Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 22 December 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hypocricy

"In the Soviet Union, dubious psychiatric diagnoses were sometimes used to confine political prisoners": this U.S.-centric canard again! The same thing is done in the U.S.! The pot is calling the kettle black! I am rewriting for NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer

Any examples of that in the US, or are you all talk? A2Kafir 02:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It has happened, though rarely, and far in the past. See D'Angelo, for example. There was no organized effort to use it as a political weapon, though. --Aquillion (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Alice Paul at Occaquan? She was definitely a political prisoner in the classic sense, and a psychiatric diagnosis was being attempted in order to portray her hunger strike as a suicidal disorder. It was U.S., it was in all the major papers of record, it was coordinated out of the U.S. Capitol Police offices, with possible collusion of President Wilson. Ondelette (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, the total absence of American political prisoners just renders the whole page hypocritical at a glance. Alice Paul makes one example, John Brown is another famous one. More recently, Bobby Seale spent 4 years in prison for contempt of court, no convictions for any crime whatsoever, clearly a political prisoner. There are always examples of political prisoners from every country in the world, the absence of prisoners from any one country just renders the list ludicrous, and when people put up such an example and it is promptly removed, then it really makes the page fly in the face of any NPOV doctrine. 98.234.120.213 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

War on Drugs

The Wiki-fascists evidently find the following citation objectionable. Though the article alleges that ALL countries have examples of political prisoners, yet when some prominent Americans allege that the victims of the politically-motivated war on drugs may be examples of political prisoners, such an example as follows cannot be cited, presumably due to irrational application of the NPOV dogma:

In America, Rep. Charlie Rangel and others have called those imprisoned due to the War on drugs, political prisoners .

There's nothing irrational about it. Murderers, deserters and drug dealers are not political prisoners! -- Spock

Let's not jump to conclusions! Especially not with the upcoming extradition case of Marc Emery and two fellow activists. Emery is charged with what American officials chose to call money laundering. However Emery's seed sale proceeds have been properly taxed and reported to the government from the beginning, and has been donated to political movements worldwide. From that perspective he would absolutely be a political prisoner in the event that the US is successful. Furthermore, since the length of Emery's sentence will depend on whether he regrets what he did or not (which is a blatant question of his political ideas) it's safe to say that he will be in prison for his beliefs. Though I don't want to write this in the article itself just yet, I'm getting political myself. And Misplaced Pages isn't a crystal ball either. ;) --GSchjetne 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who converts the proceeds of criminal activity (such as drug trafficking) into another form is guilty of money laundering. This is foolishness. -- User:Spock 156.34.19.206 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if such crimes are widespread and the prosecution is politically biased. For illustration, there are millions of drug users and dealers, if the police go to extraordinary measures to arrest and ensure successful prosection of one such individual because he is a political activist, he would be a political prisoner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.88.51 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

Shouldn't he be included? He exposed the Israeli nuclear program in the eighties. He is free since 2004, but is not allowed to leave the country or to speak with foreign media. He risks more charges because he violated the latter restriction, something he feels is simply one of its human rights. http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/ is a campaigning site for Mordechai

No. Mr. Vanunu sold nuclear secrets to a British newspaper -- he committed treason, straight up. -- Spock

I disagree. His rights are violated. His trial was not public. His arrest was on foreign soil. Evilbu 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So what? There's no dispute that he was guilty of the crime of which he was convicted: he readily admits he divulged his country's secrets for money. -- Spock 00:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy and precedent seems to pretty clear on this sort of debate: Include Vanunu only if there is a significantly large group that considers him to be one. If the group is not reputable, that should be noted.Emmett5 23:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Peltier

I updated the Leonard Peltier entry to be what I consider a more NPOV. I also removed the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and reverted it back to United States. Pine Ridge was where the alleged crime happened, not where/who keeps him imprisoned. He is imprisoned by the United States. Oyvind 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Woo Yong Gak

