OP's statement that containerization is not much better than delete is very inaccurate, because the Amnesty International subcategory contains a huge amount of articles and this subcategory is not affected by this closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Seriously, SUBJECTIVECAT is about "subjective descriptions (famous, notable, great), any reference to relative size (large, small, tall, short), relative distance (near, far), or character trait (beautiful, evil, friendly, greedy, honest, intelligent, old, popular, ugly, young)". And even here we have exception; we don't have category for beautiful people but we have category for not just winners of beauty pageants but under "Beauty" for beauty deities and even professions for people who may or may not be beautiful (models). We have category Category:Evil deities (although not Category:Evil, and so on. And anyway, political prisoner is not subjective - there is a ton of scholarly literature on the concept and on who was (or wasn't) a political prisoner. As for AI category, it's useful but the problem is, among others, that it is not retroactive. AI didn't exist in the 19th of the first half of the 20th century, but notable political prisoners, for whom being a political prisoner is quite defining, did (here's an academic article on "The Emergence of the Political Prisoner, 1865–1910") and I'll just thrown two names out here: Mahatma Gandhi ([2]) - who died before AI was established. Second, is Nelson Mandela, often described as the world's most famous political prisoner, but whom AI did not recognize as a prisoner of conscience (due to their controversial stance of avoiding awarding this status to anyone who advocates or even accepts violent means of protest), see [3], [4]. Containerization is a solution which denies proper categorization to two of the most famous and uncontroversial political prisoners in existence, and therefore is obviously a failed solution. This and this is just shameful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I appreciate the passion of the advocates of this category, but categoryspace is still different from articlespace. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT should not be simply hand-waved away. Perhaps the issue is that the term "political prisoner" is so highly emotive, and the advocates of it believe the topic is somehow diminished if they cannot arbitrarily assign articles to it. So I might point out that there are ice hockey players whom every single hockey fan ever born would label an enforcer. Any hockey fan could watch a minute of play and identify who the enforcers are. They are an enormously important part of the game historically, as much as the NHL struggles to downplay it. Being identified as an enforcer is much more defining than what position you play. But ultimately, there are no universally agreed-upon criteria for whether one player or another is an enforcer. It is only by reference to a sportswriter or other RS that we can have a list. We have a List of NHL enforcers and no Category:Enforcers as a consequence. Considering how vastly more serious a matter it is to be labeled a political prisoner, it boggles my mind that such an inherently WP:SUBJECTIVECAT can have defenders. Keeping it as a container category was, I thought, the best possible compromise that retains the integrity of the categorization system. -- choster (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So how to we determine if a category is too subjective? I get that *you* think it is. But how, other than discussion and consensus building, do we make that determination? Are you comfortable with one person invoking WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and an admin ignoring the many other !votes and deleting on that basis? I know I'm not. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but when subjective opinions conflict, we generally give a great deal of weight to the numeric consensus. Are you claiming that any objective person would conclude that this category is too subjective? Recall, DRV is about reviewing the closure of the discussion, not relitigating the underlying issue. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
choster, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but the way I see it a hockey enforcer does not have a legal status nor a robust academic literature dedicated to analyzing them. With political prisoners many had distinct legal statuses depending on the time and country under discussion - not simply a matter of armchair feelings by wikipedia editors - if they were arrested under statutes that prohibited membership in a political party. In other cases of course it was done extralegally or of course there are people arrested under regular laws whose supporters hope to rally people to their causes by calling them political prisoners. At the very least the people in the former category of detainees who belonged, or were accused of belonging, to a political party have a clear status no different than the categories for Murderers or other legally imprisoned people. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is uncontroversial and widely recognized that Ghandi and Mandela are some of the world's most famous political prisoners. It is a defining quality for them. There is no container category for them. This and this is just shameful, as well as an obvious information loss for the reader and anyone who uses the category system. (They are of course categorized as political prisoners on dozens of another language Wikipedias where this category exists, and as far as Ic can tell, it has never been challenged or deemed controversial or too subjective in those projects). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples prove the subjectivity at play here though since they are from South Africa and India. In contrast, there were no subcategories for the United States or the United Kingdom and it's unlikely that they would ever be created, not from any malice or prejudice amongst Wikipedia editors, but from seeing domestic disputes as very nuanced while far away ones are cut and dry. