Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 12: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:36, 16 September 2012 editQuasyBoy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers123,584 edits →Category:Films directed by Lee Frost: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 05:53, 16 September 2012 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Category:Political prisoners and detainees: @Benkenobi18Next edit →
Line 219: Line 219:
*'''Delete''' the fact that two of these categories were created to cover people arrested for disturbing a place of worship, which is clearly not a case of being politcal prisoners, clearly shows the fact that these terms are commonly misapplied to cover those who people agree with no matter whether they have in fact committed crimes that are clearly not "political". The claim that someone is a "political prisoner" is generally contested by the people who have arrested them often for very clear and real crimes that are universally seen as such. Invading the private property of a religious group and disrupting its sacred space is generally not seen as a political crime, but as a real act of tresspass.] (]) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' the fact that two of these categories were created to cover people arrested for disturbing a place of worship, which is clearly not a case of being politcal prisoners, clearly shows the fact that these terms are commonly misapplied to cover those who people agree with no matter whether they have in fact committed crimes that are clearly not "political". The claim that someone is a "political prisoner" is generally contested by the people who have arrested them often for very clear and real crimes that are universally seen as such. Invading the private property of a religious group and disrupting its sacred space is generally not seen as a political crime, but as a real act of tresspass.] (]) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' And purge Pussy riot for the exact reasons listed by John Pack Lambert. Are there political prisoners? Yes. Misplaced Pages should have a category for folks like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. A good compromise would be that no living person be included in the category. ] (]) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC) *'''Keep''' And purge Pussy riot for the exact reasons listed by John Pack Lambert. Are there political prisoners? Yes. Misplaced Pages should have a category for folks like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. A good compromise would be that no living person be included in the category. ] (]) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
*:How exactly do you propose to define the inclusion criteria in an objective and NPOV manner, whilst avoiding ]? And on what policy grounds do you propose excluding living people? I don't see any ] problem.
*:In the discussion above, I see nobody disputing the fact there is such a thing as a ]. However, the problem starts with defining ''what'' justifies the label, leading to constant dispute over ''who'' is a political prisoner. It's very easy to find extreme cases such as ] or ] where there is overwhelmimg agreement, but for every one of those high-profile hardcore examples there are hundreds of others where use of the term causes a huge POV dispute. For example, take any one of ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and you will find that there is a consistent and reasoned set principles labeling their imprisonment as political ... and similarly consistent and reasoned set principles for denying them that label.
*:The category system, with its unqualified binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, cannot present these different views in accordance with the core policy ], which explicitly requires us to present opposing views in a balanced way.
*:Editors who want to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of this topic should start by expanding and improving the head article ], which is currently in an abysmal state. --] <small>] • (])</small> 05:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


==== Category:1957 NCAA University Division football standings templates ==== ==== Category:1957 NCAA University Division football standings templates ====

Revision as of 05:53, 16 September 2012

< September 11 September 13 >

September 12

Category:Mind sports

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a problematic category. If "mind sports" is used in the very general sense, it has impossibly vague admission criteria and just plain isn't very notable as a way to categorize activities. If "mind sports" really means "Games played at specific event" - e.g. the Mind Sports Olympiad or the World Mind Sports Games - then the criteria is now strict, but then this category is grossly overpopulated and should probably be renamed to "World Mind Sports Games" or the like, and it's better to delete anyway since this kind of distinction is only worth it for capital N notability events whose inclusion at is super-notable, which is pretty much only the normal Olympics.

To go into a bit more detail, starting with this category as generic "mind sports." "Mind sports" is a term already on the edge of notability. If you look at the Mind Sports Olympiad article, the vast majority of the references are "cute human interest story of the week," it's barely covered at all outside of England, and there are a decent number of dead links. That event is known more for cute silly stuff like underwater chess then the games actually in the category, and some that are there are there mostly as side events - e.g. poker. But lots of conventions / events / competitions / etc. have poker on the side, so categorizing poker in all of these categories would be silly. Neither I nor Google seems to have associated Magic: The Gathering or Gin Rummy particularly advertising themselves as "mind sports" (okay there's one off-handed reference to MTG & mind sports in a single column written in 2000). The most notable reference I can find to mind sports outside of a convention / competition billing itself for "mind sports" is this article on potentially legalizing poker in New Hampshire, which is nice, but not really enough. Because the term can be slapped onto anything by anyone, if we tried to use the "someone called it a mind sport somewhere" criteria, we would have to categorize texting as a mind sport because a cell phone company held a competition for fastest texter and then called it a mind sport. No.