I'm confused here --- I realize that Amnesty International considered him a political prisoner, and the cited CBS News article refers to him as such, but why? The man was imprisoned for espionage, not for any political works or action. --Dcfleck 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt Pearce

Political prisoner? He went to jail for harrassing a women in HK http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=55632&QS=%28%24Matt%2CPearce%29&TP=JU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.84.39 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and I've removed him. -- User:Spock 205.174.162.86 02:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spock. In future please try to use the edit summary to help explain edits as you make them. I reverted your edit prior to your above post because it was performed without any explanation at the time and appeared suspect. Sorry, I should have assumed good faith. If there is consensus here for removing Woo Yong Gak, please do so --SRHamilton 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mod83 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edits - copying from user's Talk page

Hi, would you mind explaining on the talk page why you reverted my edit? Peltier was convicted of murder, it is a fact. Isarig 01:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

all the others in the list have been convicted of various crimes by the nation holding them however only Peltier memtioned the legal procedings therby puting unbalanced information on the page. if the reader is intrested in the specific legal background they may read it at his page.

That's not correct. The next in the list, Woo Yong Gak, is described as "convicted of espionage, and who refused to sign an oath of obedience to his captors' National Security Law". The next one, Chia Thye Poh , is described as "imprisoned without charge or trial until 1989 upon suspicion that he was a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia and therefore a threat to the security of Singapore.". And there are many more. I am copying this to {], please continue the discussion there. Isarig 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian version in problems

If anybody speaks Russian, then, look, please, at the Russian version. It is considered for deletion. dima (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Objective standard

From reading this article, it appears that there is no objective standard that determines who is or is not a political prisoner. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also posted a related inquiry at Category talk:Political prisoners and victims#Criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_19#Category:Political_prisoners_and_victims for discussion about the linked category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone is interested, I have proposed a new Wikiproject concerning prisons here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion

The article should include only people who have been declared as political prisoners by human rights organization. Otherwise any prisoner can be claimed as political prisoner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Napoles (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Geez, that would mean erasing most (if not all) of the Cubans here, right? 166.217.67.121 (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely Amnesty International could provide a fairly objective source ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate speech, discrimination, Holocaust denial, etc.

Could somebody include a few people imprisoned for actions not compliant with the current multiculturalist sentiment prevalent among the governments of Western states without committing any other crimes or advocating violence? E.g., Ernst Zundel (sentenced for 15 months for Holocaust denial). Humanophage (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wang Bingzhang

His removal was a mistake. I was looking at the top level criteria, that said "The list below includes examples of individuals who are considered political prisoners and are currently being held despite not having a trial or being subject to any other judicial process." Wang is actually under a different section. Still, he could use a better reference that actually calls him a political prisoner, instead of just saying that he got an unfair trial. Quigley (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples of Political Prisoners

Are these examples really necessary? The article is not a List of Political Prisoners, but about the concept. If anything important or well-known political prisoners should be discussed in prose, putting them into context. There are of course other problems with having a list in this article. It is unclear how examples will be choosen, and what the inclusion criterias are. Many examples are at best controversial, as only fringe groups claim certain prisoners to be political prisoners. Stepopen (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this; it would be best to remove the list, perhaps retaining just a few well-known political prisoners as examples in the text. The designation of someone as a political prisoner is often highly controversial, especially if you're going to list people who were imprisoned for armed uprisings and attempted coups (e.g. Adolf Hitler, who is currently listed). --Aquillion (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange

A claim that he is a 'political prisoner' keeps being inserted while the cited CNN source says "sexual offences". It is a conspiracy theory to suggest otherwise at present. Assange is held after bail was refused by the court last Tuesday and will appear in court again next Tuesday. Not exactly the behaviour of a police state. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The same problem exists with several other entries in this list as only fringe groups claim that Mumia Abu Jamal or Leonard Peltier are political prisoners. They are all in prison for criminal offenses. Some claim that they are innocent, and only fringe groups claim that they are not only innocent but also in jail for their political beliefs. In any case see also my post above - this list serves little purpose in this article. Stepopen (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