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect While I certainly see how they could be controversial, they are topics discussed by reliable sources and academia. For example, while at first I thought it is a fringe theory, I researched a claim on whether King was a political prisoner, and a bit to my surprise, it seems that yes, he is recognized as one by modern scholars and I couldn't find a single dissenting view to even suggest this is controversial now (arguably, I am sure it would have been 50 years ago or so); see Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Was_Martin_Luther_King_Jr._a_political_prisoner? and my unchallenged edits to the article. Now, I am also reasonably sure that things would be much more heated about modern-era people like let's say Manning, but that's fine - their status is disputed, not defining, and hence, when we create a Category:Political prisoners in the United States, it should include King but not Manning (although maybe Manning will be recognized a one by future scholars and will be added to this category in 2070s?). PS. Categories aside, the topic of Political prisoners in the United States is a notable one and I'll create it soon (plenty of RS exist); and anyway, it is good to have a main article for a category first, defining the scope (I created Political prisoners in Poland yesterday, and note that quite a few of "political prisoners in Fooland" already existed). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Moreover, the article about Mandela does mention that he was on the US government terrorism watch-list for a very long time. How much more subjective can this be? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle That's historical. Labels change. Mandella was considered a terrorist in the past, he is no longer considered one. Categories can reflect this, as they are updated with new developments (classic example is people who are alive vs those who are dead, but there are more - people whose awards are stripped, people who are exonerated of crimes, etc.). Our system is farm from ideal yet due to many categories still missing, so Mandella could be categorized as someone formerly recognized as a terrorist (if there even is such a category now). Another example - see Category talk:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience; we need to separate it into current and former. There are people who are in prison now for mundane offences, who were once AIpocs. It is confusing; for example the sole entry in Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Poland is for an individual who was AIpocs few decades ago, but is now in prison in Poland for fraud. The category tree suggests he is still an AIpoc, which is wrong. As we refine the categories, this will be solved. The solution here is more categories, not less; the choice is not just binary (yes or no). A binary set is problematic, but that's why we have the category tree solution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it has changed, but that is exactly a reflection of how subjective this is. Labeling Mandela as a political prisoner instead of as a terrorist became more widespread while the support for the apartheid regime crumbled down. It fundamentally remains a matter of two opposite views (by supporters of Mandela versus by supporters of the apartheid regime) but the quantitative balance in amount of supporters on each side has shifted dramatically in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see and acknowledge the systemic bias concerns here. Yes: we're happy to describe political prisoners in South Africa or India but we're much less likely to do so in the US or the UK. If you look at WP:RSP, you'll see the explanation. The vast majority of sources that Wikipedians evaluate as "reliable" come from the Western democracies, which means that en.wiki describes the world pretty much how the mainstream media in Western democracies describe it. This is certainly a huge issue that affects an awful lot of our coverage, but I don't see how it disbars us from having a category for political prisoners. Incidentally, if you do require an example of a political prisoner who was detained by Her Majesty's loyal government, I would put forward Emmeline Pankhurst. —S MarshallT/C 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall It's quite fascinating to me as a sociologist (from Poland), even if it can be offensive for some folks here, but yes, I think a part of the problem is the knee-jerk reaction from folks in the "Western democracies" when they are told that they also had political prisoners, just like us poor schucks from the Second World. Then there is the lack of realization that for people from the (former?) Second World, the political prisoner category is very important, as many political prisoners are today's heroes of the fight for independence, democracy, and so on. But they are also historical heroes, we don't have political prisoners in Poland now. But in the US, for example, there is a modern day controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Manning, even Crosby, and the term is "current". So the systemic bias can be seen in American(?) volunteers seeing the term as controversial based on the (relatively) recent media coverage, and (unfortunately) ignoring the much more neutral academic coverage of this, and co-incidentally, in the systemic bias of trying to deny to the rest of the world a category that in many places (ex. former communist Europe) is not controversial and very defining. I am willing to bet my academic / professional wiki expert reputation that if anyone tried to XfD this category from Polish, Russian, or Hungarian Wikipedias there would be a speedy close and a WP:TROUT to the nom. Maybe I should publish a peer-reviewed paper about this :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem of bias in favour of Western/Anglo countries and against poor/non-Anglo countries may also relate as much to what people are researching and writing on Wikipedia as the category of Political Prisoner itself. There is not so much coverage of political imprisonment of anti-colonial figures or dissident party members in the British, French, Dutch etc empires, not to mention the fact that many "third world" political prisoners were arrested with the support of Western Countries (see the US supplying lists of communists in the 1960s crackdown in Indonesia). The problem of bias and responsibility is fairly complex but it shouldn't mean that we can't link articles that are clearly about political prisoners, such as Lie Eng Hok which I wrote lately, who was not known for anything else but his political imprisonment.