If the category is seen as "games officially endorsed by a specific event," then the plain fact is that the mind sport competitions are way too minor to care. We don't have a "Games played at GenCon" category and GenCon's 41,000 attendance dwarfs the tiny Mind Sports events despite not handing out faux gold medals by country. If we used the World Mind Sports Games - the more "serious" mind sports competition - they only sanction 5 games anyway, not much of a category. SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by Lee Frost

Nominator's rationale: Delete Lee Frost does not have an article and the category creator has no intention of creating one for this person, based on this discussion we had: User talk:Simon Peter Hughes#Your creation of Category:Films directed by Lee Frost. Why have a "Films directed by" category for this person, if this person does not have an article on Misplaced Pages as of now. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Then someone create an article for him then. Why have a category for films that this person directed, if the person himself does not have an article on this site. QuasyBoy (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty redundant to Prison films to me.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Close - no rationale given (NAC). Lugnuts (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: NEED REASON.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:People from Ixonia, Wisconsin

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries...William 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe these categories fall under WP:SMALLCAT, as there is certainly potential for an increase in their memberships. Is there some guideline to the "People from (city, state)" category structure that comes into play here? -Dewelar (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge – I think it's more that Category:People from Jefferson County, Wisconsin is not so vast that it should be split up into all possible subcats. Oculi (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess my question is whether there's a policy-based or precedent-based reason for doing this, because as it stands I see a policy that doesn't apply to this case, and what appears on the surface to be an WP:ILIKEIT vote. -Dewelar (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • There is a general presumption against creating small categories unless the category is capturing a defining characteristic. I doubt whether anyone would say (outside Wisconsin or even Ixonia) 'I am from Ixonia'. There quite a few recent precedents, eg small places in Florida, Dakota, Alabama, more Alabama, Delaware, Maine and others before that. It is true that it is the same 3 or 4 editors who are opining but equally true that no-one has been opposing. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I can't put a whole lot of stock in a precedent that doesn't rely on any policy -- not even a project-based one. Every single one of those used WP:SMALLCAT as a reason, but I still haven't seen a valid reason why it applies. Official vote below, I guess. -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. As of 2010, the population of Jefferson County, Wisconsin was only 83,686, so that category is in no danger of becoming overpopulated. The nominated categories contain only 3 articles between them, and are both so small (2010 populations of about 3,000 each) that they are unlikely to grow significantly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this type of category, unless the place in question has been unincorporated or absorbed by another place. -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    The status of the place is irrelevant here.
    Per WP:CAT#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Misplaced Pages pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If a category is broken up into a lot of tiny categories, it is much less useful for navigation
    What matters is solely whether there are enough articles for these categories to be useful for navigation. If the categories-by-counties were equally underpopulated, I would support upmerging them too ... and if we only had 50 biographical articles for the whole of the USA, I would oppose spreading them across 50 by-state categories.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    I was intending to oppose based on the criteria for deletion presented by the nominator only, which was until your response the only argument presented for deletion. As for your argument, I do not know enough about Ixonia or Jefferson County to be able to argue whether or not being from either one could be a defining characteristic. If pressed, then I'd venture that, given the statements in this discussion so far, that if the one isn't, then the other also isn't, and the whole should just be upmerged to Category:People from Wisconsin (or deleted altogether, but that's not yet under discussion). -Dewelar (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    Ihe idea that coming from one part of a US state rather than another part is not a defining characteristic seems odd to me. Is there really no distinction between someone from East Texas and West Taxas?
    If you think that really is the case, then I suggest that you open a group nomination to propose upmerging all the ppl-by-county categories across the USA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Medalists at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics

Nominator's rationale:
  1. Conciseness – IAAF World Championships in Athletics is redundant; the IAAF is the International Association of the Athletics Federations. The IAAF only sponsors championships in athletics (a.k.a. track and field), and no other sport. Including "in Athletics" makes the category title unnecessarily long.
  2. Consistency - To maintain consistency with Category:Olympic medalists and other international championship categories, the first word of the category should sort on the event or sponsoring organization

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the following categories should be renamed to Category:Female foo,