They're accused of criminal offenses, but the decisions to prosecute them instead of the many other people who commit those same offenses were politically based. --70.134.49.69 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Were are the reliable sources that say so? Not some political fringe groups with their conspiracy theories, but mainstream sources that show that they are widely considered political prisoners. Stepopen (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The available citations for the claim that Assange is a 'political prisoner' are an article on the website of antiwar.com, a fringe far-right Buchananite organisation, and a British techonolgy site. Not good enough. Philip Cross (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the accusations against states that they are holding certain people as "political prisoners" or "prisoners of conscience" are "conspiracy theories". Political prisoner is an infinitely flexible word used by advocacy groups to pressure governments; there are no objective criteria for the title. The person does not have to be charged or accused of a political offense specifically, or have to have committed a crime in a "police state" as you say; just some group or individual has to consider politics the real motive for the detainment. The listing of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the first list in the tables, is extremely suspect by any objective criteria, as he is not being held for any political action, but is living under Witness Protection Program-like conditions because of the threat of fanatical nationalists that would spirit him out of the country. Nonetheless, because some political groups have created for him the nonsensical but repeated-enough ready-made meme for the media ("the world's youngest political prisoner" (which surely is not true with his age now anyway)), he is listed.

If we want to tighten up the criteria so that Assange, or Bradley Manning in a similar vein, is excluded, then that is acceptable, but the criteria have to be consistent. Actually, since so many groups pump out the title to so many current prisoners with such regularity, we should reconsider keeping such an arbitrary list of current political prisoners, and instead focus in this article on widely-agreed upon historical political prisoners who have had notable impact, in prose form. Quigley (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nate Silver of the New York Times has written that: "The handling of case has been highly irregular from the start, in ways that would seem to make clear that the motivation for bringing the charges is political. . . . he fact that the charges are (apparently) politically motivated is indeed a reason to regard them skeptically, and they make it less likely — perhaps much less likely — that Mr. Assange is guilty of them." (Silver, Nate (2010-12-15) A Bayesian Take on Julian Assange, New York Times). Sounds like a political prisoner to me.

Recent contentious editing

I have some concerns regarding the removal of sourced statements without clear consensus. I would also consider this edit summary to be highly misleading:

• The "vandalism" was a single emoticon buried in text, and
• The "dubious and unreliably sourc" was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

brenneman 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I also now note the earlier edit with edit summary "unsourced and dubious claims" that has sources from both aljazeera and Glenn Greenwald at Salon (magazine). Removeal of sourced material should always be done with due deliberation, in particular when the sources are generally regarded as reliable. I'd like to propose any further edits of this nature to be more collaborative and come to the talk page first, and to further request that more informative edit summaries be used. Do these seem reasonable enough requests?

brenneman 01:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit is more of the same, and even uses rollback (or undo, or whatever. you know which I mean). This is really not cool. Is there no way to convinvce people to stop reverting in this manner? - brenneman 05:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but just because you want a POV doesn't mean it should be in the article. Fact is none of the sources state that he (Bradley Manning) is "political prisoner". Using the sources that don't even state that he is a "political prisoner" is POV-pushing and an assumption. Bidgee (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite poor to begin discussion with me in that manner, by presuming that I am unreasonably biased. When sourced material is added to the article, it's best practice to have full and frank discussion on the talk page as to what any problems are with the edit. Incorrect or incomplete edit summaries, as well as the use of automated reverts, are not conducive to an atmosphere of collaborative editing.

The world doesn't end if you spend the ten minutes it takes to just talk about it reasonably on the talk page. It's not "MaRGE sux POENIS" on the biography of a living person, it's a sourced edit. Don't edit war over it.

brenneman 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going by your comments on the content and the sources used, Fact is I don't have a POV on the subject and checking the sources with care. Also just because its sources doesn't mean its removal should be discussed first.