--Dan Carkner (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and incidentally, I've just been through this debate totting up the !votes of the people who didn't participate in the CfD. I commend this exercise to the closer. I evaluate SmokeyJoe's contribution as a flavour of "overturn to keep", and if I'm correct in that, then I get to a near-unanimous "overturn" (with only Jclemens dissenting).—S MarshallT/C 07:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misspelled "Taking NPOV seriously" in characterizing my response here. I think that would be a much more NPOV category to put me in. Do you not agree? ;-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close clearly indicates that a majority did not support the stated outcome. It justifies this by reference to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The trouble is that this is not a policy; it's just a guideline. Guidelines specifically allow exceptions and so shouldn't be used to impose a minority view. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a difficult case as a Deletion Review, because the local consensus of !voters was wrong, and also because the whole concept of !vote is subtle and weird. The purpose of a deletion discussion is to determine local consensus. There wasn't a local consensus. The closer isn't asked to count votes, or to act as a judge, but something in between. The deletion discussion reflects a lack of a consensus, and some editors think that the close should be overturned to No Consensus. On the other hand, there is a right answer based on logical application of Wikipedia policy, which is that User:BrownHairedGirl is right. The category is a textbook case of a subjective category. The local consensus was right in four previous discussions, in recognizing that the category is troublesome. The category should have been deleted, or changed to a container category. If the category exists, it poses the problems that User:BrownHairedGirl says it does. The editors who favored keeping the category offered good arguments in support of their position. The only problem was that those arguments didn't address the question of how to decide whether to put a living person or dead person in the category. The editors who favored deleting or containerizing the category offered better arguments. This is a difficult case because the local consensus was wrong, in that there wasn't a local consensus, but it is very clear what the consensus should have been, because the category is a subjective category. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is subjective in declaration of that one side of the argument is better or not when no arguments violate the policy by being low quality. Your entire argument here is based on the view that you support one side, i.e. you state as the fact that this category is subjective. I disagree since a) it does not appear very subjective for 'most' cases and b) for cases where it is subjective (i.e. disputed) we have simple solutions of not including such subjects in it (based on FRINGE or UNDUE policies). You are also - like most of the people who dislike this category - ignoring all arguments in favor of it. Sticking to the extreme interpretation of a minor rule while ignoring the proverbial elephant, i.e. that this is a WP:DEFINING and uncontroversial descriptor of many people (particularly in some under-represented parts of the world, per the SYSTEMICBIAS discussed above) is hardly best practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To summarize, the local consensus should have agreed with deletion or containerization of the category. There is no right answer for the closer in that situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the other endorsers and SUBJECTIVECAT, which is global consensus (even if it's a guideline, still global consensus) that shouldn't be overturned by counting local consensus votes. "Political prisoner" is an inherently subjective label, and the Nelson example is a great one, because we wouldn't put him in a "terrorist" category, even if RS have described him as such, and we don't even have a terrorist category because it's such a subjective label. So it is with "political prisoner." Terrorist or freedom-fighter? Political prisoner or criminal? Who decides? Not Wikipedia. Some topics simply can't be categorized in certain categories because those categorical labels are inherently non-neutral. "Terrorist" is such an example. "Political prisoners" is another. (So it would be with "Category:Good guys," "Category:Beautiful people," "Category:Delicious food," etc.) Levivich17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the problems related to SUBJECTIVECAT and ATTRIBUTEPOV cannot be resolved in any policy-compliant way other than by not including individuals in this category at all. The "keep - defining attribute" votes didn't address that, and were correctly discounted by the closer. Surely there is some other way of categorizing those people. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if you have any other suggestions for how to categorize people imprisoned for membership in a banned political party? I have been writing a fair number of these articles and I'm kind of scratching my head how to do it from now on. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the good faith effort, and we'll see how this whole decision shakes out, but yes I will have to think of ways to categorize them that are less wordy than Category:People convicted of being members of banned political parties. It doesn't really work for people who were detained in concentration camps or special prisons for party membership (whether they really were members or not) without being charged with crimes, as was the case in many countries and colonies. Dan Carkner (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that description, I think you're trying to create a category that fundamentally shouldn't exist under our category policies. All the people who were ever detained for party membership (whether or not they were members) without actually being charged with crimes... probably don't have anything in common that they should be categorized under. Meaning, if you are identifying a common thread, you're doing so subjectively. Because in the category you are describing, we can include all the prisoners in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, and MLK. This is how you know it's a inappropriate category. Levivich02:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it's not me subjectively doing something when I am citing academic literature or using categories that are well established in it. But I'm just repeating what I've said upthread so I'll leave it at that.--Dan Carkner (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:WTW, and the requirement that categories be defining and unambiguous. Designations like "political prisoner" and "terrorist" are the absolute canonical examples of policy overriding votecounts: I respect that the "keep" votes were made in good faith, but the standard for keeping such categories is very high. Categories are simply not good fits for such inherently subjective matters. If we absolutely had to have some sort of category like this, it might be "people considered political prisoners by Amnesty International" or the like to attribute it, but categories like that aren't really appropriate either as they privilege one viewpoint too much. This isn't to say that this topic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia; it should just be covered in individual articles and subarticles of Political prisoner, where they can be given the nuance required. SnowFire (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter?. This discussion has generated much heat, both here and elsewhere. Do we have any figures of how many non-editing readers even look at categories, or how many actually take them in, or how many actively use them? My gut extinct agrees with the very unscientific straw poll I have taken with far too few readers to provide a statistically significant sample, and gives the answer "very few" to all of those questions, but it would be good to get a more conclusive answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you are probably right most readers don't even glance at categories. No, their usefulness is less so for navigation and more so scholars. Wikipedia categories are widely used by scholars, and recognized as the best attempt to, simply put, categorize the world. Although even that may be in the past, as Wikidata is increasingly more influential here, and wikidata:Q217105 exists and is used in a number of biographies. If you google or use Alexa or such and ask about political prisoners, the odds are the answer you get will be based on Wikidata, maybe Wikipedia's prose, but almost certainly not on the category. On that level, this is really a question of why should English Wikipedia be the exception? Dozens of other languages Wikipedia have this category and so does Wikidata. Consistency is good. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because a) no wikipedia is a reliable source; b) other wikipedias may not have the same policies as en.wp wrt categorisation, NPOV, etc; c) those cateories elsewhere may not hae been scrutinised against policy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on strength of argument. The argument for deletion/containerisation is that "political prisoner" is a subjective, non-neutral term. There wasn't much of an attempt by the Keep side to actually refute this. Most Keep comments focused on the category being defining, which is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions - categories have to be defining, but the fact something is defining doesn't always mean we should have a category for it. Many comments mentioned that plenty of reliable sources describe people as political prisoners, which doesn't mean the term is neutral or objective, and an approach involving adopting the view of one particular source is hardly neutral. Hut 8.511:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I join issue with you on this point. NPOV doesn't stand for "no point of view." When you say an approach involving adopting the view of one particular source is hardly neutral, in fact, there are plenty of times when we should prefer one source over another. It is not, actually, controversial to say that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner. I know there are some very horrible people who want us to believe otherwise, but Wikipedia does not represent them and I don't know why we would care what they think.