Categories:Women by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Per Common English usage, roughly 1/2 of the Category:Women by occupation already use female and all occupations listed within Category:Men by occupation use the adjectival male with the sole exception of Category:Sportsmen. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)

  1. Recognizability – Both Female foo and Women foo are recognizable
  2. Naturalness Female foo is the more natural of the two.
  3. Precision – Both are equally but not overly precise in defining the scope.
  4. Conciseness – Both are equally concise
  5. Consistency - To maintain consistency (with Category:Men by occupation) we should stick with female foo.
Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Naturalness: "Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." For a fair number of these categories, the actual more common name in English is "women X", not "female X", e.g. for painters, composers, artists, ... It isn't correct to claim that "female foo is the more natural of the two". Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They are now about 50/50, so it is not as if the "women" cats are the exception. I created Category:Women painters because, per WP:COMMONNAME, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use "women painters" instead of "female painters", e.g. in Google Books I get a respectable 4,150 results for "female painters", but a massive 59,700, or over 10 times as many, for "women painters". I get 129 books with "women painters" or a close variation in the title; I only get two books with "female painters" in the title. At least for this category, we should stay at "women painters". I have no opinion on the others individually, but I oppose to move them solely for reasons of consistency, since so many cats use the "women" format. Fram (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Well in that case women painters should probably remain as women painters but I still feel the majority of them should be female foo. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
But are all those hits for "women" reliable sources, or are they simply Ghits? Erpert 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That's why I included the links to my queries, and that's why I used the example search on book titles. While not all books are reliable sources of course, the number of reliable sources among them is much higher than among regular Google hits. If you have a better metric, or can indicate that the majority of these hits are not reliable sources, then we can look further, but for now I'm pretty confident that yes, they are for the most part reliable sources. Fram (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As obnoxious as I find it ("woman" is a noun, gosh darnit!) the standard construction is "Women foo". Danger! 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Many children have had jobs and even occupations. Misplaced Pages covers the world and its history, not only current developed-world official conditions or only conditions we approve of. The definition of "adult" also varies over time, place and context, and the ambiguity over someone's adulthood can be meaningful -- might not be wise to force the "adult" concept on everyone who has an occupation. Example persons with significant young roles: Andrew Carnegie and Joan of Arc. Many child singers and farm workers are also examples. (I recognize the proposal's been withdrawn but shoot I still want to support it.) For reflection: would we agree that hundreds of millions of girls have had jobs? -- Econterms (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support all. The "children" argument notwithstanding, it seems strange to have categories that say male and then have the counterpart categories be women. Who says male and women? It's male and female that go hand-in-hand. Are there Category:Men painters, Category:Men academics, etc? (BTW, what do y'all mean by "foo"?) Erpert 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Foo bar are just place-holder words to stand in for whatever. Also, because some people stated they agree with the renaming, I'm rescinding my withdrawal and letting consensus go where-ever it may. Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket renaming of all of these categories. Any renaming should be done only on a case-by-case basis. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per User:Danger, "woman foo" is standard. SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Standard according to whom? If you look at the examples given in the nomination, you'll notice that quite a bit of the "female" ones aren't redlinks. Erpert 07:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • And you'll note that all the "women" ones are bluelinks (obviously!). Anyway, standard in reliable (i.e. non-Misplaced Pages, non-editor's opinions) sources. We shouldn't be using what we consider to be better English, we should use what is in common use in reliable sources, what is the standard name in reliable sources. Personal preferences shouldn't be taken into consideration. Fram (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. I prefer "Female (X)" because of its natural parallel to "Male (X)," whereas the natural parallel to "Women (X)" is "Men (X)." I don't think "Men musicians," for example, would look right.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's silly and makes no sense. So is half of the English language. The question is whether Misplaced Pages should amend that. Current policy says we take English as it comes, stupid usage and all. Danger! 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? Preferred by whom? Tvoz/talk 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge. A lady musician is here on this wikipedia because they are an exceptional musician. We don't have a lady/gentleman divided orchestra, so why are they divided here? It is appropriate where the notability guidelines intervene (ie, sports), but other than that, I don't see the point. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Evidence of common usage

I have checked these common usage of each of these terms on Google News and Google Books, and tabulated them all in a subpage, which is transcluded in the collapsed section below.

The table shows clearly that "women fooers" is more commonly used in nearly all cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Common usage data for women by occupation

This is a comparison of the usage of "women fooers" and "female fooers" on Google News and Google Books.