I didn't use the Rollback function so stating that I use an automated revert is untrue and misleading. Bidgee (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources do not say that he is a political prisoner this has room in this article (and also see what I said above, this list of political prisoners is not benefiting the article at all). The reliable sources you quote above establish that Bradley Manning has been called a political prisoner by Julian Assange or by Glenn Gleewald or other individuals or during demonstrations of supporters. But these claims - in particular given the context in which they were made - do not make Bradley Manning a political prisoner. If Amnesty International and major mainstream news outlets begin to call Bradley Manning a political prisoner we could consider including him here.

And yes, I will continue to use informative edit summaries that summarize the problems with the edits that I revert. If there is vandalism, I will call it vandalism. And if a bogus source such as is used for claims that are not made in the source I will continue to call it dubious and unreliable. In a nutshell, your request is very unreasonable. Cheers, Stepopen (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The diff that I have linked above shows an edit that removed a sourced items while it has the edit summary "unsourced." There is a source, and the source has that it has been claimed that Manning is a political prisoner. You can't simply remove it because you don't like it. Is it a strong claim in the source? No. But you need to defend the argument (as you've done above) on the talk page, and you've got to use an appropriate edit summary when doing so. - brenneman 10:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The claims in the article were not supported by this source - period. Just compare the text in the article with the Aljazeera source or the Salon opinion piece. Stepopen (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh. I Must not be making myself very clear. It was terribly sourced, yes, perhaps even appallingly sourced. But you called it "unsourced" and you removed it. You need to use the talk page more, I'm saying. You need to use better edit summaries, I'm saying. Notice I'm not saying that you shouldn't have done the actual edit? Yes, I'd like further edits of this sort to come to the talk page first, but if you'd have made that same dit with a meaningful edit summary and then came here and opened a talk page section that would have been cool.

Edit warring is not cool. People are doing "brute force" editing and they need to stop doing that.

brenneman 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because it may have cited source(s) does not mean it cites the reason why it should be included which is what those sources were, they failed to state that he is/was a political prisoner and all they states was just opinions from other people in which does not make it reliable even if the organisation itself is notable. So in-turn it was "unsourced". The only editors who were doing "brute force editing" was the SPA's. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the ONLY people edit warring were those who were very new to Misplaced Pages, then the article would have their edits in it. More experienced editors (who ought to know better) continue to use reverts instead of talking about it. And seem remarkably resistant to feedback on this editing, I might add.

• New editors need to be treated with patience. It creates a better atmosphere for editing.
• Generally: Sourced edits, even badly sourced ones, merit greater discussion when removing.
• Specific to this page and right now: Do not removed sourced material without explaining why on the talk page.

That last line was speaking in an official tone, and will soon be accompanied by user talk page messages.

brenneman 03:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to discussion of the sources and inclusion criteria

"Some understand the term political prisoner narrowly, equating it with the term prisoner of conscience (POC). Amnesty International campaigns for the release of prisoners of conscience, which include both political prisoners as well as those imprisoned for their religious or philosophical beliefs. To reduce controversy, and as a matter of principle, the organization's policy applies only to prisoners who have not committed or advocated violence. Thus, there are political prisoners who do not fit the narrower criteria for POCs."