—S MarshallT/C 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Nelson Mandela that definitely makes sense, but in that case we're not relying on the opinion of one particular source, but rather on near-universal agreement. In a more typical case we're more likely to just have one source or a small number of sources which describe the subject as a political prisoner. If that source is used as the basis for adding the subject to Category:Political prisoners then we're effectively putting the opinion of that source in Wikipedia's voice, which is not neutral. The existence of sources labelling people as political prisoners isn't in itself a solution to the neutrality problem. Hut 8.516:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall wrote there are some very horrible people who want us to believe otherwise. That statement is true, but also thoroughly POV. "Horrible people" is a wholly subjective concept, and dismissing views solely because editors don't like the people who hold them is the complete opposite of WP:NPOV. In the example of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, there is a wide body opinion in Ireland elsewhere who regard those prisoners as horrible people who shot and bombed others. There is another wide body of opinion which regards the British government as horrible people who backed a sectarian statelet that suppressed peaceful civil rights demonstrators, ran an illegal shoot-kill policy, and ran state torture centres. It is also not Wikipedia's role to make a moral judgement on those views of Northern Ireland, and is also not Wikipedia's role to make a moral judgements on the apartheid regime in South Africa. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I am disappointed by that question, because my personal view is no more relevant than your personal view, or that of any other editor. (I do have strong personal views on this, but I will not disclose them on this or other matters: WP:NOTFORUM.). The South African govt viewed Mandela as a violent criminal, who had been convicted of criminal offences. The anti-aprtheid movement regarded him as a political prisoner, whose turn to violence was a political act since all paths to non-violent change had been brutally blocked. As in Northern Ireland, both sides had fact and reason to underpin their stance, and both had wide support globally (though the balance of global opinion swung heavily agisnt apartheid in the 1980s). Wkipedia's role is to dipassionately report the views of the players and of significant third parties and of scholarly sources, and let the reader decide. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look you in the eye and say that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, according to the recent reliable sources and the recent academic consensus. I don't see any ambiguity there at all. What source would you cite for the view that he was a "violent criminal"?—S MarshallT/C 19:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am even more disappointed to see that an editor thinks that a) this is a suitable forum to weigh the sources on such a well-covered topic; b) that they have pronounced a conclusion before reviewing the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, I'd say that it's necessary to weigh sources in order to move forward. Your position is that it's not possible to use this category in an way that complies with NPOV; my position is that it is; and therefore the burden of proof is on me to show how it can be. By the normal rules of reasoned debate, only an example can meet that burden; but any example suffices. I've chosen to use Nelson Mandela as my example of a person who is, according to reliable sources, a political prisoner. You've said no, there are sources to say he's a violent criminal. I've asked you to produce them.
To your second point, I'd say that I'm not pronouncing a conclusion before reviewing the evidence. I've read sources that convince me that Mandela was a political prisoner. Once again, I respectfully invite you to produce sources to the contrary.—S MarshallT/C 21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I am even more disappointed to see that an editor thinks..." is always going to end as a personal attack. Please address the issues, not the people. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know you well enough to have expected that, which is why I said something. I'd rather it not become a common thing here. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just saw the ANI thread and went over all that since my post above. OK, this one comment is pretty minor in the scope of everything it turns out. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the closer essentially super-voted by favouring an argument made only in some comments and not weighing it with the counter-arguments made in the other comments, additionally disregarding obvious policy issues about surmountable problems (WP:DINC), notably with the fact the argument the closer favoured (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) was in itself a strawman (some candidates for this category being controversial does not mean that all of the others who are not controversial [according to the WP:MAINSTREAM view as shown in reliable sources] aren't properly categorised - it just means the category potentially needs some clean-up). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus in order to "split the difference" between a close that is consistent with policy and guidelines and a local consensus that is inconsistent with policy and guidelines. Just saying that political prisoners are a usable category, when they are easy to define in the abstract and impossible to define in many specific cases, doesn't make it a usable category. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - this one is a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned. All arguments behind it are pretty much covered in the above conversation, so I'll not duplicate them. I'll add that I don't find the new arguments about SUBJECTIVECAT convincing at all, and I entirely concur with points made by Hobit, Piotrus, Nihil Novi, Dan Carkner (about the merits of this category) as well as S Marshall, SmokeyJoe, Darwinek, Alansohn, Andrew, RandomCanadian and Biruitorul (regarding there being no consensus in the first place and this being a SUPERVOTE) GizzyCatBella🍁04:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The argument was made in the XFD that this is a subjective categorisation, and therefore a violation of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. This was not effectively rebutted, and the closer was therefore correct to view the discussion through the lens of that guideline and weight those arguments strongly. By contrast, the "keep" arguments focused broadly on the fact that (a) political prisoners are a thing, and (b) there are some examples that all reliable sources agree upon. That isn't strong enough though. To overcome SUBJECTIVECAT, the category needs to be definable for all cases, yet it's very clear that some people are labelled "political prisoners" by some sources and not by others. Overall, the closer's arguments were well made, this is a good example of WP:NOTAVOTE rather than WP:SUPERVOTE, and the proposal so switch it to a container category for specific sub-categories where a named source labels the subjects as political prisoners, is a good one. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was discussed at length in the XfD. It's not the job of the closer to favour a lawyerish interpretation of some guideline (the examples at SUBJECTIVECAT seem to refer to more obvious subjectivity, such as for example a hypothetical Category:Beautiful places in Europe or Category:Cute animals in Canada; not something like a historical fact, especially if such can easily be confirmed in most mainstream works on the subject). The category doesn't need to be "definable for all cases". If there are problematic cases, you just remove them from the category. There are plenty of non-problematic ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "endorse" crew is saying that it's a not a lawyerish interpretation of SUBJECTIVECAT, it's a straightforward one that is complicated by the strong emotions involved. Nobody really contests that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, that Bob Probert was a hockey enforcer, that Neuschwanstein Castle is a beautiful place in Europe. These facts aren't being denied, just saying that they are best discussed in article-space, not in category space which requires an objective in-or-out test. Not every true thing is suitable for the category space. There's an old saw that "bad cases make bad law"; maybe there's something to be said for the reverse case, that good examples don't make good categories. Mandela "deserves" a political prisoner category if we decide to have one at all, sure, but Wikipedia has to maintain a sustainable category for all the cases, and attempting to maintain a non-container "Political prisoners" category for individual people is asking for hundreds of individual edit wars on borderline cases where indisputably some sources say XYZ was a political prisoner, and some sources explicitly say XYZ was a criminal/terrorist/etc. The only correct answer for those tough cases is to discuss the nuance in the article itself - not as a category. The "clear" cases like Mandela aren't having their status as political prisoners denied, it's just saying it's best discussed as prose, not as a category. SnowFire (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse by the excellent explanation given by SnowFire immediately above, and, frankly, by the original arguments in the discussion, such as by BrownHairedGirl which Piotrus does not do justice to. Yes, there are some very prominent people that would easily fit. But they are few and far between, while 90% of the content (such as the hundreds in Guantanamo, the imprisoned members of the IRA, and the PLO, the Black Panthers, Weathermen, other various 60s-70s radicals, etc.) will always be so extremely debatable, that we need strict inclusion guidelines, and making it a container category "political prisoner according to notable organization X" does that. Well argued and well closed. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. With due respect to many people above, I think SUBJECTIVECAT was misapplied in the CfD, and was given too much weight in the closure. Very many labels are contentious; we should apply them in binary form when consensus among reliable sources is clear, and not apply them otherwise. When a label is disputed and has no consensus among RS, then discussion in the text, but leaving the cateogory off, is appropriate. If we apply that guideline as it is being cited here, we would have very few categories left. Genre labels are contentious; political position labels are contentious (we have Category:White supremacists. Are people seriously saying that that binary categorization is less of a problem?); targeted vs non-targeted violence is contentious (Category:Violence against women); whether something is terrorism is contentious (Category:Terrorism in Australia). Vanamonde (Talk)18:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There was no consesus for closing the discussion the way it was closed. Moreover, this is generally a useful category simply because the terminology (a political prisoner) is widely used in publications. The categories are needed to simply facilitate the navigation, nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Since when do we shy away from something because of what it might do or what we think it might do? Could having a category that says "Political prisoners" cause edit disputes? Sure. Could having an article on "Name your notable political event" cause edit wars? Yes and it does. We deal with them though. We don't shy away from an article because it may cause us to have to have more discussions with some being heated or because it may cause vandalism and edit warring. I am not convinced that we delete an article, category or anything simply because of the disruption that may result from its existence. We deal with the individual disruptions according to guideline and policy. No one said this was going to be easy. I think most of us realize it hasn't been and will continue not being simple. Is the category useful? I believe so. That's just my common sense look at this issue. --ARoseWolf18:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.