For each occupational terms ("fooers"), a search was done on Google News for both "women fooers" and "female fooers". The higher number is highlighted in green. The search was then repeated on Google Books. See notes below for more details.

Fooers Gnews:
Women fooers		 Gnews:
Female fooers		 Gbooks:
Women fooers		 Gbooks:
Female fooers
academics 719 681 19,000 8,030
activists 9,120 1,780 117,000 17,900
anthropologists 82 49 10,500 2,430
architects 1,100 405 14,200 2,540
artists 25,200 13,600 434,000 57,700
bankers 1,170 231 2,910 546
chefs 1,970 1,230 3,440 1,080
comedians 405 1,360 1,720 1,360
composers 3,640 1,010 71,700 3,810
dentists 1,050 272 14,800 3,260
ethnologists 5 0 291 85
inventors 925 218 8,380 680
judges 5,760 3,000 46,800 10,200
painters 4,760 411 59,800 3,800
philosophers 116 45 27,800 2,830
photographers 1,880 722 36,900 2,120
physicians 6,440 3,970 139,000 45,800
scientists 5,650 2,310 110,000 14,900
sheriffs 134 157 281 386
social scientists 31 18 21,500 1,360
sociologists 109 0 4,660 1,570
sports announcers 14 22 2 8
writers 19,500 4,120 2,380,000 118,000

Notes on these searches
  1. All searches conducted by BrownHairedGirl 13 September 2012
  2. The searches follow the guidance at WP:COMMONNAME, which recommends:
    • excluding the word "Misplaced Pages"
    • a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources
    • exclude works from "Books, LLC" when searching Google Books
  3. The numbers are all clickable links, so that the searches can be replicated. Note that the Google database is constantly changing, so figures will change.
  4. Google searches are subject to some biases. See Misplaced Pages:Search engine test
  • Oppose: In light of the above evidence, it appears that most (if not all) categories should remain Women fooers. Although it is still my personal opinion that Women fooers almost always sounds wrong, WP:ILIKEIT states this is not a reason to oppose or vote for something so I've decided to vote against my own proposal. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose women is the prefered way to describe human females.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC) already !voted above

    • That really depends on the context. I'm pretty neutral now, but whatever we decide, all the categories should say either women or female, not some of each. Erpert 17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It is more natural to use male/female as the adjective. It also has the advantages of not assuming multiplicity (woman/women), or humanity (female plugs, female Klingons). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, there are FEMALE Klingons. Tvoz/talk 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – we have this discussion every year or so and reach the same lack of consensus. Mike Selinker consistently argues for 'female' and I consistently argue that in the UK at least 'women' is used as an adjective in this context (and thanks to BHG for a statistical survey reaching the same conclusion and not just in the UK). Oculi (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do apologize for re-starting this discussion; I had no idea. Perhaps there should be a short summary or note in each category explaining that consensus is to use women, see these discussions or something along those lines. Ncboy2010 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support! Of course! "Women painters" are people who paint women (presumably as the subject of their paintings, but even if it involves the laying of paint on female skin). "Female painters" are painters who are female. "Female" is an adjective, "women" is a noun. We never, ever would say "I went to a convention of men architects." Why would be say that for women? It not only sounds wrong, it is grammatically wrong. Change them all to female and their counterparts to "male" and stop this nonsense. Tvoz/talk 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right, checking dictionaries and etymologies, female is squarely an adjective, and woman is squarely a noun. Why several people assert that it is more natural to qualify an occupation with a noun than with an adjective is beyond me. And I consider myself familiar with US, Australian and English english. Is the tendancy to create compound nouns a German thing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:People from Kearney, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries...William 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Political prisoners and detainees