You'd better get rid of this part of the article then, and make sure that you recycle your bs and sudden standard of having to have Amnesty International vet their status. I'm going to keep posting this. I have it saved, it takes me no more than thirty seconds to post it. Every time you delete it, I'll come back with another link that terms him a political prisoner, a term which in the very article itself is defined as ambiguous and that does not require certification by Amnesty Intgernatonal as if they were the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources you presented so far are an article that does not even mention that Bradley is considered a political prisoner (or something similar), an Aljazeera article that only establishes that Julian Assange has called him a political prisoner, a blog post and an opinion piece. That is not even remotely enough to include him in this list (not that we should have this list to begin with). I see that you are new. It would help if you could familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Stepopen (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd, when you begin to decide what sources are legitimate and which are not, then what's the point? Greenwald's reporting is based on an interview with an official at quantico prison. There is nothing in this article that claims that certain standards must be met before calling someone a political prisoner. Rather, its quite clear that the designation is a statement of opinion in the first place. The article makes that perfectly clear. It seems that the only political prisoners allowed here, are political prisoners in states that have poor ties with the US. Is that just a coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, It is clear what a reliable, verifiable and NPOV source is when you read Misplaced Pages's policies. Julian Assange's and Glenn Greenwald's opinion is just that, a personal point of view (fails WP:NPOV). UN stating that he is a "political prisoner" would have far more weight then an opinion piece. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald's article wan't an "opinion" piece. It was a factual article based on interviews with people who know the facts of Manning's confinement, including the Lieutenant in charge "who confirmed much of what they conveyed." He wasn't just spouting off. Far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.237.77 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an opinion article, as are the new sources which were re-added onto are again opinion pieces and blogs. If you have a sources from the main stream media (NY Times, Daily Mail, CNN or even if the UN has said anything). We have to be careful not to cite peoples opinions on the matter as it is not a neutral point of view. Bidgee (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the so-called political prisoners on this page are termed as such because of someone's opinion. Political prisoner is a political term. Mainstream media simply report on those opinions. That includes Al Jazeera vis-à-vis Bradley Manning. Looking at the other entries, Bradley Manning's is one of the more better sourced because the sources actually use the term "political prisoner", whereas many entries do not, and thus may be termed original research. I will remove such entries, starting with the current ones, because this page is a mess. Quigley (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Since only two entries made the cut, I have included them in the section that defines the term where they are examples of novel uses of the term. The 'current examples' section was removed altogether, since it is just an endless source of controversy and a magnet for people with political agendas. It is easier and better to write about the historical examples, of which we have many, anyway. Quigley (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously deleting without even reading the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reinsert my entry on Bradley Manning. Will I be blocked if I do so? Cecilex (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes; since someone is actively objecting, we must resolve the issue by discussion. Quigley (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Other entries in the list

Now that it had quieted down a bit, I'm looking at the other entries in the list to see if they are well sourced.

• Oscar Elías Biscet - One reference does not work, and does the phrase "political prisoner" even appear in it?
• Sanjar Umarov - Source does say he's a political prisoner?
• Adolfo Fernandez Sainz - No reference on this page, ref on article page says he's a "prisoner of concseince." Except they spelled it right. Are we suggesting then that political prisoner is the superset, and that all POCs merit inclusion?
• Arnaldo Otegi - None of the references provided name him as a political prisoner.

Unless there is some clear inclusion criteria that I'm missing, things do not appear to be being handled even-handed-ly. Has more consideration not been given to removing the whole "list" aspect of this article? Two editors at the start of this thread supported that move.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My initial reason for trying to include Bradley Manning was to draw attention to the conditions under which he is incarcerated. Several news agencies have now commented on this, including the Daily Beast and Reuters. The article I included from Greenwald was based on an interview with an official at the Quantico Brig, though there was some opinion, the facts of the case are not in dispute by military officials.

It is odd that only Chinese and Cuban dissidents are allowed to be posted here. If its a choice of having a totally biased page which can't be altered because altering it is considered vandalism, and not having a page dedicated at all, or having a page with no names on it, then I would go with one of the latter two choices.