Category:Political prisoners and detainees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners and detainees of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners and detainees of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners and detainees of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - These are clear variants of Category:Political prisoners and its sub-cats, which have been deleted twice previously pursuant to strong concensus at CFD. (Basically, we all know there are/have been political prisoners in many countries, but there is simply no way to agree on who should be so designated.) Cgingold (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Cgingold, for the definitional reasons agreed at CfD 2008 September 17 and CfD 2008 September 11. Some of the problems are also set out at Political prisoner#Various_definitions, tho that article is not of high quality.
    Since similar categories were previously deleted after a deletion discussion, this qualifies under WP:CSD#G4. However, the deletion discussions were 4 years ago, so it is probably appropriate to have a full discussion again to see if consensus has changed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Retain - I created the first two of these, while working on Pussy Riot. I adopted the naming convention I found already existing for the categories for Romania and Hungary, for the sake of consistency, and because the names seemed fine. Regarding the issue of whom should be so designated, it would seem that the obvious approach is the encyclopedic one. If a person has been designated a political prisoner by a notable international organization, such as Amnesty International or an organ of the United Nations, then the article should so state. If not, then there should not be a category entry for that person. In other words, we do not decide who is or is not a political prisoner. We only note that people have been so designated. M Carling 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    Reply. Amnesty International acknowledges that it uses the term "political prisoner" very broadly. Its work focuses on the related but distinct concept of "prisoner of conscience", which excludes e.g. Nelson Mandela or Constance Markiewicz. Amnesty's broad definition would include large numbers of people in all countries, which would be endlessly controversial if any attempt was made to apply it through the category system. Their definition fits so many people that there is no way Amnesty could be sole arbiter of its use, even if we thought it appropriate to accept only one organisation's assessments.
    I was not aware that the UN had adopted a formal definition of a political prisoner, or that it made any systematic effort to identify them. Can you point me to anything which might help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    Reply - For example, the UN Security Council asked Professor Carl Aage Norgaard, then President of the European Commission of Human Rights, to identify political prisoners in Namibia in 1989/90. M Carling 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    Do you have a reference for that?
    A one-off request may not have involved a formal, standardised definition. Nor is it evidence of a systematic effort to identify who met that definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Retain Ignoring political prisoners and detainees by Misplaced Pages is totally unacceptable. They existed and exist. The category does not make any assumptions on what political views the detainee had, simply that he or she was detained for political reasons. When we ignore this category and we group them in the larger category of detainees, you put criminals, murderers, thiefs in the same group with political prisoners which is totally unacceptable. Whatever the political views the political detainee is not a criminal. In many cases, for instance in communist countries, political prisoners were considered a category distinct from criminals. Misplaced Pages includes a category of Prisoners and detainees of British India. Maybe with the exceptions of B. Dutt, who did place a bomb and by today's standards could be considered a terorist (though not when he was sentenced), all the others were politicians and detained for political reasons, such as the Quit India movement. I am sorry, Cgingold, but even if a great majority agreed that Mahatma Ghandhi should be put into the same category as any common criminal for instance Willem Holleeder who was a criminal and an extorsionist such an analogy is incorrect. The difference between the two types of detention should be reflected by wikipedia. The result is that some political detainees are not even listed as detainees at all. Take Anna Timiriova, who was imprisoned several times because she had been the mistress of admiral Kolchak, obviously for political reasons. The categories are meant to help people who consult wikipedia to find the articles pertinent to their interest. There are undoubtly people who are interested in political prisoner and not common law prisoners. Ignoring the category is definitely denigratory for the people who suffered for their views and not for having commited crimes. Ignoring the category of political prisoners alltogether is totally contrary to a neutral view which wikipedia claims to follow (which I agree that it not always does) - it implying siding with the opressors, whoever they are. And that is not acceptable in any way. Misplaced Pages should not take sides.
At present Misplaced Pages differentiates between the categories of detainess. For instance, in Russia, there is a separate category Gulag detainees (which includes political detainees during the Soviet Union), while other criminals are included in other categories, for instance People convicted for murder in the Soviet Union (such as Toomas Leius, a tennisplayer who murdered his wife). Why is this differentiation acceptable for the Soviet Union and not for other countries. For Germany there is a category which includes prisoners of Nazi concentration camps which includes only 3 political prisoners (were there really no more who deserved being mentioned in Misplaced Pages, or have they not been included because the authors did not want to. There is a category for prisoners in East Germany which includes only Max Poepel (who was detained by the Soviet authorities albeit in East Germany) - was the East German regime and the Stasi really so nice as to not detain anybody worth mentioning in Misplaced Pages. Do all these not indicate a bias in Misplaced Pages?
The conclusion is not only to retain the category of political detainees, but to create a working group who should look at the entire structure of detainees in general and political detainees in particular and to develop a structure which could be applied to all countries in the same way. Afil (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to assure both of the category creators that I feel no less strongly about political prisoners than either of you. Nevertheless, the strength of our feelings on any issue cannot determine whether a given Misplaced Pages category should exist. Trust me, this frustrates me to no end. However, the fact remains that these particular categories are inherently problematic. The statement "simply that he or she was detained for political reasons" pinpoints the problem: the fact is, it is NOT necessarily a "simple" determination. Some countries have made it fairly easy for us by prosecuting people for explicitly political "crimes", and/or by detaining such individuals in separate facilities that are designated as such. But those are the exceptions.
To illustrate the problem, let's consider the issue with respect to two very different countries. Like User:Mcarling, I myself regard the Pussy Riot women as political prisoners; however, there is vociferous disagreement on that point by their detractors (not all of whom are Russian). I'm afraid the issue is far too contentious to allow for such categorization. Meanwhile, here in the United States, things are handled differently, right? Surely there are no political prisoners here?? I'm certain most of my fellow citizens would be shocked to learn that there are, since the mainstream media here won't go near the issue. But I would contend that there are more than a few political prisoners here, including Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the Cuban Five, just to name some of the most prominent cases. While not prosecuted for explicitly political "crimes", I would argue that their prosecutions and imprisonment were politically motivated, thus making them "political prisoners". Nonetheless, regardless of my personal views, it would NOT be appropriate for them to be categorized in Category:Political prisoners of the United States. Can you imagine the uproar if that particular category was created? I hope these examples help to illuminate the inherently problematic nature of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply - I have not indicated my personal views regarding Pussy Riot, nor do I plan to do so. They are not relevant here. I have merely noted that the three Pussy Riot detainees are considered political prisoners. I do not see retention of these categories as a moral imperative; I see retention as an encyclopedic imperative -- no matter how problematic it may be. Saying that something is difficult is fine. Saying that we shouldn't do it because it's difficult is not. As for the minor side point about political prisoners in the US, whether encyclopedia work results in uproar somewhere is not high on my list of concerns. I expect there are easily documentable NGOs in Israel that consider Jonathan Pollard a political prisoner, having received a life sentence for passing information to Israel that earlier and later US administrations routinely passed to Israel through official channels. I expect there are examples of US detainees considered political prisoners by the EU. M Carling 01:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I only have time for a relatively brief comment for now. First, when I said these categories were "problematic" it was an understatement -- I probably should have said "impossibly problematic". And when I referred to the "uproar" that would result, the point was that it would be impossible to achieve any sort of agreement on the valid use of such categories. Beyond that, it's clear from your remarks that you simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes for an acceptable, appropriate and workable Misplaced Pages Category. You seem to be suggesting that any individual who has been described as a "political prisoner" by literally any third party would be properly categorized as such here on Misplaced Pages. In all sincerity, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of editors would regard such a standard as laughable and absurd. Sorry, that's all I have time for now; I suspect BrownHairedGirl will have more to say. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply - You have again misstated my position. I never wrote or implied "any third party". For example, I'm a third party. I already pointed out that my opinion about who is or is not a political prisoner is not relevant.
I acknowledge that a universally accepted definition of political prisoner has not yet developed in international law, though there is significant movement in that direction. For example, the Council of Europe is in the process of adopting a definition that will be binding international law among the CoE member states. M Carling 05:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Misstated your position?? I honestly don't think so... When you say, "Pussy Riot detainees are considered political prisoners", OR "there are easily documentable NGOs in Israel that consider Jonathan Pollard a political prisoner", OR "US detainees considered political prisoners by the EU", you're clearly invoking third parties, of one kind or another, who consider various individuals to be "political prisoners".
I think your concluding remark really gets to the heart of the problem: There is no agreed upon universal standard for the designation of political prisoners. Absent such a standard, Categories like these simply do not meet the basic criteria for Misplaced Pages Categories. There's really not much more to say about it. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that acknowledgment, which goes to the core of the problem.
You are wrong to say that this is a matter of not doing something because it is difficult. The reason for not doing it is that is nobody has identified a way of overcoming the difficulties without breaching Misplaced Pages's core policies of verifiability and neutrality.
In the absence of a stable, consistent definition, there is no NPOV way of determining how to populate categories such as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Even if there were a clear, unambiguous, universally accepted definition of political prisoner codified in the UN Charter, it would be irrelevant to this discussion because it is not the job of wikipedians to judge the facts of a case against the law. Rather, the job of the wikipedians is to rely on reliable, verifiable sources, generally secondary sources. So, if the ABC organization publishes on their own website that Santa Claus is a political prisoner, that doesn't warrant an article. On the other hand, if the New York Times, Le Monde, and Al Jazeera all report that ABC organization says that Santa Claus is a political prisoner, then that meets the Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources guidelines. Misplaced Pages already has guidelines to deal with all of the issues that may arise on this issue. Of course, NPOV requires also presenting the argument why Santa Claus is not a political prisoner -- if there are reliable secondary sources reporting on those counter-arguments. M Carling 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
M Carling, you are quite right that NPOV requires us to present both sides of the argument. The policy says: "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
In prose text, we can handle that easily, by stating those opinions and weighing them. But categories do not allow us to present both sides. They are a binary switch, with no in-between position, and no nuances: either topic is included in the category, or it isn't. The page appears in the category listing without explanation or qualification, and the category list at the bottom of a page is equally binary. That's why categories are unsuitable for issues such as this, where the assessment depends on the application of POV to subjective criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, you seem to be suggesting that the potential problems are not with the categories per se but with the articles which might be included within them. I agree with that. The articles need to conform to wikipedia guidelines, but that's true whether the categories exist or not. If the articles are problematic, then the solution is to fix the articles, not to eliminate the categories. If the articles are ok, then there is no reason to eliminate the categories. If the articles are not ok, eliminating the categories will not fix the articles. M Carling 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not at all what I am suggesting. Please re-read what I wrote, in which I made a very clear distinction between the articles and categories.
Even with perfect articles, categories are unworkable for WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE terminology and radically divergent points of view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If an article about a detainee mentions -- in complete conformance with all wikipedia policies -- that the detainee is considered a political prisoner, then the category applies. In other words, inclusion in the category is not a determination of whether the detainee is or is not a political prisoner (so it is not subjective). Inclusion in the category merely indicates that the article about the detainee discusses political prisoner status. Any subjective considerations have to be dealt with in the article, not in categorization. M Carling 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete the fact that two of these categories were created to cover people arrested for disturbing a place of worship, which is clearly not a case of being politcal prisoners, clearly shows the fact that these terms are commonly misapplied to cover those who people agree with no matter whether they have in fact committed crimes that are clearly not "political". The claim that someone is a "political prisoner" is generally contested by the people who have arrested them often for very clear and real crimes that are universally seen as such. Invading the private property of a religious group and disrupting its sacred space is generally not seen as a political crime, but as a real act of tresspass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep And purge Pussy riot for the exact reasons listed by John Pack Lambert. Are there political prisoners? Yes. Misplaced Pages should have a category for folks like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. A good compromise would be that no living person be included in the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    How exactly do you propose to define the inclusion criteria in an objective and NPOV manner, whilst avoiding WP:OR? And on what policy grounds do you propose excluding living people? I don't see any WP:BLP problem.
    In the discussion above, I see nobody disputing the fact there is such a thing as a political prisoner. However, the problem starts with defining what justifies the label, leading to constant dispute over who is a political prisoner. It's very easy to find extreme cases such as Aung San Suu Kyi or Alexander Solzhenitsyn where there is overwhelmimg agreement, but for every one of those high-profile hardcore examples there are hundreds of others where use of the term causes a huge POV dispute. For example, take any one of Bradley Manning, Leonard Peltier, Bobby Sands, Nicky Kelly, Mordechai Vanunu, Jonathan Pollard, Archbishop Makarios, and you will find that there is a consistent and reasoned set principles labeling their imprisonment as political ... and similarly consistent and reasoned set principles for denying them that label.
    The category system, with its unqualified binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, cannot present these different views in accordance with the core policy WP:NPOV, which explicitly requires us to present opposing views in a balanced way.
    Editors who want to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of this topic should start by expanding and improving the head article political prisoner, which is currently in an abysmal state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:1957 NCAA University Division football standings templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency's sake with other existing categories. Psharpless (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - It doesn't categorize pages about standings, it categorizes templates. I think the current name is accurate. Not sure how/why the latter convention became standard, but I'd support their change to this convention. VegaDark (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Navajo Nation stubs

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tightly defined stub category, with few available articles. Delete as undersized. Keep template, but upmerge. Dawynn (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)