This is frankly absurd. You know, there are times when information is not only objective, but also highly politically charged. When the Pentagon Papers came out, they were quite polemical, many people didn't like the fact that they were leaked, or the information that they provided. That didn't change the fact that the information contained in the papers was sound, and that it showed a series of horrible policy decisions by the US government. This is also one of those cases. If Misplaced Pages can't be a venue for controversial information, and if one group of editors can hold a page hostage, using WIkipedia's rules to create an incredibly biased, but unalterable entry, then you're doing something wrong. I don't appreciate having my account suspended for trying to include verifiable information. The reason I posted so many edits was that each time I posted an edit, I was including yet another citation to counter the bs criticisms used by the editors monopolizing this page. I erroneously believed that their criticism were sparked by a genuine concern about citations, and I created a pretty stable case, with at least four citations that spoke to every claim in the four-five sentence entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious from the article's history that newer editors were trying quite hard to conform to the established standard, and I believe that we (collectively) should have done much more discussion of the issue and much less reversion and blocking. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fact is I think the while article needs to be looked at, if the sources are contain POV, don't state what its citing or its just cited to make it looked source then it needs to go. I'll have a look at them further when I have more time to study them. And if people think that I don't care about Bradley Manning, well you are wrong since I do not like how he is being held for something which is alleged not proven in a fair court of law but my opinion isn't nor does it belong on Misplaced Pages nor the articles. Bidgee (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You've proven none of these things. YOur post verge on sheer mendacity. I think you're a liar, a perception that will linger until you make an argument for each citation. I will remove any citation you find to be invalid, but you don't even seem to understand wikipedia's rules, much less what "opinion" is. Does the Chinese government press have to sign off on one of these political prisoners before you'll agree to it? Cuba? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to manning

I just added Bradley Manning again. I think this is a fair assessment of the conditions of his imprisonment. Under the rubric of the article's definition of a political prisoner, Manning seems to fit the criteria, and there are other sources that attest to this opinion. The conditions of his imprisonment are verified by his lawyer, an article in the Daily Beast and by an interview with an official at Quantico military prison. The fact that these are illegal, and that a military judicial body is trying to intervene unsuccessfully on Manning's behalf are from Manning's lawyer, Lt. Colonel David Coombs.

If you have any problems with the way that this entry is presented or sourced, please discuss them with me. I will be happy to hear your case and change things accordingly if your argument is sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well? What am I supposed to do here? I made an argument, but someone keeps deleting the entry almost as soon as I post it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilex (talk • contribs) 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The place to work this out is on the talk page, not by edit warring. You are quite new, and it appears to me that you're simply dishing out what you get. But you'll end up blocked again, so please do stop. I understand your frustration, as there appears to be clear inconsistancy in the way that your entries are being handled, but patience is a virtue. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My citations make a good argument to include Manning on the list of prisoners held without trial.

Here is the first citation from Australia’s public media corporation, it establishes why he has been put in jail, which was a political act from Manning's point of view and that of others:

Here is the second link, from Glenn Greenwald on Salon. Greenwald often does original reporting, this is such a piece of original reporting, based entirely on an interview with a public relations official at Quantico Brig

Here is an assertion from Julian Assange that Manning is a political prisoner.

Here is a round up of opinions on Manning, including that of Greenwald, and another commentary by Lew Rockwell that many “official dissidents” from other countries are accused of similar crimes:

Another article detailing the harsh conditions under which Manning is kept, with an interview with his lawyer and a claim that the conditions of his imprisonment, in which no trial date has been set after seven months, are harsher than other military prisoners kept for similar crimes. This shows discriminatory treatment.

Finally, this is from the blog of Manning’s defense counsel, David Coombs, who makes the argument that these conditions are illegal, and that military legal organizations have attempted unsuccessfully to address them. This shows extra legal treatment.

Finally, concerning the editors that reverted the entry over and over again. There is no way to engage them in a conversation about any of these issues, because its obvious that they look at none of the citations. They simply said no, abusing their authority. I tried various times to discuss the issue with them, and also addressed their concerns by amplifying my citations when I re-posted. There should be some kind of discipline for them, for a limited amount of time, as they are abusing the rules and forcing other editors into situations where they have to break the rules to use Misplaced Pages. Cecilex (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As per the link I've provided in the section below, that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal." But we don't do punative actions, as the actual edits are all that are considered important.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

03:31, 22 December 2010 Mkativerata (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of Political prisoner (expires 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)) (expires 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (Edit warring / Content dispute: (will manually return to semi-protection at end of week)) (hist | change)
Per the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard this page has been fully protected. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles